Collaborating for School Improvement

POLICY BRIEFING

Collaborating for School Improvement

Within an education system that places an emphasis on

both competition and choice, why should schools

choose to work together?

Mel West

Mel Ainscow

Carl Emery

Andy Howes

Kirstin Kerr

Alan Dyson

Page 2 Policy Briefing : !! ADD THE TITLE HERE IN BLACK TEXT !!Collaborating for School

Improvement

POLICY BRIEFING

Collaborating for School Improvement

Within an education system that places an emphasis on

both competition and choice, why should schools

choose to work together?

Mel West

Mel Ainscow

Carl Emery

Andy Howes

Kirstin Kerr

Alan Dyson


Improvement

KEY MESSAGES

Collaboration within and between schools can strengthen the capacity

of education systems to make more effective use of their

availableuntapped expertise.

Under certain conditionsCarefully planned and implemented, such

approaches can bring about improvements in school performance, –

particularly in relation tofor learners from disadvantaged

backgrounds.

These approaches can be made more sustainable by encouraging local

school leadership

There are important new roles for lLocal authorities can play an

important part - facilitating collaboration and as guardians of

improved educational outcomes for all children, .who must position

themselves as guardians of improved outcomes for all young people and

their families

National policyCentral government mustneeds to create the conditions

within whichfoster local actioncollaboration can be takenbetween

schools through greater readiness to trust local partners with the

detailed implementation of policies.


Improvement

SUMMARY

‘The expertise to improve schools is within schools’

Allison Crompton, Rochdale Pioneers Trust, Manchester Education Debate, December, 2014

How do we foster collaboration across local education services in a

climate where competition between schools is seen as the key to ‘driving

up standards’ and further reducing the control of the local

authoritiesy? The central thrust of Coalition Government education

policy has placed increased autonomy, accountability and competition

between schools at the heart of its strategy to raise standards. Yet

moving towards centrally-funded academies and free schools outside local

authority control risks creating local fragmentation and greater

disparities in attainment between schools and the communities they

serve.

School collaboration will be a crucial element in supporting and

improving schools in this environment. The 2008-2011 Greater Manchester


Improvement

Challenge and other school improvement initiatives studied by the

Manchester Institute of Education highlight the part that collaboration

between schools can play in raising standards – especially for children

from disadvantaged backgrounds. But how can collaborative partnerships

be created and sustained at a time when policies are pushing towards

greater autonomy for schools?

Our research demonstrates that greater collaboration within schools can

contribute to improvements, while collaboration between schools can help

narrow the attainment gap between differently performing schools to the

benefit of learners whose academic achievement has been relatively poor.

Further potential exists within the education system for self-

improvement. But this can only happen if policy makers to allow

practitioners the space to release the untapped expertise within

classrooms. Local authorities should play a new part as the guardians of

better outcomes for children, facilitating collaborative partnerships in

education, in place of a “command and control” role.been to give schools

a high degree of autonomy combined with increased a high degree of

accountability. The momentum forsuccess of this free market strategy is

encouragedperpetuated bythrough Government statements pointing to

improvements in test and examination scores, arguing that the impact of

the various interventions has been significant. However, it can be


Improvement

argued that recent policies, although raising standards, have also

increased institutional isolation, local fragmentation, and disparities

in education quality and opportunity between advantaged and less

privileged groups.

The education landscape continues to evolve and as the election looms it

is apparent that the three As of austerity, accountability and autonomy

will be with us whoever makes up the next Government. In this climate we

are witnessing new forms of collaborative networks emerging, driven by

complex alliances and the needs of free schools, academy trusts and

school chains to find innovative solutions to issues of teaching and

learning, governance, recruitment and improvement. As the recent Report

of the Academies Commission (2013) noted

The evidence considered by the Commission suggests a more intensive drive to develop

professional connections, collaborative activity and learning – both within and across

schools – will generate fundamental change across the school system.

Further to this, the London Challenge and our recent involvement in the

Greater Manchester Challenge led toidentified significant overall


Improvement

improvements in test and examination results, and, indeed, the way the

education system carries out its business. So how do we nurture and

build collaborative practice whilst balancing the tensions between

individual organisational accountability and collective responsibility?

And how can we ensure that this benefits all children and young people?

The policy priority, therefore, is to find ways of continuing to improve

the education system but in a way that fosters collaboration whilst

allowing for a critical understanding of the process. Are these

collaborative networks simply repopulating the vacuum left by the demise

of Local Authorities, or are we witnessing a unique movement that is

something beyond a fad? What are the implications for policy and

practice?

CURRENT STATUS

Schools are increasingly run by autonomous trusts in a competitive

environment (hyper-localism) while curriculum, assessment and


Improvement

accountability are controlled by the Secretary of State (hyper-

centralism).

‘Local authorities’ have reduced powers over education.

Structures for school collaboration and improvement have been

fragmented and FE colleges have been removed from local control

and reconfigured as autonomous institutions competing for

students.

Knowledge of practice can therefore be captured locally but there

are no mechanisms for moving knowledge around the system.

The place of higher education institutions in national and global

markets has been emphasised at the expense of their role in local

and regional development.

Teacher training is increasingly devolved to schools, making it difficult to equip

teachers with the skills and knowledge to operate across the area or region.

BACKGROUND

The Ggovernment’s has encouraged policy of encouraging more schools to

become academies, independent of local authority control, andwhile

introducing free schools as ways of opens up possibilities to injecting


Improvement

new energy into the improvement of ourimproving national education

system. Yet by emphasising autonomy and competition as the key to

“driving up standards”, it has created new risks of institutional

isolation, local fragmentation and widening disparities between the

school experiences of more advantaged and less privileged learners.

Collaboration in this environment is challenging, given the need to

surrender a degree of independent control in return for collective

influence. Nevertheless, new forms of collaborative networks have begun

to emerge, partly driven by the needs of free schools, academy trusts

and chains, to find shared solutions to issues of teaching and learning,

governance, recruitment and improvement.

Manchester Institute of Education is working with some of these new

collaborative groups, and recently held an event to examine and learn

from different models (www.manchester.ac.uk/educa tio n debates ). Our

research over the last decade also points to some of the key elements of

self-improving school systems based on between-school collaboration.

KEY CONSIDERATIONS


Improvement

http://www.manchester.ac.uk/educationdebates

An evaluation of the Greater Manchester Challenge, between 2008 and

2011, provided specific evidence concerning the benefits of

collaborative working across 1,150 schools, in ten local authority

areas. The Challenge, which received £50m in government funding to raise

school standards, was designed by Manchester Institute of Education

experts based on their extensive research into ways of improving

teaching and learning.

New working relationships established through the Cchallenge provided a

way to mobilise some of the untapped potential within the school system.

Schools were enabled to make better use of their own, considerable

expertise for self-improvement. Our work led us to conclude that

successful collaboration can help to break down social barriers between

schools as the basis for a “self-improving school system” (Ainscow,

2015).

By the end of the initiative, Greater Manchester primary school children

were out-performing the national averages for standard tests. Greater

Manchester secondary schools also improved faster than their

counterparts nationally. The proportion of primary schools rated


Improvement

‘outstanding’ in Ofsted inspections grew from 17 to 22 per cent, with an

increase from 12 to 18 per cent among secondary schools. Encouragingly,

schools serving the most disadvantaged communities had improved three

times faster than equivalent schools across England. The collaborative

approach developed during the Challenge has continued to be applied

after it ended (Hutchings & Mansaray, 2013).

There is also evidence from other Manchester Institute of Education

research – including involvement in the Coalition of Research Schools

(Ainscow & others, 2015) - that collaboration between schools can not

only transfer existing knowledge, but also generate ‘new’ knowledge to

benefit schools in challenging circumstances. Greater collaboration

within schools can, under appropriate conditions, serve to foster

improvements (Ainscow & West 2006). But collaboration between

differently performing schools can reduce polarisation within education

systems, to the particular benefit of learners who have been performing

relatively poorly (Ainscow 2010; Ainscow & Howes 2007).

Our recent event drew on examples of emerging collaborations, revealing

the different models that are emerging - from small and large multi-

academy trusts to local-authority wide groupings filling what one

headteacher described as ‘the vacuum’ left by the diminishing role of

local authorities and the withdrawal of the national strategies.


Improvement

Questions each group had grappled with included whether, and how, staff

expertise would be shared between schools; for example through loaning

of subject experts to coach colleagues in other schools. Would there be

reciprocal leadership visits, enabling mutually accountable head

teachers to observe and provide feedback on each other's practice? What

financial commitment would be required from the collaborating

institutions; for example, regarding joint staff appointments? (Carl,

Mel, I think the single thing that would make this much more valuable

would be a text box about the examples of the schools represented at the

debate – what they did, what they’ve learned, key challenges etc. This

shows us

Some examples of collaborative arrangements emerging in Greater

Manchester schools are shown below

Learning from differences

The principal of a secondary academy described how she is working withcolleagues in two other schools, using a process of peer review to help oneanother to strengthen leadership practices. The three heads have spent amorning in each of their schools, carrying out learning walks, looking atpolicy documents, and talking to staff and students. The schools are indifferent parts of Greater Manchester and serve diverse communities. What hasbecome apparent is that exploring differences within a trusting partnership canencourage new thinking, whilst also sharing ideas.

Joint practice development


Improvement

A group of primary schools use lesson study, a systematic procedure for thedevelopment of teaching that is well established in Japan. The goal is toimprove the effectiveness of the experiences that teachers provide for all oftheir students. The focus is on a particular lesson, which is then used as thebasis for gathering evidence on the quality of experience that studentsreceive. Teachers from partner schools work together to design a lesson plan,which is then implemented by each colleague. Observations and post-lessonconferences are arranged to facilitate joint practice development.

Invisible students

Getting colleagues from another school to shadow groups of youngsters throughpart of a school day has led to important developments in a network of schools.Teachers in a secondary school were surprised to discover how some students gothrough the whole day without hearing an adult use their name. This stimulateddiscussions amongst the school partners about the subtle ways in which someyoung people come to feel marginalised. Staff development activities were thenfocused on making lessons more inclusive.

using the info from the debates and bringing some up to the minute

insights ATTACHED ARE SOME POSSIBILITIES – IT MIGHT BE GOOD TO HAVE MORE

THAN ONE BOX)

Taken together, our research and development work with schools suggests

that key factors in effective collaboration include:


Improvement

L ong-term commitment in terms of both leadership and resources, as well

as a relationship of trust. New collaborations may need to be

carefully brokered, and coordinated and monitored sensitively.

Handling start-up issues well. For example:

o A ll parties (including the local authority) need to be actively

represented round the table

o T he purpose of collaboration and a framework for focusing on

school improvement must to be specified from the outset.

o Collaboration should be based on an inspiring statement of its

shared vision and values.

o Careful attention should be paid to leadership issues for the

collaborative network and the ways they will be managed

o Recognition that successful collaborative networks must be

built on influence, persuasion and trust.

Using evidence as a catalyst. Careful data analysis will help schools to

identify priority areas for improvement and the staff resources

needed to tackle them. It can also stimulate the development of new

ways of working.

Pursuing cross-border collaboration. Collaborative working with schools in

other local authority areas can provide an effective mechanism for

encouraging innovation at different levels – although it may not

prove effective in all policy areas.


Improvement

Supporting leadership. Successful head teachers are often enthusiastic

about taking on improvement roles with other schools, but their

involvement needs to be encouraged, monitored and supported.

Rethinking the role of local authorities. Staff from local authorities have an

important part to play in monitoring developments, identifying

priorities for action and brokering collaboration, but this requires

new thinking and practices.

between schools can enable them to improve by pooling expertise, and by

sharing facilities, training and staff. On the other hand, it could

lead to a dangerous fragmentation that will further disadvantage

learners from poorer backgrounds.(background)

The development of collaborative arrangements is, however, far from

straightforward within athe current policy context that has the

following features:in the context of individual school autonomy (“hyper-

localism”), central government control of the curriculum, assessment and

accountability (“hyper-centralism”) and reduced powers for local

authorities who would be otherwise well-placed to broker collaborations.

Schools that are increasingly run by various forms of autonomous trust

in a competitive environment (hyper-localism), while curriculum,


Improvement

assessment and accountability are controlled by the Secretary of State

(hyper-centralism).

Local authorities with reduced powers over education.

Structures for school collaboration and improvement that are fragmented,

with reduced arrangements for coordinating provision within a local area

FE colleges removed from local control and reconfigured as autonomous

institutions competing for students.

The place of higher education institutions in national and global

markets emphasised at the expense of their role in local and regional

development.

W. Within an education system that places an emphasis on both

competition and choice, why should schools choose to work together?

Even where substantial financial and other incentives to collaborate are

have been offered to promote collaboration, available, achieving

authentic collaboration it has proved a challenge, requiring, as it

does, thegiven the need to surrendering of some a degree of independent

control in return for collective influence. Nevertheless, new forms of

collaborative networks have begun to emerge, partly driven by the needs


Improvement

of free schools, academy trusts and chains to find shared solutions to

issues of teaching and learning, governance, recruitment and improvement

(Academies Commission, 2013).

Nevertheless, tThere is also evidence from ourthe Manchester Institute

of Education’s research -– including our on-going involvement in the

Coalition of Research Schools (Ainscow, Dyson, Goldrick and West, &

others, 2015 ) - suggesting that collaboration between schools can both

not only transfer existing knowledge, andbut also , more importantly,

generate context specific ‘new’ knowledge, in ways that to may be of

particular benefit to schools facing difficult andin challenging

circumstances (Howes & Ainscow, 2006).

In particular, our Previous research evidence suggests that, under

appropriate conditions, gGreater collaboration within schools can, under

appropriate conditions, is serve toa means of fostering improvements

(Ainscow 1999; Ainscow and& West et al. 20065). But; and that

collaboration between differently -performing schools can can reduce

polarization polarisation within education systems, to the particular

benefit of learners who who are have been performing relatively poorly


Improvement

(Ainscow 2010; Ainscow and & Howes 2007). It does this by both

transferring existing knowledge and, more importantly, generating

context specific new knowledge.

KEY TO OUR THINKING HERE HAS BEEN THE

IMPACTRESULTS OF THE STRATEGIES USED IN THE

GREATER MANCHESTER CHALLENGE BETWEEN 2008

AND 2011. LED BY PROFESSOR MEL AINSCOW,

RESEARCH FROM THIS INITIATIVE

INDICATEDDENTIFIED THAT THROUGH

COLLABORATIVE WORKING ACROSS 1,150 SCHOOLS,

IN TEN LOCAL AUTHORITIES, LED TO:


Improvement

GREATER MANCHESTER PRIMARY SCHOOLS NOW

OUTPERFORMED NATIONAL AVERAGES ON THE TESTS

TAKEN BY ALL ENGLISH CHILDREN.

SSECONDARY SCHOOLS IN GREATER MANCHESTER

IMPROVED FASTER THAN SCHOOLS NATIONALLY,

TTHE SCHOOLS SERVING THE MOST DISADVANTAGED

COMMUNITIES IMPROVED THREE TIMES MORE THAN

SCHOOLS ACROSS THE COUNTRY


Improvement

TTHE PROPORTION OF OUTSTANDING SCHOOLS (AS

DETERMINED BY INSPECTIONS) WENT FROM 17 TO

22% IN PRIMARY, AND FROM 12 TO 18% IN

SECONDARY.

IMPORTANTLY, THERE IS ALSO INDEPENDENT

EVIDENCE THAT THE FORMS OF COLLABORATION

THAT WERE DEVELOPED DURING THE CHALLENGE

HAVE CONTINUED (HUTCHINGS AND MANSARAY,

2013 )

KEY CONSIDERATIONS


Improvement

Speaking in the TES on January 30th , 2015, Richard Hobby claimed that

I believe it will be a central task of every school leader in the next five years

to create a tight local network of schools, with strong mutual accountability,

shared support services and the regular exchange of staff for professional

development.

However, sSchools are complex places and there are many tensions

involved in identifying and engaging in educational practice which is

productive and positive for all the different participants. At the same

time, schools are subject to significant external pressures. The

resources necessary to meet the needs of different participants and

simultaneously satisfy external demands are rarely fully activated in

any given school. In any case, the success of one particular school is

not necessarily a positive influence on the quality of education in a

local area, given the context of a marketised system. Effective

collaboration for school improvement in this context requires a long-

term commitment in terms of both leadership and resources, as well and

the maintenance of as a relationships of trust between the participants.


Improvement

The purpose of collaboration and a framework for focusing on school

improvement must to be specified from the outset. OtherQ questions that

will typically need to be addressed include, whether, and how, there

will be sharing of staff expertise will be shared between schools, ; for

example with through the loaning of particular subject experts to coach

colleagues in other schools. Will there be reciprocal leadership visits,

in whichenabling mutually accountable head teachers to observe and

provide feedback on each other's practice? What is the nature of the

financial commitment of will be required from the various collaborating

institutions; for example,, regarding for example joint staff

appointments of staff? Intrinsic to these questions is the purpose of

collaboration, and the focus in terms of school improvement outcomes.

Schools are complex places and there are many tensions involved in

identifying and engaging in educational practice which is productive and

positive for all the different participants. At the same time, schools

are subject to significant external pressures. The resources necessary

to meet the needs of different participants and simultaneously satisfy

external demands are rarely fully activated in any given school. In any

case, the success of one particular school is not necessarily a positive

influence on the quality of education in a local area, given the context


Improvement

of a marketised system. Effective collaboration for school improvement

in this context requires a long term commitment and the maintenance of

relationships of trust.

Speaking at a recent Manchester Education Debate,The lLeaders of a

number of current collaborative projects (i.e. Rochdale Pioneers Trust,

/Bright Futures Educational Trust and the /Salford Academy Trust)

speaking at the recent Manchester Education Debate indicatedin Greater

Manchester have recently highlighted the following asse shared

keyfurther ‘starter’ issues:

The need to develop a common purpose and framework for improvement

TheA need for all parties (including the LAlocal authority) need to

be actively at the tablerepresented round the table

Collaboration should be based on an inspiring statement of its shared

vision and valuesCollaboration to be built on a shared vision and

values – ‘hearts andnot minds’

Careful attention should be paid to leadership issues for the

collaborative network and the ways they Identify how the


Improvement

collaborative network manages the ebb and flow of leadershipwill be

managed

Successful Recognition that successful cCollaborative networks are

must be built on influence, persuasion and trust.

Speaking in the TES on January 30th, 2015, Richard Hobby claimed that

I believe it will be a central task of every school leader in the next five years

to create a tight local network of schools, with strong mutual accountability,

shared support services and the regular exchange of staff for professional

development.

RECOMMENDATIONSKEY FINDINGS

An evaluation ofManchester Institute of Education research demonstrates

that successful collaboration is built on the following ideas:


Improvement

the Greater Manchester Challenge, between 2008 and 2011 provided

specific evidence concerning the benefits of collaborative working

across 1,150 schools, in ten local authority areas. The Challenge, which

received £50m in government funding to raise school standards, was

designed by Manchester Institute of Education experts based on their

extensive research into ways of improving teaching and learning.

By the end of the initiative, Greater Manchester primary school children

were out-performing the national averages for standard tests. Greater

Manchester secondary schools also improved faster than their

counterparts nationally. The proportion of primary schools rated

‘outstanding’ in Ofsted inspections grew from 17 to 22 per cent, with an

increase from 12 to 18 per cent among secondary schools. Encouragingly,

schools serving the most disadvantaged communities had improved three

times faster than equivalent schools across England. The collaborative

approach developed during the Challenge has continued to be applied

after it ended (Hutchings & Mansaray, 2013).

Our work led us to conclude that successful collaboration can help to

break down social barriers between schools as the basis for a “self-

improving school system” (Ainscow, 2015). Success is commonly based

upon:


Improvement

1. Manchester Institute of Education research demonstrates that

successful collaboration is built on the following ideas:

(David to my mind these are findings – not recommendations)

Realising untapped potential . We have found that sSchools have can make

better use of their own, considerable considerable expertise they

can use tofor self-improvement improve themselves - —the

development of ne. New working relationships provide a wayhelpsed

to mobilise this its potential.

Using evidence as a catalyst. A sharpCareful data analysis of data is

needed in orderwill help schools toled to the identifyication

priority of issues that needed urgent attentioareas for

improvementn and the human staff resources needed to support

improvementtackle them efforts in relation to these issues - —this

hasd to be responsive to changing circumstances.

.

Achieving Sschool-to-school collaboration. We have There is strong

evidence that carefully brokered school partnerships awere athe

most powerful means ofway to fostering improvements, particularly


Improvement

in challenging circumstances - —t. Theseis havedneed to be

coordinated and monitored sensitively.

CrossPursuing cross-border collaboration. ThisCollaborative working with

schools in other local authority areas can provideed an effective

mechanism for encouraging innovation at various different levels

of the system - —it diddid not, however, – although it may not

prove to be effective in relation to someall policy areas.

Supporting System leadership. Many sSuccessful head teachers were are

often enthusiastic aboutmotivated by the idea of taking on

improvement roles with other schools -, but —their involvement had

needs to be encouraged, monitored and supported.

.

Rethinking the roles of local authorities. Staff from local authorities had

have an important role part to play in monitoring developments,

identifying priorities for action and brokering collaboration, but

-—this required requires new thinking and practices.


Improvement

Our research suggests ways forward that policy makers could use to

ensure that the impetus that comes from greater school diversity will

lead to improvements that will benefit all children and young people.

This is based on an assumption that the education system still has

further potential to improve itself, provided policy makers allow the

space for practitioners to make use of the expertise and creativity that

lies trapped within individual classrooms. The aim must be to move

knowledge around and the best way to do this is through strengthening

collaboration within schools and between schools.

Our work leads us to conclude that these six ideas

These strategies can help to break down social barriers between schools—

and between schools and other stakeholders—in order to facilitate

schools learning how to learn from one another. In this sense, the

strategies provide the basis for a ‘self-improving school system’

(Ainscow, 2015).

Implications this has obviously been added in by Mel Ainscow at the end. It is a mixture of background, findings and implications!). Could

be useful as summary


Improvement

The government’s policy of encouraging more schools to become academies

and introducing free schools opens up possibilities to inject new energy

into the improvement of our national education system. On the other

hand, it could lead to a dangerous fragmentation that will further

disadvantage learners from poorer backgrounds.(background)

Our research suggests ways forward that policy makers could use to

ensure that the impetus that comes from greater school diversity will

lead to improvements that will benefit all children and young people.

This is based on an assumption that the education system still has

further potential to improve itself, provided policy makers allow the

space for practitioners to make use of the expertise and creativity that

lies trapped within individual classrooms. The aim must be to move

knowledge around and the best way to do this is through strengthening

collaboration within schools and between schools. (findings)

Key findingsConclusions and recommendations


Improvement

Our research shows how further potential exists within the education

system for self-improvement. But this can only happen if local and

national policy makers are prepared to allow practitioners the space to

release the expertise and creativity within individual classrooms. The

aim must be to “move knowledge around”. The best way to do this is

through strengthening collaboration within schools and between schools.

Rest is recommendations

So, then, what needs to happen in order to help foster such

collaborative processes? Here, there are very significant implications

for the future roles of local authority staff. They have to adjust

their ways of working in response to the development of improvement

strategies that are led from within schools. Despite the potential

forAnd, at a time when local authorities are under increasing pressure

to deliver improvements in results, this can lead to misunderstandings

and tensions at a time of increasing school autonomybetween senior

staff in schools and their local authority colleagues. Such tensions

are likely to intensify through the increasing school autonomy that is

occurring with the moves to academies and free schools.


Improvement

Despite such difficulties, , it is difficult to conceive of a way

forward that does not involve some form of local government co-

ordination. Specifically, lLocal authority staff canwill be best

placed to monitor and challenge schools in relation to the agreed goals

offor their collaborative activities, whilste head teachers share

responsibility for the overall management of improvement efforts within

schools. We also know that cExperience in Greater Manchester and

elsewhere demonstrates how careful outside facilitation of

collaborative school partnerships - a supportive, confirming but

challenging contribution from outside - can make an enormous difference

toincrease their eventual chances of early survival and eventual

success.

In taking on such roles, lBy acting as brokers and coordinators, local

authorities can position themselves as guardians of improved outcomes

for all young people and their families; - protectors of a more

collegiate approach but not as custodians of the day-to-day activities

in schools. It has to be emphasized, however, that all of this implies

fFundamental changes in thinking and practice are implied, with local

authorities moving away from a ‘command and control’ role, towards one


Improvement

that involves them in of enabling and facilitating knowledgethe transfer

of knowledge.

Finally, of course, all of this has significantAction to foster

effective collaboration between schools also holds implications for

national policy makers. In order to make use ofTo harness the power of

collaboration as a means of achieving both excellence and equity in our

schools, they need to fosterallow greater flexibility at the local level

in order that p. Practitioners havemust be allowed the necessary space

to analyse their particular circumstances and determine priorities

accordingly. For this to happen, This means that policy makerscentral

government must recognise that the details of how its policyies

implementationare implemented locally arewill not be not amenable to

central regulation. Rather, these have to be dealt with by those who

are close to and, therefore, in a better position to understand local

contexts. TheyThose who are best placed to understand local contexts

should be trusted to act in the best interests of the children and young

people they serve, and encouraged to , collaborating towork together,

pooling their knowledge and experience, for the benefit of

studentslearners and teachers alike.


Improvement


Improvement


Improvement

National policy must create the conditions within which local

action can be taken

.

The Greater Manchester Challenge


Improvement

references and additional readinG

Ainscow, M. (2012) Moving knowledge around: Strategies for

fostering equity within educational systems. Journal of

Educational Change, 13:289–310.

Ainscow, M. (2015) Towards self-improving school systems: lessons from a

city challenge. London: Routledge

Ainscow, M., Dyson, A., Goldrick, S., & West, M. (20123).

Developing equitable education systems. London: Routledge.

http://www.theguardian.com/education/2011/jan/25/school-improvement-

city-challenge

http://www.seed.manchester.ac.uk/research/impact/schools-rise-to-

challenge/

http://www.seed.manchester.ac.uk/research/impact/schools-rise-to-

challenge/

Manchester Institute of Education

http://www.seed.manchester.ac.uk/subjects/education/

Professor Mel Ainscow


Improvement

references and additional readinG

Ainscow, M. (2012) Moving knowledge around: Strategies for

fostering equity within educational systems. Journal of

Educational Change, 13:289–310.

Ainscow, M. (2015) Towards self-improving school systems: lessons from a

city challenge. London: Routledge

Ainscow, M., Dyson, A., Goldrick, S., & West, M. (20123).

Developing equitable education systems. London: Routledge.

Towards Self-improving School Systems: Lessons from a city challenge

http://www.routledge.com/books/details/9780415736602/

The Greater Manchester Challenge

Report of the Academies Commission 2013 – Unleashing Greatness

https://www.thersa.org/globalassets/pdfs/reports/unleashing-

greatness.pdf

By Schools for Schools Network


Improvement

http://www.byschoolsforschools.co.uk/


Improvement


Improvement

contact details

XXXxxx


Improvement

Collaborating for School Improvement

Documents