In his latest Education Committee blog, Chris Skidmore MP describes the start of a new inquiry into school partnerships – and asks if they really do benefit pupils.
 |
| Around 20 per cent of secondary schools are now in some kind of partnership or federation. |
Another week on the Education
Select Committee, and the start of yet another new inquiry. Under the
enthusiasm of our Chair, Graham Stuart, the Education Select Committee seems
to be one of the most prolific of all committees; we meet not once but twice
a week, and other ongoing reports include school sports, school governance
and Surestart.
This week we began a new topic – school partnerships. It is estimated that
around 20 per cent of secondary schools are now in some kind of partnership
or federation, whether that be an academy chain, or a soft federation of
local schools. While it seems that school partnerships are growing at a
rapid rate, can we be sure that they work, or that they are truly
accountable?
In the second part of the evidence session, Dr Caroline Kenny from the
Institute of Education and David Sims from the National Foundation for
Educational Research raised their concerns that we still don’t have the
empirical evidence to prove that school partnerships work in and of
themselves.
However, the efforts of recently knighted Sir David Carter from the Cabot
Learning Federation, giving evidence in the first session, demonstrate that
the results of struggling schools that have joined the federation and become
academies have risen dramatically.
What was clear from listening to all contributors was that school partnerships
can only work effectively when they are grounded in the geographical area of
school catchments: only when either teachers or pupils themselves can
effectively move between schools, for either teaching purposes or to attend
classes, is it possible for collaboration to work effectively.
This brings with it the question, how far can school federations realistically expand? Diversity among federations seems to be necessitated by their own desire to reflect their local circumstances.
It’s easy to say that the rationale between school partnerships – collaboration or trading best practice – is a good thing in itself, but there’s the other C word that comes with schools joining a school partnership: competition. If attainment is to be compared among schools in a federation or partnership, then a degree of competition is bound to occur.
For Sir David Carter, "the matter of competition and collaboration will raise its head at some stage ... competition is healthy", while for John Dunford, competition and collaboration should not be seen as ‘mutually exclusive’: "A key question is understanding how (rather than whether) collaboration and competition between schools can exist in harmony to improve school performance."
James O’Shaughnessy made the point that competition is in itself should not be seen as the polar opposite to collaboration: "competition stops collaboration sliding into complacency".
On the other hand, organisations such as the Co-operative school partnership model take a different tack, stating in written evidence to the committee of their belief in "shared moral values", through which all schools are seen as equals in the partnership, while rejecting "competition and a fear of failure".
But can this be enough? If federations are to take on schools requiring improvement, then surely no partnership can be absolutely equal. And among schools joining a partnership, there remains question of among school leaders, who will be primus inter pares?
This brings with it the question, how far can school federations realistically expand? Diversity among federations seems to be necessitated by their own desire to reflect their local circumstances.
It’s easy to say that the rationale between school partnerships – collaboration or trading best practice – is a good thing in itself, but there’s the other C word that comes with schools joining a school partnership: competition. If attainment is to be compared among schools in a federation or partnership, then a degree of competition is bound to occur.
For Sir David Carter, "the matter of competition and collaboration will raise its head at some stage ... competition is healthy", while for John Dunford, competition and collaboration should not be seen as ‘mutually exclusive’: "A key question is understanding how (rather than whether) collaboration and competition between schools can exist in harmony to improve school performance."
James O’Shaughnessy made the point that competition is in itself should not be seen as the polar opposite to collaboration: "competition stops collaboration sliding into complacency".
On the other hand, organisations such as the Co-operative school partnership model take a different tack, stating in written evidence to the committee of their belief in "shared moral values", through which all schools are seen as equals in the partnership, while rejecting "competition and a fear of failure".
But can this be enough? If federations are to take on schools requiring improvement, then surely no partnership can be absolutely equal. And among schools joining a partnership, there remains question of among school leaders, who will be primus inter pares?
0 comments:
Post a Comment