Local Government’s response to the emergence of school networks
This paper is one of four prepared for a symposium for the
International Congress for School Effectiveness and Improvement (ICSEI) Conference 2005
Barcelona January 2nd – 5th 2005
This paper is in draft form. Please do not quote without prior permission of the authors.
Maggie Farrar
Networked Learning Group
Derwent House
University Way
Cranfield
Bedfordshire
MK43 OAZ
Graham Handscomb
Essex county council
2nd floor
E Block
county hall
Chelmsford
Essex
CM2 6WN
[email protected]
[email protected]
Steve Morris
Kirklees LEA
The Deighton Centre
Deighton Road
Huddersfield
West Yorkshire
HD2 1 JP
[email protected]
Page 1
Local Government’s response to the emergence of school networks
Maggie Farrar, Steve Morris, Graham Handscomb
This paper presents an account of how local education authorities (LEAs) are developing their own role and personnel in light of the growing
number of networked based initiatives. It will explore the work of the LEArning project which was set up in February 2004 by the National
College for School Leadership in partnership with the Innovation Unit of the Department for Education and Skills (DfES). The project aims to
develop local capacity for supporting and facilitating networks of schools, networked learning, multi-agency collaboration, and partnerships
within a culture of enquiry. It also aims to research, generate and disseminate system knowledge about the most effective forms of capacity
building in different contexts.
The paper will focus on the work of two innovative network based LEA programmes and draw some early conclusions from the project to
date.
Introduction
The LEArning project was set up in response to the national growth in networks, principally focused on schools rather than LEAs and
including Education Action Zones, Excellence in Cities clusters, and Networked Learning Communities. Most have demonstrated that
schools can benefit from working in partnership with one another and with other service providers (OFSTED, 2002 1; DfEE, 2000 2). These
initiatives occur after a period of increased autonomy for schools followed by a major promotion of school collaboration by central and local
government. They are being further enhanced by the system wide support of primary networks and the support for school partnerships and
federations outlined in the DfES 5 year strategy3. In addition, the recently announced national ‘Change for Children’ programme 4 has
highlighted the need for local networking nd collaboration to more effectively meet the needs of children, families and young people who are
engaging with a range of services to meet sometimes complex and diverse needs.
This has raised questions about the role of Local Authorities ( LAs) and of the Education Departments inside those LAs, responsible for about
a half of the LA's expenditure, as the education service progresses further down the route of developing and supporting networks of schools,
communities and agencies.
A role is emerging characterised by the LEA acting as facilitator and supporter of networks of schools, as well as brokering partnerships with
other service providers to enable a multi-agency approach to delivering services in conjunction with education to better meet the complex
and diverse needs of children, young people and families.
1
OFSTED and the Audit Commission: Local Education Authorities and school improvement 1996 – 2001 ( OFSTED 2002)
DfEE : The role of the LEA in school education ( DfEE 2000)
3
DfES: The 5 Year Strategy for Education ( DfES 2004)
2
Page 2
4
DfES : Every Child Matters: Change for Children ( DfES 2004)
The LEArning project – an overview
The LEArning Project was launched in February 2004. It explores and develops the working relationship between LEAs and networks of
schools. It stems from NCSL’s work with the DfES and Innovation Unit to develop and support the systemic adoption of networked learning
approaches between schools and agencies. It is underpinned by a set of core principles that all participants have signed up to. These are:
 Moral purpose: a commitment to success for all young people, with a particular emphasis upon those ‘at risk’ in the current system;
 Shared leadership: a commitment to models of distributed leadership and co-leadership;
 Enquiry-based practice: a commitment to enquiry and evidence informed learning.
 Learning from, with and on behalf of one another: a commitment to contributing to the learning of other participants and the wider
system.
The LEArning project - aims and objectives
There was a commitment to co-construct the project with the participants and the first event with Chief Education Officers was set out as an
open challenge to ‘work together to come up with a project that has clear aims and objectives, which have meaning locally and nationally
and which everyone can commit to’.
The following overall aim was the agreed result:
The project will enhance the learning and well-being of young people, adults, organisations and communities through learning networks
that promote personal development and system wide change.
The project objectives were agreed as:

To help local authorities to develop their capacity for facilitating and supporting networks of schools and multi agency partnerships
•
To research and share knowledge about the most effective ways in which local authorities can support networking and
collaboration
•
To develop models and new practices within local authorities which will influence and shape policy
The LEArning Project - themes and enquiry questions
There was an agreement early in the project that a structure was needed through which the project could be framed and the enquiry
dimension could be conducted. The project was therefore defined around 6 key themes and four enquiry questions through which the
research could be conducted, analysed and shared.
Key themes:
o Creation of a widely owned, contextualised vision;
o Engagement with networks of schools
Page 3
o
o
o
o
Co-construction of new learning networks;
Development of innovative leadership;
Exploration of new approaches to public service accountability;
Encouragement of networked deployment of staff and other resources.
Enquiry questions
1. What are the most effective network configurations ?
2. What are the most effective forms of leadership for networks ?
3. How are networks best supported by local authorities ?
4. How can learning and new practice from the project support the Every Child Matters and Change for Children
agenda ?
The LEArning Project – professional development needs of participants.
Early research by DEMOS, one of the partners in the LEArning Project, on the professional development needs of Local Authority personnel
identified essential points of development. The Project has set up a system of events, support and facilitation to systematically build up the
expertise and capacity in the support the development of the local projects. The essential professional development points include:
Facilitation– research undertaken with network initiatives indicates that facilitation input into networks is extremely important (Hopkins and
Jackson, 20035; Lieberman, 19996). At the early stages of formation, effective facilitation can enable processes that are fundamental to a
successful networking approach, namely clear aims and identifying common ground. External facilitation also remains important throughout
the lifespan of the network, particularly in relation to problems or difficulties that arise within the network itself. The project is growing its own
facilitation support with five members of the network each offering external facilitation to up to 4 other LEAs.
Understanding of the school system and the wider policy context – schools repeatedly refer to LEA workers’ expertise as a vital part of their
role – heads particularly value being able to call upon someone with a thorough understanding of the issues they confront (Rowles, Riley and
Docking, 2000 7). An understanding of the way in which the education system works will continue to be important in a new model for LEAs.
This is seen as particular important in the Project’s LEAs as they use networking and collaboration as a means of making coherence between
the various Government initiatives outlined in the 5 year strategy and the Change for Children programme.
Generating organisation and structure – working in the increasingly complex environment in which schools now function will demand that
LEAs have effective processes and internal structures that give them flexibility, a greater ability to respond quickly to schools’ needs and a
means of guaranteeing a consistent service to the schools, networks and other services which depend upon their input.
Mediation and brokering - LEAs already frequently act as a “go-between” for schools and central government or other local partnership
initiatives (e.g. Learning and Skills Council, Youth Offending Teams). In acting within and on behalf of networks, as well as acting as a
possible broker for those networks in their relationships with other service providers, they will become increasingly important.
5
6
Hopkins D. and Jackson, D. ; Networked Learning Communities – Capacity Building, Networking and Leadership for Learning ( NCSL, 2003)
Leiberman A. : Networks ( Journal of Staff Development vol. 20, no. 3, 1999)
Page 4
7
Rowles, Riley and Docking ‘Are LEAs making a difference through their leadership?’ in Management Education ( Issues 1 2000)
The LEArning Project – local projects and enquiry questions
All LEAs in the project have now identified local projects and enquiry questions they are working on. The projects present a range of
innovative approaches to the challenges. They include the following:
Bolton is building on their successful experience with networked learning to develop “emotionally intelligent schools” and build
partnerships across all agencies dealing with young people. Bolton aspires to build a “network of good practice” to promote effective
approaches to the delivery of Every Child Matters reforms.
With a specific focus on vulnerable children, Cornwall is supporting the further development of several established networks to enable
them to meet the needs of such vulnerable children.
Essex is supporting eight clusters of schools, varying in size, experience and locality to engage with and make progress on an area of
Every Child Matters development and to use this to influence the Essex approach to clusters and networks and ECM policy and
practice.
Lancashire, already strongly committed to strong support of cross-school collaboration, is working to develop new models of network
facilitation to help them effectively address their specific learning focus and the broader Every Child Matters agenda.
Let’s get real: the issues that must be addressed if the project is to achieve its aim and maintain its focus.
A recent networking and development event forced the participants to ‘get real’ regarding the challenges faced by the degree of change
required to meet the radical policy agenda and their aspirations for what could be achieved by the LEArning project. They agreed that they
should be aware of what can be achieved within the scope of the project and not to underestimate the organisational and cultural challenges
in networking beyond the education domain. They were keen that continuing professional development was given a high priority and that
peer review, external facilitation and internal challenge were core features of such development. They were keen to know ‘what good looks
like’ and to capture practice quickly and effectively which could generate learning across the system
As a means of capturing ‘ learning in action’ the project participants are committed to writing case studies on a monthly basis. The first two
project case studies were published November 04 and are summarised here from Kirklees and Essex
Kirklees case study
The Kirklees project is:
The development of 4 collegiates and a learning passport for 14 – 19 year olds in Kirklees which will promote internal routes for
progression within the collegiates, will promote personalised learning and will set up vertical academic groupings
The Kirklees enquiry question is:
Page 5
How can we as an LEA successfully manage a diverse range of partnerships with a focus – at this point in the project – on the
development of collegiates?
A Kirklees Collegiate - background
A typical Kirklees collegiate consists of three or four schools with different specialisms (e.g a Language College, a Science College, a
Technology College, a Sports College), one or two schools without specialist status (but probably seeking), a school facing challenging
circumstances (SfCC) or in Ofsted categories, one or more post 16 providers (typically an FE college and a sixth form college).
Over the next year new members will be added : special schools for children with moderate learning difficulties and work based learning
providers.
Three collegiate are established for September 2005 (one in North Kirklees, two in the South) and are intensively preparing for a full formal
launch early next year. There will be one more collegiate starting to operate from 2006.
The LEArning project in Kirklees
The LEArning Project gave the time to test the collegiate plans against the experience and expertise of others. The network of other LEAs
developing similar collaborative and networked approaches to reform also provided support and challenge in equal measures.
The initial step seemed self evident – to call a meeting of all interested parties in Kirklees. Nothing would have been worse – schools needed
to be persuaded to partially suspend competition and embrace collaboration. Many of the key measures and reforms nationally had bred a
spirit of intense competition and (often) mutual suspicion. This was not going to be overcome by simply calling a meeting. As an alternative
the project leader arranged twenty five one hour long conversations with each head individually, in their own schools. These conversations
gave the opportunity to discuss collegiate principles and practice in detail, identifying potentially difficult issues. This strategy was extremely
successful – half way through the meetings it was clear there were enough committed schools to create a meaningful project. In this the fact
that the project leader was a seconded local head, had very recently completed two years as Secretary of the Kirklees Secondary Heads
group and was the head of the most improved school in the LEA all helped enormously.
Following these individual interviews a meeting a was called – now referred to in collegiate history as the dating agency meeting. Twenty five
heads came together in one room. The group revisited collegiate principles and aims. They were asked to form four groups – amazingly they
did. Intense competition had partly made way for partnership and collaboration. Collegiate groups formed on the basis of geography and
specialist offers, which had the merit of being practical. Only one school reserved its position and stood outside of the collegiates. Of all the
meetings associated with this project, this meeting was the key one. Twenty four heads left the room having formed four collegiates – there
was now the beginning of a realistic and achievable 14 – 19 strategy. Discussion with the CEO and SMG subsequently confirmed their strong
support – support which will be vital as collegiates develop.
From that initial meeting three task groups were set up :
 The Management Task Group sets the direction for each collegiate, agreeing funding, recruiting collegiate staff – specifically
collegiate managers and e-learning managers. In October we successfully appointed three Collegiate managers with a start date of
January 2005. Membership is from heads of schools and principals of colleges. Meets every three weeks. Co-ordinated currently
by LEA.
Page 6

Curriculum Task Group : to agree a common collegiates timetable, agree collegiate courses for 2005, agree entry criteria for
courses, set up courses in key locations. Membership is from curriculum deputies of collegiate schools. Meets every three weeks.
Currently co-ordinated by LEA.
e-learning Task Group : currently operates across all 2005 collegiates to develop a collegiate e-learning strategy. Much discussion
and debate has been on identifying and commissioning a Virtual Learning Environment (VLE) front end provider. The decision on
this is imminent. Another key task is to set the remit for and to assist in the recruitment of two e-learning managers.

Key remaining issues
By November 2004 it was clear that there had been a great deal of progress in a very short time – in nine months the context had shifted
from a position where collegiates were not on the agenda to having twenty four schools, four post 16 colleges, the LEA and the LSC signed
up to a major project. Funding – at least for the short term – had been resolved, collegiate groupings were identified, staff were being
appointed and courses were being developed. Most importantly, for the first time schools were taking responsibility for students who were not
their own.
From this point, it is clear that there are some major issues on the horizon. It is on the resolution of some of these deeper issues that the
success of the project depends :

all partners have been very open that although the 14-19 agenda was the initial driver it will need to sit alongside others. In time –
possibly from mid 2005 – collegiates could – and should – be the structure for delivery of the Every Child Matters agenda. This
raises important questions about the value of collegiates in promoting social cohesion.

although collegiates developed out of a principled desire for collaboration the core principles will need to be revisited regularly.
The process has not yet engaged with parents, students or many of the teaching staff of schools. It is unclear if the principles are
robust enough to address the needs and aspirations of these groups. There is an agreement that throughout this process
‘messiness ’is accepted – a short neat term solution is unlikely to resolve deeper, long term needs.

by 2006 vertical grouping possibilities will need to be addressed as two year groups look to be accommodated in common
collegiate time. Vertical grouping allows for innovative curriculum models but there is currently no clearly developed good
practice to draw upon. Developing these models will be a significant challenge.

collegiates are intended to be five year plus project. This is an important feature – and demonstrates a commitment to avoid the
‘short termism’ of many other projects. The building of sustainability to 2010 and beyond – in funding, commitment, the Learning
Passport and support groups is a critical issue.

the project must address the issue of guaranteeing to young people that collegiate activity will raise their standards of
achievement and provide entitlements at 16, 19 and into H.E? Young people will not be attracted to collegiates by anything short
of a guarantee.
Page 7

a starting principle was that collegiate membership – of schools and colleges – had to be voluntary. Given this, what are the
processes for supporting and assisting schools that are less or are not engaged?
Page 8
Essex
The Essex Project is:
To enable eight clusters of schools to engage with, and see what progress could be made, on specific Every Child Matters development.
This would be done with a view to using this experience to influence: 1. Essex’s Every Child Matters development strategy and practice,
and 2. Essex cluster strategy and practice.
Their enquiry question is:
What is effective, and what are the barriers to progress on Every Child Matters through aspects of networking involving groups of schools,
local authority and other agencies/organisations?
Background to the project
One key feature of the Essex project was an early consideration of what is the local authority’s leadership role in a partnership project? From
the outset the co-ordinating group felt that the local authority should be regarded as a partner in the project, and that the development and
direction of the project should be responsive to colleagues in participating schools. Nevertheless, clearly the co-leaders had a role in
shaping early thinking and the framework with which schools could engage. In the first contacts with clusters there was often a sensitive
balance to be struck, and at times school colleagues were pressing for greater detail to be determined at the outset by the local authority.
Despite such expectations the co-leaders concentrated on gaining cluster ownership and influence through meetings with individual clusters,
whole project conferences and paired cluster surgeries. They also spent time in briefings and consultations to secure ownership and
champions for the project amongst executive managers and groups in the local authority.
One significant feature of this project is that it will operate in a number of different contexts, and this will have implications in terms of securing
ownership and engagement. On the national and inter-LEA level the project had been “running” for some time (from February to May) before
clusters of schools began to be involved. A balance had to be struck between leading and giving clarity on the nature of the project, and
ensuring that things were not pre-determined, leaving scope for clusters of schools to influence the nature and direction of the initiative in
Essex. One way this was achieved was through the setting up of surgery sessions between the Local Authority team and pairs of clusters.
These surgeries were an opportunity for clusters to clarify their ECM project focus, hone their enquiry question and draw upon network to
network learning.
Issues to be addressed
One aspect of this multi-layered context included finding ways in which developments within the national dimension (particularly insights
gained from LEA to LEA networking) could be distilled into the Essex cluster context, and addressing the implications of the diversity between
the clusters themselves. The latter was anticipated in key co-leader messages at the inaugural conference. These stressed that the project
would be about finding varied solutions in a variety of different cluster contexts, focusing on what works, and seeking to gain new knowledge
and understanding.
Clearly this would have a number of implications. Given the varied nature of the clusters there was much potential in what they might learn
from each other, but at first they were not convinced of this and set it as a low priority. Nevertheless co-leaders took the decision that this
Page 9
should continue to be fostered through activities like the surgery sessions. Thought also needed to be given to the provision of Local
Authority support, particularly via the headteacher consultant and link advisers, to meet the range of need posed by the different clusters.
Thus, facets of networking characterised one set of issues, whilst another set related to the emphasis on Every Child Matters development.
This was a definite Essex project priority, and in the honing of the overall enquiry question a good deal of work was devoted to striking an
appropriate balance which incorporated the ingredients of networking, support and barriers to ECM, and the dynamic of multi-agency
working, including the role of the local authority.
Indeed, the enquiry nature of the project was the other important feature emphasised at all levels of the Essex development. As well as the
time invested in refining the overall enquiry question, each cluster was also guided to fashion its own question in order to give investigative
bite to its activity. A commitment was given that insights gained from this project would be used to influence Essex wide development. It was
explained that this meant not the roll out of the project to all schools, but communication of the learning gained and using the evidence base
to develop policy and practice.
Impact measures
This in turn raises issues of impact measures. Many of the exciting ECM cluster developments do not lend themselves to quantitative
measures of impact. So it is anticipated that there will need to consideration of how more qualitative evidence can be used to influence policy
in an environment that has traditionally emphasised data like attainment measures. However this does not necessarily mean lack of rigour.
Benchmarking of a qualitative kind, such as giving a detailed description of the nature of multi – agency relationships, can be established at
the outset and this is the intention of a number of the participating clusters in the Essex project. This then will provide a robust basis for
measuring any change brought about through the programme of enquiry and development. Interestingly one insight shared in discussion
with the Chief Education Officer of another participating LEA led to a visionary ambition of the Essex project. Throughout the various
dimensions of enquiry in Essex it is hoped that what might emerge would be four or five key drivers that would be influential regarding the
effectiveness of cluster working on Every Child Matters development. If this could be achieved then it is felt that the LEArning project will have
made a significant contribution in Essex.
Conclusions
This project is clearly set against the dynamic and shifting landscape of relationships and expectations between central Government and the
local governance of education. In England during the 1980s and early 1990s Local Education Authorities (LEAs) had a relatively strong
relationship with schools, which included an emphasis on support and development. This then changed and the DfES Code of Practice on
LEA/School Relations 8 (1998 and revised 2000) prioritised the work of LEAs as being first and foremost about monitoring and challenging
schools to raise standards and to intervene in inverse proportion to success. Helping to support and develop schools was not seen as a
priority role of the LEA, and it was to have minimum contact with schools that were doing well. The only caveat was that, set alongside this
emphasis on school autonomy and responsibility for their own performance, there was an advocating of the sharing of good practice between
schools 9 (Handscomb 2002/3).
8
9
DfES (2000) The Code of Practice on LEA/School Relations. DfES
Handscomb G. (2002) It’s Cool to Collaborate in Professional Development Today Vol. 5 Issue 2, Spring 2002, pages 3-6
Page 10
In more recent times LEAs have again been exhorted by Government to help support and develop schools. This has particularly involved
encouraging reflection, enquiry and research, and promoting the sharing of what works among schools. Emerging from an era of stark
competitiveness between schools it was now cool to collaborate 10 (Handscomb, 2002). LEAs were not only permitted, but expected to
engage in school development and facilitation of collaborative working. Alongside this new mood of reflection, collaboration and
development, there was a continued Government commitment to the raising standards agenda, and the requirement of LEAs to robustly
challenge schools. So the present environment in which this project is situated poses real tensions for the role of the Local Authority – to
support and facilitate collaborative development on the one hand, and to challenge and, if needed, intervene on the other. In all of this central
Government is watching closely to see how well LEAs perform, with an open mind as to whether they are the best solution to fulfilling the
middle tier role between Government and schools.
The development of the project and the emergent case studies have begun to raise these issues. Other, related issues stem from the fact that
networks often follow a fairly informal model of working: involvement is voluntary and members may have fluctuating degrees of engagement.
In contrast, the multi-agency partnership model that is more likely to be enshrined in legislation or in guidance which will, in turn, be used to
set funding levels will tend to be more structured and formalised, and in some cases there will be a duty on partners to collaborate. To work
effectively in both forms of organisation, LEA staff will need to develop slightly different (although overlapping) capacities.
If we return to the aims of the LEArning project which are to develop local capacity for supporting and facilitating networks of schools,
networked learning, multi-agency collaboration, and partnerships and to research, generate and disseminate system knowledge about the
most effective forms of capacity building in different contexts some early tentative conclusions can be drawn.
1. The radical reform agenda is going to require an acceleration of local government involvement in the brokerage and support of
networks if it is to achieve its aims.
2. These networks need skilful internal facilitation and external support if they are to shift the mind set of the system away from
competition and autonomy to collaboration and networking within and beyond the education domain.
3. Simple infrastructure and conceptual models are needed to help local areas make sense of the highly complex picture of
networking and collaboration emerging in local areas.
4. In a context of radical change driven by central government, locally rooted projects which in themselves are looking at the long
term effect of change over time , will need to stay connected to a rapidly changing policy context if they are not to become rapidly
redundant.
5. The project involves levels of enquiry at national and international level, local authority level and among clusters of schools
themselves. This is powerful but also poses issues of inter-connectedness and coherence. In particular, it is important to help
ensure that the respective enquiries are aligned, and this in turn depends on issues relating to the clarity of relationship and
ownership between the various project participants.
6. More sophisticated impact measures will be needed in order to shift the narrow focus on standards to one more inclusive of
outcomes related to improvements in well being and social justice and promote inclusive networks which connect with other
agencies and organisations.
Page 11
10
Handscomb G. (2002/3) Learning and Developing Together in Professional Development Today Vol. 6 Issue 1, Winter 2002/3, pages 17-22
References
DfEE : The role of the LEA in school education ( DfEE 2000)
DfES (2000) The Code of Practice on LEA/School Relations. DfES
DfES: The 5 Year Strategy for Education ( DfES 2004)
DfES : Every Child Matters: Change for Children ( DfES 2004)
Handscomb G. (2002) It’s Cool to Collaborate in Professional Development Today Vol. 5 Issue 2, Spring 2002, pages 3-6
Handscomb G. (2002/3) Learning and Developing Together in Professional Development Today Vol. 6
Issue 1, Winter 2002/3, pages 17-22
Hopkins D. and Jackson, D. ; Networked Learning Communities – Capacity Building, Networking and Leadership for Learning ( NCSL, 2003)
Leiberman A. : Networks ( Journal of Staff Development vol. 20, no. 3, 1999)
OFSTED and the Audit Commission: Local Education Authorities and school improvement 1996 – 2001
( OFSTED 2002)
Rowles, Riley and Docking ‘Are LEAs making a difference through their leadership?’ in Management Education ( Issues 1 2000)
Page 12