‘Opportunity for all: strong schools with great teachers for your child’, Is academisation the end of truly self-improving schools?

In the recently published White paper, the first Schools White Paper since 2016, the Education Secretary Nadhim Zahawi proposed a number of changes to the way schools will both operate and function towards greater academic output. But how will a major change in the way schools operate as individual, standalone professional learning centres, affect their aspirations of becoming self-improving schools?

Whilst the initial response to the white paper has been muted, some have begun to question the impact, over time, such measures will have. Some have found the paper lacking in ambition, failing to address the issue of schools funding. Others have questioned suggested measures such as lengthening the school day. One of the key proposals being questioned is academic attainment. The white paper has pledged increasing average achievement leading many to question moving, even higher, the benchmark for standards without addressing how the students in question will achieve these results. The parent pledge was the government’s commitment for 90% of primary school children to achieve the expected standards in Key Stage 2 reading, writing and Math by 2030. The second ambition was to for national average GCSE grades in English language and Math move from 4.5 to 5 by 2030. But nothing was mentioned of how such radical increase was to come to fruition. It has also failed to unearth the reasons why the current academic attainment results sit where they do? Is this the curriculum, the teaching, the societal factors? Why further increase the bar without addressing the barriers to success in reaching the current bar?

The second proposal to be questioned is the notion of Academisation. The white paper led with a commitment for all schools to belong to a Multi-Academy Trust or be in the process of joining one by 2030. As has been well documented in the education system in England there is an expectation for it to become 'self-improving', with autonomous schools supporting each others' progress and development. Arrangements to support collaboration include formal federations, chains of connected schools, and national teaching schools as well as many informal networks and clusters. But how does the notion of academisation fit the vision of self-improvement? Natalie Perera, Chief Executive of the Education Policy Institute, said that it was clear from their research ‘academisation is no “silver bullet” for improving school performance and there may simply not be enough capacity to absorb thousands of schools into higher performing MATs.’ Will evidence use in individual schools be relevant within a MAT, will all schools in the MAT have the same context of learners, the same needs?

Evidence use in schools is proven to be a successful and progressive approach, driving school improvement. That being said, embedding a culture of evidence use at system level represents a whole new level of challenge. The biggest issue here is having a direct impact on teachers in schools. For an evidence-based approach to be truly effective, first the gap between evidence and practice needs to be bridged. This is essentially, changing the mindset of staff, changing their values and beliefs of their practice which, will in turn, lead to positive changes in their teaching. Changing a teacher’s mindset is more easily said than done, the old saying ’if it isn’t broken, don’t fix it’ comes to mind. Providing teachers with an evidence-based approach to professional learning is a tried and tested way to effect change, to empower and lead staff toward positive change. This can only be developed at ground level, in the classroom. This adoption by staff to engage in an evidence-based approach to their practice will instill a habit of reflection, a mindset of enquiry and solutions based research. Due to this bottom-up focus for change, such changes are unlikely to be effective if quickly mandated or instructed from above in a MAT or federation.

Leadership is pivotal to the success of reflective enquiry in schools. If a leader demonstrates the importance of positive change, in engagement with reflective practice and an evidence informed approach this will resonate with their staff. Promotion of good practice leads to success, as we find in the classroom, and an enquiry-minded leader will find the same in the staff body. Once a leader has shown their commitment to an evidence-based approach, demonstrated their passion for positive change and that this is reflected in their expectations and actions, staff will begin to move towards this mindset. As the school leader and overseer of the professional learning in the school, demonstrating to the staff the benefits of this approach and how evidence can form part of school decision making is integral. Over time, with an engaged, focused staff, all reflective in their approach and using evidence to inform their practice, this will lead to cohort of staff all ‘singing from the same hymn sheet’, all actively engaging in reflective practice to increase educational outcomes. But if evidence use can only come to fruition within individual schools, then it is also likely to mean that evidence use across a MAT is something that can only develop from the 'bottom up'. But this then influences another area mentioned in the White paper, regarding teacher recruitment and retention. Those evidence-based teachers, those reflective and developmental staff will be high achieving, deeply invested in developing their practice and the outcomes for their students. These staff will be highly regarded within the MAT and hence highly desirable commodities. Successful evidence use based teachers will be regarded within a school and be fully committed to the school and Head teacher, willing to follow them. They will not, necessarily, be devoted to the MAT. Does the absorption into a MAT encourage this teacher, does it encourage them to develop their skills towards goals for the MAT or will it be catered and moulded towards the students in their care and in the school they serve? Will this lead to the higher performing schools within a MAT being able to ‘cherry pick’ the talented teachers from the MAT instead of them benefitting and moving forward lesser achieving schools?

The commonly held argument is that the alternative to the top-down promotion of evidence-informed solutions must involve clusters of schools engaged in orchestrated and collaborative networked learning. However, whilst it is undoubtedly useful and beneficial for schools to engage in this way, networking won't automatically lead to increased levels of evidence use within the individual schools that make up a network. The focus is thus shifted to bottom-up increase in evidence use. The perspective now is that the growth in evidence use is more likely to stem from the actions of individual schools, not the establishment of networks. In essence, action happens within schools not networks.

When it comes to evidence use, there are number of reasons to suggest that networking won't in fact lead to this type of substantive change. The first is that schools operate in their own, dynamic circles. They are unique in their identity, in their political dynamics and individual motivations. Each school will have its individual goals, its own strategic aims, guiding beliefs and preferred outcomes. This, however, means each schools' ethos is likely to be different to the overall agreed actions and beliefs of the network or MAT. This is because, in bringing together a number of schools with differing aims, the goals or focus areas of the networks are likely represent either a compromise or something developed externally. Given that the 'real life' of the school will be 'closer to home' and experienced day in and day out, it is this, rather than the network ethos, that is likely to dominate in terms of the strategic actions and decision making that actually occur.

Similarly, the strength of group action is affected both by similarities between schools and close physical proximity. Change will most likely result in improvement when everybody is pulling in the same direction and towards a common and commonly understood goal. Even with a network of schools united towards specific goals, there is more likely to be common direction within a school than across schools. People are therefore more likely to be more motivated and strive harder for 'homegrown' school goals than for a wider, MAT aims, which might resonate less.

It could also be argued that, like many National priorities or drives that come from outside their own schools, priorities handed down through a MAT can easily be forgotten once teachers return to their own schools and own priorities that directly affect their school life and function.

Schools are also hesitant to join networks or MATs. Evidence of this can be seen country wide with parents protesting with S.O.S placards outside the schools. This also resonates with the staff and this hesitancy can lead to teachers not being willing or enthusiastic about taking on board suggestions or initiatives. If an evidence based approach was one handed down from a MAT, there is no suggestion that all school would be avid adoptees of the approach with little desire to engage in the practice.         

So commitment ‘to the cause’ becomes a real issue, overarching the entire process suggested by the White paper. There will be varying commitment to the overall goals of the MAT, what the key drivers are and if they resonate with the individual schools. There may be issues where some schools are very progressive in their use of an evidence-based approach, others may feel this is something they are not ready for and the staff will be hesitant about adopting, making it redundant So whilst the formation of a MAT is positive in enabling teachers to identify and improve effective practice, the MAT is not driving the change, the individual school is and the leaders within them.

To move to a more evidence informed system, where schools are havens of staff who have the professional expertise to hone and adapt their practice, this good practice resonates outwards and is adopted elsewhere. The best practice, strategies and approaches will be imitated in other establishments. Sometimes, however, such great work and ideas can only be adopted through direct experience, through ‘living it’ and trying it out in the context of the individual school. If this is the case, how can a school be sold on the idea of an evidence-based approach without ‘living it?’ In the modern age, social media plays a huge part of teachers spreading the word of effective practice on forums and websites but this dissemination is slow and takes a great deal of time. In this scenario this change will occur, one teacher at a time, not whole schools at a time.

So, with individual staff, rays of light in the professional learning of a school, being the leaders of school change and the use of an evidence-based approach, the good practice only spreads when these teachers move onto other schools more like minded. Alternatively, staff who visit these schools on PD days, see their great work through social media or are friends with evidence-based staff, may feel inspired to create the same model in their own school.

If a school is known for its evidence based and progressive approach, it will quickly become an attractive place to work, to nurture and hone teachers practice. A school will then find themselves as an attractive place to work based on an evidence-informed approach. It is then they reap the rewards. In particular they are likely to experience virtuous circles of attracting and retaining staff who can perpetuate the school's approach and continue its success. This aids the retention issue, mentioned in the White paper, with those bottom up schools retaining and attracting staff who are progressively minded. Can the same be said about school in a more top down model MAT school, where initiatives and goals are set from above and rolled out to schools?

This, in turn provides a new perspective on what evidence-informed 'self-improvement' might entail: the number of evidence informed schools will not result from the growth of networks per se, but from the gradual spread of the 'experienced' effectiveness of evidence use. The small numbers of heads that are fostering this approach (or the staff working for them) will gradually move elsewhere and recreate this practice. Simultaneously, visitors to these settings who are suitably inspired will establish their own evidence use ethos and practices within their own organizations. Networks are necessary but for different reasons: they provide the financial security for smaller schools, they share the resource costings, they enable staff to engage in external professional learning sessions held across a MAT. They also provide the learning spaces within which teachers can hone their craft - places to improve learning and to engage with new evidence or evidence informed practices. But schools will only take from them what they will, which is likely to be affected by context, ethos and many of the factors listed above. The real drivers for change then are the individual school's themselves and the staff within them, not the MAT or federation. How academisation affects the use of evidence based reflection and action, only time will tell.