49
Unleashing greatness – getting the best from an academised system
54
School leaders may not have sufficient skills and support to use
academy freedoms fully
The Association of Directors of Children’s Services (ADCS) described
to the Commission how schools are facing a ‘perfect storm’ of rising
expectations of performance and multiple changes in education policy.
Announcements on inspection, qualifications and accountability have
been coming thick and fast – and are set to continue. Such turbulence,
argues the ADCS, may make headteachers and governors cautious about
implementing change and ‘does not make an encouraging environment
forinnovation’.
Being a leader of an academy may provide ‘full permission’ to do what
is right for pupils but, in a period of policy turbulence, academy leaders
require the confidence and systems to devise, implement and monitor
innovation effectively. One submission to the Commission suggested that
‘headteachers are not equipped or trained to take these freedoms’.
Other submissions, however, took a different view and pointed to
examples of how sponsored academies, over time, had developed the
‘unconstrained mindset’ that resulted in innovation and change.
These two points of view could be interpreted as being incompatible
but one submission suggested how they might both be true. Dr David
Daniels and Dr Christine Tinkler argued that, in the early days of the
sponsored academies, principals had often been chosen because of
their ‘known expertise and innovative flair in headship together with
a successful track record’. Professor Mel Ainscow called them the
‘laboratories of innovation’. However, the Daniels/Tinkler submission
went on to argue that, with the rapid expansion of the academy
sector, there was now ‘apotential depletion of suitable candidates
forprincipalship’ of anacademy. They also said:
‘Many new principals are now untrained in the concepts of entrepreneurial
activity and even training provided by the National College for would-be
principals does not concentrate on this area.’
That view was endorsed by the Schools Commissioner, Dr Elizabeth
Sidwell, who agreed that there was an urgent need to develop the capacity
of academies to use their freedoms fully. Ron Glatter, Emeritus Professor
of Educational Administration and Management at the Open University,
drew the Commission’s attention to an OECD study (Pont et al., 2008).
This research highlighted the need for ‘a strong infrastructure of support’
with ‘relevant forms of training and development’ for school leaders as
one of the preconditions for using autonomy effectively. This point was
reinforced in the submission from David Albury who said:
‘Developing innovative, especially radically innovative, models and
practices is complex and difficult work. While freedoms are essential …
schools (academies) need support – tools, techniques, frameworks and
approaches – to undertake disciplined and robust innovation.’
Potential implications if academies start to use their freedoms more fully
The commission also invited evidence on how things might develop if
academies started to use their freedoms more extensively. Essentially, two
VB.NET PDF: Basic SDK Concept of XDoc.PDF You may add PDF document protection functionality into your VB.NET program. to edit hyperlink of PDF document, including editing PDF url links and quick
pdf link to specific page; adding an email link to a pdf
51
55
different scenarios emerged, reflecting the findings of an OECD (2012a)
study that examined potential scenarios for the future of education
systems. The OECD hypothesised that an ‘extended market model,’
along the lines of the approach being promoted by the government, on
the one hand could bring innovation and dynamism but, on the other,
might result in exclusion and inequality. International cases with strong
autonomy and weaker accountability than in the UK (for example,
charter schools in the US and independent public schools in Chile) have
brought some spectacular successes but also some spectacular failures.
A considerable number of submissions expressed concern about
possible fragmentation of the system if the take-up of academy freedoms
were to become significantly more widespread. The argument was that
academy autonomy coupled with growing school diversification and
competition might mean that each school acted in its own interests to the
detriment of the system as a whole. A primary headteacher, for example,
warned of the risk of ‘a highly marketised education system where “dog
eats dog”. Teachers’ pay and conditions will no longer be bargained for
centrally, the admissions code could be subverted and the curriculum is
nolonger national’.
A secondary headteacher described a similar scenario:
‘The freedoms around the employment of staff will lead to the situation …
where successful schools will recruit more strongly than weaker schools.’
The National Governors’ Association made the same point, highlighting
how the national funding system can lead to significant funding
differentials between neighbouring authorities. This results in schools in
less well-funded authorities struggling to recruit high-quality staff. The
Association of Teachers and Lecturers and the Association of School
and College Leaders took a slightly different view. They argued that it
was likely that the STPCD would continue to provide the benchmark
for schools (as it did for independent schools which were not obliged to
follow its provisions) since it was complex, time-consuming and legally
risky to develop alternative arrangements.
The National Union of Teachers expressed concern about the
implications for equal pay if the national pay framework were
undermined. The NAHT was concerned that, over time, increasing
numbers of academies would choose to exercise the freedom to employ
unqualified teachers.
This fragmentation was seen as being particularly disadvantageous
forparents. The Advisory Centre for Education (ACE) was concerned
that ‘in the event that academies were to use their full freedoms, this
would be very confusing for parents as they could be faced by very
different curricula in different schools in their area’. ACE considered that
this would further disadvantage families that did not have ‘easy access to
education’. In the same vein, another respondent questioned why there
had been so little debate about ‘the extent to which it makes sense for
thecurriculum offer a young person experiences to be entirely dependent
onthe school they attend’.
However, the Commission also received evidence from those
who believed that the OECD’s optimistic scenario was more likely
3. Academies and their freedoms
56
Unleashing greatness – getting the best from an academised system
56
to prevail. They agreed that that the implications of greater use of
academy freedoms would be substantial but saw this in a positive
rather than a negative light. They pointed to possibilities for ‘increased
professionalisation of the professions in schools’ and to opportunities
to radically reform how social care, education welfare, educational
psychologists and the health professionals worked together: ‘This is
veryexciting indeed for our youngpeople.’
A governor who had previously been a headteacher recognised that
developing the freedoms might lead to ‘some unacceptable practices’ but
argued that overall:
‘Well-managed innovations will bring huge benefits to the learning of
pupils and should better facilitate the work of staff.’
Tinkler and Daniels concluded, based on their work with academies, that
if all academies were to use their freedoms fully (which they considered
unlikely), it would lead to the development of educational provision that
was more mature and outward-looking. It would be ‘fit for purpose’,
‘open-minded’, ‘freed from a dependency culture’ and ‘prepared to take
significant calculated risks’. This would provide the basis for continuing
opportunity and improvement for pupils.
Towards a more strategic use of innovation in the English school system
One of the assumptions underpinning much of the debate about
innovation is that the use of academy freedoms is in itself a good thing
and leads to progress and improved standards and outcomes. Some of
those providing evidence wanted to challenge this assumption.
For example, the teachers surveyed by Teach First reported that
freedoms had only a limited impact on school improvement. Only
16% believed that innovations with terms and conditions of service
had resulted in a positive impact (although the figure was higher (28%)
for teachers working in academies) and only around a third thought
that changes in the school day had contributed positively to school
improvement. Around half agreed that innovations in the curriculum
had made a positive difference but, ironically, that figure was higher
forrespondents in non-academies.
Another perspective was taken by a local authority officer who
questioned whether there was too much rather than too little autonomy
in some parts of the education system, ‘especially with regard to small
primary schools where there is a compelling case for trading off some
autonomy against greater empowerment to focus on the core business
of teaching and learning.’ Culham St Gabriel’s, an independent trust
supporting research and development in religious education, said it
would welcome a greater use of academy freedoms, but only if ‘it were
disciplined innovation, i.e. consisting of developments that were informed
by action research and networking rather than based on hunches or
folkpedagogies’.
The Commissioners believe that schools have sufficient freedoms
to innovate and improve. Accountability measures, such as Ofsted and
performance data, strongly limit the operation of some of this innovation
in practice yet also mitigate risks of dramatic failures. What is now needed
The teachers
surveyed by Teach
First reported that
freedoms had only
a limited impact on
school improvement
47
57
is a drive towards innovation in teaching and learning, and practitioner
collaboration to achieve this. The need to focus innovation on improving
teaching and learning is one of the main conclusions of an OECD working
paper that considered the impact of innovation in quasi-market education
systems – such as England (Lubienski, 2009). Relying on new governance
structures does not guarantee that ‘changes will substantially impact
(oreven “trickle down” to) classroom practice’. Quasi-market reforms
are more likely to be successful in ‘creating innovations in marketing and
management than in generating new classroom practices’. Ironically,
Lubienski concludes, it can often be public policy interventions that
drivepedagogical and curricular innovation.
David Albury, in his evidence, addressed this challenge. While
acknowledging that Ministers had done much to encourage innovation
and the development of new models of schools, he argued that what was
lacking is the grounding of the debate about innovation in a clear guiding
vision of 21st century education. In his experience, he said:
‘Successful and effective reform and innovation programmes are book-
ended with a powerful and compelling case for engendering passion and
urgency for change at one end, and an inspiring and motivating vision
providing direction at the other.’
Looking forward
So what is that compelling case and what is the vision that should drive
innovation in the English education system? The report from Pont et al.
(2008) provides a strong steer. Their study concluded that freedoms are
more likely to be beneficial when the role overload on headteachers (that
autonomy tends to generate) is avoided, by concentrating the focus of
leaders on educational matters. The Commission, too, has concluded that
the drive for innovation needs to move away from making change for the
sake of it to using freedoms to improve teaching and learning both inside
and outside the classroom – and on innovating to develop better pedagogy.
The case for this approach is strengthened by the knowledge that in
terms of what schools can do to improve outcomes for pupils, it is teacher
quality and classroom practice that have the strongest impact on their
achievements (OECD, 2005). Disadvantaged pupils that are taught by
highly effective teachers for one year or more are much more likely to close
gaps in attainment (Learning Point Associates, 2007). The government
knows and understands this. There is, therefore, an overwhelming
argument for focusing innovation on improving teaching and learning.
That should be the prime test of whether using a freedom is worthwhile
and effective.
‘Studies in the United States have shown that an individual pupil taught for
three consecutive years by a teacher in the top ten per cent of performance
can make as much as two years more progress than a pupil taught for the
same period by a teacher in the bottom ten per cent of performance.’
DfE, 2010
3. Academies and their freedoms
48
Unleashing greatness – getting the best from an academised system
58
The focus of innovation needs to shift from structures, systems and
timetables (although they may have their incidental place) to what is
happening in the classroom. As John Hattie has argued (2012), the
motivating vision for using innovation lies in empowering teachers
tobelearners about the effectiveness of their teaching:
‘The remarkable feature of the evidence is that the greatest effects on
students’ learning occur when teachers become learners of their own
teaching, and when students become their own teachers…Fundamentally
the most powerful way of thinking about a teacher’s role is for teachers
to see themselves as evaluators of their effects on students. Teachers
need to use evidence-based methods to inform, change, and sustain these
evaluation beliefs about their effect.’
It is when Ministers, policy makers, headteachers and teachers act on this
truth that we will see advances in the quality of teaching and learning and
improved achievement. The Commission believes that the government
should articulate the case for innovation based on a vision for improving
teaching and learning. This means valuing and supporting teachers
as professionals; it also involves teachers in planning, teaching and
reviewing their work openly with their colleagues and their pupils. The
Commission’s recommendations are therefore focused on academies and
schools using freedoms to improve teaching and learning both inside and
outside the classroom – and on innovating to develop better pedagogy.
This freedom might be secured by innovations such as the use of social
media, but also by ensuring all teachers are involved with research. In
outstanding international education systems, teachers are engaged with,
and see themselves as, active learners and researchers (Schleicher, 2012a).
Reflexivity and active collaboration in exploring and sharing best practice
are vital to secure improvement. We believe that the teacher unions, along
with a new Royal College of Teaching, would be well placed and could do
much to encourage and support this impetus.
The Commission welcomes proposals to establish a Royal College
of Teaching, led and managed by the profession (Exley, 2012b). The
Commission recommends that the government should pump-prime the
creation of this professional body – which would be independent of the
government but work with it – to support a vehicle that would promote
the professional activities outlined. The Royal College of Teaching could
play a vital role in supporting the alignment of research and practice, a
more active role for teachers to this end, and provision of CPD to enable
these outcomes. This should provide academy and school leaders and
teachers with access to coaching, research opportunities and development
networks to support them indeveloping andusing freedoms.
Universities and schools also have a role in ensuring that student
teachers are equipped with the analytical skills and critical competencies
to access, evaluate, and design research. Ensuring teachers know how
to research and evaluate the impact of their teaching should form an
essential part of initial teacher education.
42
59
Meanwhile, it is important that effective innovations are captured
aspart of a developing evidence base to inform practice in other
schools. Innovation needs to be tracked and effectiveness – or otherwise
– recorded. The Commission suggests that a Royal College of Teaching
would be well placed to create a system and database of evidence to
capture schools’ imaginative use of innovations and the effectiveness,
or otherwise, of these; to be drawn upon by teachers and school leaders
across the country (and beyond). This might take the form of an online
database that reports the impact of academies’ and schools’ innovations,
along the lines of the Education Endowment Fund’s toolkit to help
improve theattainment of disadvantaged pupils.
Networks of schools, such as chains, federations and Teaching School
alliances should become the hub of innovative teaching and learning.
They should undertake disciplined innovation through practising action
research and joint professional development across schools. Toencourage
this, the government needs to change the accountability system to
increaseincentives for schools to work collaboratively on innovation
inthe classroom.
Governing bodies should be encouraged to support disciplined
innovation. They should have access to advice that helps them to assess
and monitor risks and supports leaders involved in making changes. The
new modular National Professional Qualification for Headship should
include discussion and understanding of how to test and implement
innovation properly and work collaboratively on innovative initiatives.
Recommendations
• The government should articulate the case for innovation and
a vision for learning in the twenty-first century that draws on a
full understanding of the knowledge, skills and dispositions that
young people will need for life and work.
• The DfE should pump-prime the establishment of a Royal
College of Teachers that would be independent from, but
work with, the government, to promote teachers’ professional
development, provide evidence to inform education policy, align
practice and research and promote peer-to-peer collaboration.
• Teachers should be expected to engage with research as an
integral part of their daily work, and providers of initial teacher
education should encourage trainees to see the links between
the latest research and the improvement of classroom practice.
Providers should also ensure reflection and evaluation are
developed as part of the repertoire of good teaching skills.
3. Academies and their freedoms
Documents you may be interested
Documents you may be interested
