Description
The work builds on thinking undertaken by a group of national leaders of education (NLEs), of which we were part, who formed a fellowship commission, supported by the National College. The commission was asked to address the question 'How can the school system develop the most effective numbers of trusts/federations/chains, and what would be the associated accountability framework?'
Resource
Chain reactions: a thinkpiece on the
development of chains of schools
in the English school system
Robert Hill
Schools and academies
Inspiring leaders to
improve children’s lives
Copyright © 2010 National College 2
The National College for Leadership of
Schools and Children’s Services would like
to thank the following for their support
in providing information, participating in
a group discussion or being part of a case
study for this project:
Fiona Allen, Executive Headteacher, Corsham
Primary School
George Ashford, Managing Director, European Retail,
Inchcape plc
John Atkins, Chief Executive, Kemnal Trust
Kathy August, Executive Director, Manchester
Academy
Jane Balderstone, Offce of the Schools Commissioner,
Department for Children, Schools and Families
Steve Belk, Executive Director of Learning and
Standards, Hackney Learning Trust
Steve Bolingbroke, Managing Director,
Kunskappskolan
David Carter, Executive Principal, Cabot Learning
Federation
Debbie Clapshaw, Strategic Lead, Achievement
through Collaboration, Devon County Council
Sue Clarke, Governor Services, Devon County Council
Jon Coles, Director General, Schools, Department for
Children, Schools and Families
Barry Day, Chief Executive, Nottingham Academy
John Dowler, Headteacher, Haydon Bridge High
School Sports College
Dr John Dunford, General Secretary, Association of
School and College Leaders
Dr Fiona Hammans, Executive Headteacher, Banbury
Dashwood Schools Federation
Lucy Heller, Managing Director, ARK Schools
Andrew Hutchinson, Executive Principal, Parkside
Federation
Sue Innes, Leadership Development Consultant,
Gloucestershire County Council
Paul Jones, Executive Headteacher, First Federation,
Devon
Tarun Kapur, Executive Headteacher, Parrs Wood
High School
Darran Lee, Executive Principal, Learning Federation
Paul Lincoln, Managing Director, EdisonLearning
Alasdair Macdonald, Headteacher, Morpeth School
Daniel Moynihan, Chief Executive Offcer, Harris
Federation
Baroness Sally Morgan, Advisor to ARK Board
Stephen Munday, Executive Principal, Comberton
Village Education Trust
Amanda Phillips, Executive Headteacher, Culloden
and Old Ford Primary Schools
Chris Pickering, Executive Headteacher, National and
Tuxford Learning Community
Erica Pienaar, Executive Headteacher, Leathersellers’
Federation of Schools
Paul Scofeld, Deputy Director, Offce of the Schools
Commissioner, Department for Children, Schools and
Families
Dr Liz Sidwell, Chief Executive Offcer, Haberdashers’
Aske’s Federation
Frankie Sulke, Executive Director, Children and Young
People, London Borough of Lewisham
Richard Thornhill, Executive Headteacher,
Loughborough Primary School
David Triggs, Chief Executive Offcer, Academies
Enterprise Trust
Michael Wilkins, Executive Principal, Outwood
Academies
The views expressed in this publication are
those of the author and should not be taken as
representative of the above named nor of the
National College.
Copyright © 2010 National College 3
Contents
Preface 4
Section 1: The context 7
Partnerships and federations 7
Academies 9
Accreditation of school providers and groups 9
Section 2: What is a chain? 10
Section 3: The benefts and potential benefts of chains 22
Sustaining educational improvement in challenging schools 22
Providing a new model of governance 23
Training a new generation of school leaders 24
Creating an economy of scale 26
Maintaining a sense of perspective 27
Section 4: Issues and challenges for chains 28
Section 5: What does this agenda mean for primary schools? 35
The context 35
A range of challenges 35
A range of innovative responses 38
Features shared by emerging primary models and chains 42
Pace of change and inhibitors of progress 48
Options for the future 49
Appendix 1: How performance federations help weak schools to improve 53
Bibliography 54
Copyright © 2010 National College 4
Introduction
We were delighted to be asked by the National
College for Leadership of Schools and Children’s
Services to work with Robert Hill and help steer
this thinkpiece examining the impact of chains of
schools on the English school system. It is, so far
as we know, the frst time that this issue has been
studied in depth. And it is very timely, given that
the government is introducing accreditation of
groups, or chains, of schools.
The work builds on thinking undertaken by a group
of national leaders of education (NLEs), of which we
were part, who formed a fellowship commission,
supported by the National College. The commission
was asked to address the question ‘How can the
school system develop the most effective numbers
of trusts/federations/chains, and what would be
the associated accountability framework?’ In early
2009, the commission presented its fndings to
ministers as they were planning the white paper
Your child, your schools, our future: building a 21st
century schools system (DCSF, 2009a).
We have no doubt that this publication will be of
immense value to leaders of schools, academies
and colleges as they refect on the challenges facing
schools and the growing role that chains of schools
look set to play as the accreditation of school
providers and groups develops.
In section 1, Robert Hill explains how the chains
agenda in the secondary sector has grown out of:
school-to-school improvement initiatives, ?
including the NLE programme, that have paired
high-performing schools with those that are
struggling or underperforming
the growth of groups of academies sharing ?
the same sponsor
Section 2 sets out the defning characteristics of
a chain from an educational perspective. Most
importantly, Robert points to how chains have
developed a distinct teaching and learning model
and common operating systems that are applied in
all the chain’s schools, though their application is
normally adjusted to refect the particular context
and circumstances of an individual school. Chains
train their leaders intensively and deploy them
across the schools in the chain to help ensure that
the teaching and learning model and other systems
(for managing behaviour and attendance, for
example) are consistently and appropriately applied.
The chains are employing, or moving to employ,
staff on a chain rather than a school contract. Most,
though not all, chains are running schools that are
in reasonably close proximity to each other or, as
they grow, are developing geographical clusters
of schools within their chains. This is important for
facilitating the practicalities of school-to-school
support. Chains are organising functions and
systems such as ICT, human resources, fnancial
administration and facilities management on
a central basis. They have strong performance
management systems that underpin quality
assurance procedures and help to protect the brand
value of the chain. They also have clear, effective
corporate governance arrangements, with governors
fulflling a role similar to that of non-executive
directors.
Section 3 identifes important benefts from the
growth of chains where these are constituted in
accordance with the key criteria and principles
described above. Improvements in attainment and
the results of Ofsted inspections show how chains
offer a way of helping to turn around and, crucially,
sustain educational improvement in challenging
schools. They are also in effect inventing a new
and arguably sharper form of governance for the
school sector.
Copyright © 2010 National College 5
There is growing evidence that chains are
developing a new and able generation of school
leaders, which, given the age profle of school
leaders and the rate of impending retirements,
could be a considerable plus for the school system.
Chains can also provide a more effcient economy
of scale for organising back offce and specialist
services which, in the current fnancial climate,
could be of signifcant value to schools.
However, the development of chains is raising as
many questions as answers. In section 4, Robert
highlights and discusses seven questions that need
further consideration by school leaders, promoters
of chains and the government as well as the
wider public:
1. Is there an optimum size for chains?
2. Is the process by which chains acquire schools
suffciently transparent?
3. Is the basis for funding chains fair?
4. Do all school chains have a sustainable
education and business model?
5. Will schools in chains still be committed to
working with other local schools?
6. Is the accountability system for school chains
ft for purpose?
7. Are chains of schools doing enough to share
learning between each other?
Section 5 considers what the development of
school chains means for the primary sector. The last
15 years have seen a succession of programmes
rolling out of Whitehall aimed at incentivising
secondary schools to work together, draw in
external sponsors and develop school-to-school
improvement. But there have been few initiatives
that have promoted leadership of the primary sector
by the primary sector, even though the challenges
facing primary schools are as great, if not greater.
There is a large tail of primary schools that are
struggling to achieve the standards achieved by the
majority. There are too few applicants for vacant
headships. Too many primary headteachers have
insuffcient capacity to give a suffcient amount
of time to strategic leadership, which, given the
range of issues that primary schools have to work
on (eg, fuctuating pupil numbers, curriculum
review, extended schools and changes in early years
education) is essential. Small schools and rural
schools are receiving a substantial subsidy but are
often still struggling to remain fnancially viable.
Although the primary sector has not enjoyed the
same scale of institutional incentives to work
in partnerships as the secondary sector, it has
nonetheless generated a range of innovative
models of leadership and governance. Management
partnerships, business support partnerships, primary
school federations, hard, town-wide clusters of
primary schools, secondary–primary federations,
whole-learning community federations and all-
through 3–19 schools have been some of the main
responses. Some of these initiatives have been led
by local authorities, some by school leaders and
others by innovative governors.
Growing numbers of these developments have
characteristics and benefts in common with
secondary school chains. They apply a clear teaching
and learning model and associated systems. They
have evolved a new and stronger model of primary
school leadership: an executive head responsible
for two or more schools, supported by a head of
teaching and learning on each site. This is turn is
creating a new career pathway.
Primary school federations and trusts are also
providing a broader basis for organising professional
development that enables staff to share, learn and
work with a wider group of colleagues. They are
also strengthening governance and securing better
planning and use of resources.
Copyright © 2010 National College 6
Despite these developments, a number of factors
inhibit the pace of change. There is resistance
by parents and governors in some quarters. The
funding and accountability systems reinforce the
status quo. There are particular issues for faith
schools, which account for a third of schools in the
primary sector, if they want to partner formally with
non-faith schools.
In addition, the government has still to provide a
clear roadmap of how it expects the organisation of
primary schooling to evolve over the next 5 to 10
years, although it has made partnership working a
key element of its world-class primary programme
(DCSF, 2009c), announced in December 2009.
Robert concludes this paper by arguing that we
need to create frameworks that provide primary
schools with the critical mass necessary to develop
strategic leadership, support the new career
structures, improve professional and curriculum
development, address school underperformance
and realise economies of scale.
Noting that the government is introducing
accreditation for the primary sector, he proposes
that all primary schools could (or arguably should)
be part of what he calls accredited primary school
groups (APSGs) that adopt and work to chain-like
standards. That does not mean squeezing primary
schools into a single mould: APSGs might operate
under the umbrella of a trust, a federation, an
education company, an all-through school, a whole-
learning community or town-wide cluster or, were
the Conservatives’ policies to be adopted, chains of
primary academies.
Adopting this policy objective would mean:
clearly articulating the vision and, potentially, ?
setting a timetable for all primary schools to be
part of an APSG
creating a clear system of accreditation for APSGs ?
incentivising primary schools to join an APSG, ?
not so much by making new funding available
as maximising the leverage of existing funding
streams
redesigning the National Professional ?
Qualifcation for Headship (NPQH) to refect the
executive head/head of teaching and learning
model
incorporating all primary schools assessed as ?
inadequate by Ofsted into an APSG
enabling APSGs to use budgets fexibly across all ?
the schools in their group
encouraging and empowering local authorities to ?
develop a network of APSGs in their area
creating a cadre of school leaders to champion ?
this agenda
working with faith groups to resolve the ?
particular problems associated with faith schools
The government’s recent plan for implementing the
2009 white paper proposes a number of actions
that support the development of these ideas. This
is a bold and exciting agenda, and we invite fellow
school leaders to join the debate on these issues.
Margaret Holman, Headteacher,
Bishop Stopford C of E School, Kettering
Dr Martin Young, Executive Headteacher,
The Park Federation, London
February 2010
Copyright © 2010 National College 7
Section 1: The context
The growth of chains of schools, sponsored or run
by the same foundation or charitable trust, is a
phenomenon that has crept up on the state school
system in England over the last decade. It has
come about as a result of two main factors, formal
partnerships (in the form of trusts and federations)
and academies.
Federations and trusts
Evidence on how to kickstart and sustain school
improvement – particularly in areas of deprivation
and in underperforming schools – has increasingly
pointed to the value of partnership working and
of schools leading and supporting other schools.
Independent evaluations of a range of programmes
starting with Excellence in Cities in 1999 but
including Leading Edge, London Challenge and
national leaders of education (NLEs) and national
support schools (NSSs) attest to the positive value
of focused, systematic and rigorous school-to-school
improvement support.
The most recent affrmation of this partnership
dividend comes in research undertaken for
the National College by Manchester University
(Chapman et al, 2009). The researchers studied
264 schools from a random sample of 50 local
authorities and grouped into 122 federations. They
compared these with an equivalent sample of
264 non-federated schools with a similar baseline
in terms of performance. Their analysis showed
that federation was not only positively related to
performance in the years following federation but
that the impact was greatest where the aim of the
federation was to raise educational standards by
federating lower and higher attaining schools.
In 2004 and 2005, researchers in the Department for
Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) had produced
reports (Potter, 2004; DfES, 2005) identifying the
processes that a stronger school in a performance
federation followed or applied when working with
another school (see Appendix 1). They also charted
how progress in such federations moved through
four phases:
a preparatory phase that triggers and sets the ?
scene for activity
an initial phase focused on making sure that the ?
schools’ basic operating systems are in place
a development phase to address the underlying ?
weaknesses and build up staff skills
a fnal phase in which the partnership becomes ?
much more one of mutual learning and when
the long-term future of the supported school is
planned
Although it may not have been realised at the time,
this seminal analysis started to capture what were,
in effect, the essential elements of a chain-like
approach to school improvement. The research was
also instrumental in the development of two new
policy approaches:
the inclusion of new powers (Section 63) in ?
the Education and Inspections Act 2006, giving
local authorities the option of requiring schools
in special measures or in receipt of a notice
to improve to enter into a collaboration or
federation with another school
the creation in 2008 of national challenge ?
trusts, providing a mechanism to take schools
that were below the benchmark standard for
fve GCSEs at grades A*–C (including English and
maths) within the control and governance of a
high-performing school
The creation of 20 national challenge trusts had
been approved by June 2009 and up to 70 are
envisaged.
Copyright © 2010 National College 8
Development of a chain of
trust schools
The Kemnal Trust was formed in 2008, based on
Kemnal Technology College in Bromley in south-east
London. The headteacher is an accredited national
leader of education and the college is a national
support school. The trust has taken responsibility
for three other schools: Welling, Debden Park High
and King Harold. The schools retain their distinct
personalities but share a chief executive offcer, as
well as knowledge, systems and teachers.
Kemnal, graded by Ofsted as an outstanding school,
was brought in by Essex County Council to take over
the day-to-day running of Debden Park High School
after the latter was placed in special measures in
January 2007. The same happened with Welling
School in Bexley in January 2008. Kemnal introduced
its systems to both schools and ensured that there
was good leadership on site, bringing in leaders and
expertise from other schools in the trust and making
sure there was good support and professional
development for all the staff.
As a result, both schools came out of special
measures on their second monitoring visit, the
quickest recorded turnaround for a secondary school.
Debden Park has now been judged outstanding in
its own right, just 21 months after it came out of
special measures.
A similar approach has been taken with King Harold
School in Waltham Abbey, Essex where the Kemnal
Trust appoints a majority of the governors as part of
its role as a national challenge trust school.
Despite only working with the school for a year,
the proportion of students gaining 5 GCSEs at
grades A*–C (including English and maths) has
risen by 10 percentage points to 36 per cent. In
September 2009, Ofsted assessed King Harold
School as satisfactory and improving quickly. ‘This
improvement’, inspectors concluded, ‘is due largely
to the school’s recent association with the Kemnal
Trust and the expertise in school improvement that
it has shared and provided’.
Source: DCSF, July 2009a; updated with
material supplied by the Kemnal Trust
Case study 1:
Copyright © 2010 National College 9
Academies
The academy model frst emerged around the turn
of the 20th century. The idea was to create a new
model of independently managed state schools
outside the traditional local authority system,
with a focus on areas of underperformance and
disadvantage. External sponsors would bring added
commitment, expertise and funding to this cause.
In September 2009, 200 academies were open in 82
local authorities, and up to a further 100 are due to
open by September 2010.
When academies frst started, each one was a
free-standing institution. However, as sponsors
came to terms with the concept and practicalities
of establishing an academy as well as the
opportunities arising from the expansion of the
academy programme, they increasingly moved
to sponsoring more than one academy. By
February 2008, there were 40 sponsors of multiple
academies either open or in the pipeline, including
5 (ARK, Harris, Oasis, ULT and British Edutrust) with
plans for more than 10 each. Chains now account for
more than half of all open academies.
As Lord Adonis, the former education minister,
has commented:
Accreditation of school
providers and groups
The formal recognition of the scope and potential
of the school chains agenda came in the latter half
of 2009. The government’s white paper referred to
the many examples ‘where federations, Trusts and
other multi-school models have tackled problems
in schools which have been identifed by Ofsted
as weak and failing’ (DCSF, 2009a:49). The white
paper announced the intention to introduce and
consult on an accreditation system for education
providers wishing to operate groups of schools. In
October 2009, DCSF published a consultation paper
on accreditation (DCSF, 2009b) and in February 2010
(DCSF, 2010) announced the fnal criteria for:
accredited school providers, led by educational ?
institutions (such as schools, further education
colleges and universities), academy sponsors,
church and faith groups, educational
consultancies, other educational providers or
private and third sector organisations, wanting to
run one or two schools
accredited schools groups, led by educational ?
organisations directly responsible for the
leadership and governance of two or more
academies or schools in majority trusts or
federations, wanting to run three or more
schools
Both accredited school providers and accredited
schools groups may apply with other organisations
that are not accredited but who wish to co-sponsor
or be a partner to the application.
Those leading an accreditation application will be
expected to have (or demonstrate the capacity to
access) a track record in their own feld; the vision
to be able to lead a partnership; accountability and
governance mechanisms for ensuring improvement;
and the knowledge and experience to support
signifcant school improvement.
The proposed criteria are fully aligned with the
existing criteria developed by the National College
for designating national leaders of education and
national support schools.
All schools and education providers will in future
have to be accredited if they want to be considered
for formal school intervention projects, such as
new academies and instances where a school is
taking over another school via a majority trust
or federation. These proposals originally related
only to secondary schools and academies, but
the government has since announced plans to
introduce accreditation within the primary sector.
DCSF plans to accredit the frst groups of schools in
March 2010.
The rise of these academy chains is a highly
signifcant development for English state
education.
Adonis, 2008a
Copyright © 2010 National College 10
Section 2: What is a chain?
Defning elements of a
commercial chain
George Ashford is a senior executive for Inchape plc,
and has worked in a range of commercial chains in
the retail sector for many years. In a presentation
for the National College he identifed seven defning
aspects of chains in the commercial sector.
1. The brand is a combination of two things: a)
values – what an organisation stands for, and b)
delivery – what it achieves.
2. Getting real ownership of the brand in each
outlet is essential and needs to be addressed
as a priority.
3. The biggest challenge is ensuring quality in
every outlet – one or two poorly performing
outlets can soon damage the reputation of
the brand.
4. The key to addressing this is high-quality
leadership and management in each outlet
and across the chain, coupled with ensuring
consistency of implementation of the
fundamentals in each outlet.
5. 80 per cent of what each outlet needs to do is
based on standard operating procedures. We
know these procedures work so why invent
something new? All outlets need to accept
and implement the 80 per cent. That leaves
20 per cent for creativity, inspiration and
contextualisation. Problems arise when those in
charge of outlets try to amend the 80 per cent
instead of focusing on the 20 per cent.
6. There is a need for a well-defned set of
performance measures for evaluation and a clear
process for ‘exiting’ poor performers.
7. Increasing the scale of the overall chain needs to
be handled very carefully. Many come unstuck
by over-expanding. Increased size gives you
fexibility and increases income but you must
not compromise on quality and capacity to lead.
Case study 2:
In the commercial sector, chains are a commonplace
part of the market system. A chain may supply a
service, license the manufacture of a product or run
a set of retail outlets. A chain-based enterprise is
frequently driven by a vision and set of values that
are backed up with standardised operating systems
and/or a product range that provides the basis of
the customer offer. Chains are normally strong on
metrics and quality assurance procedures in order
to protect the value of the brand, secure a healthy
fnancial return and satisfy customers’ aspirations
(see Case study 2). An overarching board normally
provides the main governance and is ultimately
accountable for the success of the chain.
Copyright © 2010 National College 11
Vision and value statement
The Haberdashers’ Aske’s Federation consists
of three sister academies in south-east London
– ‘three schools, one vision’ is the federation’s
strapline:
Case study 3:
The secondary school chains that are developing
share many of the characteristics of their
commercial cousins, though they have also
developed features that are peculiar to an
educational environment. Typically they will have
the features described below.
Clear vision and values: ? These capture and
describe the central driving educational ethos of
the chain. Most schools have a vision statement
but what tends to set a chain’s statement apart
is an explicit or implicit description of how it
sees the mission going beyond the boundaries of
an individual institution (see Case study 3).
? A distinct teaching and learning model: Along
with systems covering areas such as behaviour,
pastoral support and engagement with parents,
chains adopt a common teaching and learning
model across all the member schools. This is
the crucial defning feature that makes a school
chain a chain and distinguishes it from other
groups of schools that are working together with
shared governance. The teaching and learning
model underpins the operation of all the schools
in the chain. One chain captures the importance
of its common teaching and learning model in
this way:
Case studies 4 and 5 give examples of how teaching
and learning models operate in practice and how
they apply across a chain.
The Aske’s vision is one where all pupils
in the federation are inspired to reach
their full potential, regardless of their
ability or background, where aspirations
and achievements are constantly raised
through the highest quality academic,
personal and vocational teaching and
guidance, and where the pupils and
staff at the three Academies beneft
from each other’s strengths.
Source: Haberdashers’ Aske’s Federation
(www.hahc.org.uk)
By sharing common standard operating
procedures, frameworks and policies,
we will be developing academies that
can lead an educational evolution
rather than revolution on their way to
sustainable, high-performing status.
Academies Enterprise Trust
(www.academiesenterprisetrust.org)
Copyright © 2010 National College 12
Outwood Transformation
Model
©
The Outwood Grange family currently consists of
fve schools serving over 6,000 students. It includes
approximately 800 staff with a budget of £35
million and involves work with 4 local authorities.
Two of the schools are academies (Outwood Grange
Academy, Wakefeld and Outwood Academy,
Adwick, Doncaster) and the other three schools
in Yorkshire and Stockton-on-Tees were linked to
Outwood Grange because they were in special
measures, national challenge or both. Outwood
Grange is working with these schools under NLE
contracts. Each school retains its own governing
body or has an interim executive board.
In four of the fve schools, the individuals acting
as headteachers have as their substantive position
vice-principal at Outwood Grange. In the ffth,
the headteacher has been appointed by the
executive principal and inducted into the Outwood
Transformation Model
©
, which has seven strands.
Strand 1: Leadership with vision and effcacy
The vision, Students come frst, is critical to setting
the tone for a school’s improvement strategy.
Schools are organised round the ‘deeps’ model
developed by Professor David Hargreaves with the
Specialist Schools and Academies Trust.
Strand 2: Quality learning and teaching in
the classroom
There is a clear focus on quality in the classroom
with fve-part lessons and lessons for learning
implemented across a whole school. There is an
emphasis on outstanding lessons and the Ofsted
criteria for outstanding lessons. A classroom
observation database is set up to allow speedy
analysis of good practice within the school.
Strand 3: Flexible curriculum model
The curriculum is reviewed and a two-year Key
Stage 3 followed by a three-year Key Stage 4 is
introduced, including vertical mentor groups and
vertical teaching groups. GCSEs are offered in
one year as a default mode, with whole-subject
immersion days planned at intervals throughout the
academic year.
Strand 4: Systematic monitoring and
intervention
A whole-school monitoring and systematic
intervention programme is used which involves
sharing with students and reporting to parents at six-
weekly intervals on progress across every subject in
relation to their Fischer Family Trust band D target.
Strand 5: Systems, protocols and learning
environments
A range of inter-related systems and protocols
(including a whole-school behaviour programme,
curriculum-led fnancial planning and changes to
the school day) are introduced so that a school can
develop cohesively across the board.
Strand 6: Bespoke professional development
Professional development for all staff, including
support staff, is seen as the key to sustaining
improvement. A school’s leadership team will attend
a two-day leadership challenge residential event that
equips them with an understanding of the processes
and the tools required to be effective leaders. Middle
leaders and aspiring middle leaders are invited
to attend two courses, each of 10 modules, on
transforming middle leaders. Every week, two hours
are set aside for a professional development session
with all staff, including support staff, where the
models, systems and protocols are embedded.
Strand 7: A praise and reward achievement
culture for staff and students
Heavy emphasis is placed on raising self-esteem
and praising progress. Students, staff, governors
and the community need to feel positive about
themselves and rally behind a school as it starts to
become a successful institution. This also involves
immersion visits to Outwood Grange Academy so
that staff, students, governors and parents can see
for themselves the impact of the vision.
Source: Outwood Grange Academy
Case study 4:
Copyright © 2010 National College 13
Kunskapsskolan
educational model
Kunskapsskolan is the largest secondary
education provider in Sweden. The company
runs 32 schools for 10,000 12–19 year olds as
part of the Swedish free schools system, which
enables parents to spend an education voucher
at a school of their choice. The schools are
comprehensive, inclusive and co-educational
in their intake. They are typically smaller than
English schools and have up to 500 students. The
schools all follow the same pedagogic approach.
The Kunskapsskolan model is based on
personalised learning. Every student follows a
long-term learning and attainment plan agreed
between the student and the student’s personal
tutor and parents. Students work at a pace that
matches their abilities and goals, using the most
effective learning style to achieve the goals
set out in the national curriculum. Parents are
actively engaged in their children’s education,
participating in setting goals and able to monitor
progress through online reporting systems.
Although the model is focused on a student-
centred approach to learning, Kunskapsskolan
follows the national curriculum, participates
in national tests and conforms to national
assessment systems.
Kunskapsskolan has been selected as a preferred
provider to run two academies in the London
borough of Richmond-upon-Thames and a third in
Suffolk, which will be called learning schools.
Source: Kunskapsskolan
(www.kunskapsskolan.co.uk)
ARK model: principles
and approach
1. High expectations for:
– student achievement and behaviour
– staff professionalism, skill and commitment
2. Rigorous and engaging lessons
3. Respect for teachers and a calm orderly
environment
4. Continuing assessment and responsive
support for each child
5. Depth before breadth: an emphasis on
literacy and maths
6. More time for learning
7. Larger schools broken down into smaller
units: schools-within-schools
8. Aspirational identity
9. Motivational culture
10. Strong partnership with parents
The four key aspects of the ARK model
1. Focus on the key levers of improvement
2. Clear and simple aims, roles and
accountability
3. Transparent and honest feedback
4. Principal autonomy
Source: ARK Schools (www.arkschools.net)
Case study 5:
Case study 6:
Such is the importance that ARK Schools (which
sponsors eight academies and has a further one
set to open in 2012) attaches to its teaching and
learning model that it has formalised the core
content in a handbook. It explains in practical
terms how the 10 principles of the ARK model
and the 4 aspects of its operating approach (see
Case study 6) should apply in each ARK academy.
Other aspects of the handbook cover academic
tracking arrangements, HR, fnance and governance
arrangements.
Nearly all of the chains interviewed for this project
were clear that it was not just a question of
automatically imposing an infexible central model
on an institution. They recognised the need to take
account of the local context.
Copyright © 2010 National College 14
For example, EdisonLearning, an education
company working with 100 schools including
several academies, has developed a comprehensive
secondary school model, e2. This covers:
relationships and ethos between learners ?
and teachers
curriculum (instructional leaning, conceptual ?
learning, collaborative learning and
personal learning)
organisation and systems ?
change management ?
people development ?
performance measures ?
EdisonLearning sees the model as being 70–75 per
cent non-negotiable and 25–30 per cent context
specifc (ie, adapted to the circumstances of an
individual school).
In the nine Harris academies in south London, the
teaching and learning model comes out of proven
approaches used in the frst Harris schools. All the
Harris academies are expected to follow a template
which is supported by structures, systems and
policies, but they have fexibility to adapt it to the
local context.
How this works in practice is illustrated by what
happened when in January 2006 the Harris
Federation agreed to convert Tamworth Manor
High School in the London borough of Merton to an
academy on a fast-track basis. Dan Moynihan, CEO
of the Harris Federation writes:
A system for training leaders and other staff: ?
This means the teaching and learning model is
applied consistently and in a way that ensures
that the model is understood and internalised.
This approach is an integral feature of the
Outwood chain (see Case study 4). In the Harris
Federation, the heads of English, maths and
science come together to study data on relative
performance and observe lessons in each other’s
academies both to provide challenge and also
to learn from each other’s practice. A specialist
team of advanced skills teachers works across
all the federation’s schools. There are common
professional development training days across
the federation and all 85 newly qualifed
teachers working in the 9 Harris academies are
supported and trained together.
? Deployment of key leaders and staff across
the chain: Case study 4 showed how vice-
principals from Outwood were being deployed
as headteachers across the family of schools.
Case study 7 below illustrates how the Kemnal
Trust has made extensive use of its leadership
resources across the four schools that are part of
the trust. The headteachers of Walsall, Sandwell
Each of our academies has its own
personality and way of doing things.
Harris Federation of South London
Schools Prospectus 2009/10,
(www.harrisfederation.org.uk)
All of the Harris CTC policies and procedures
were imported to the new academy and
have since been developed and ‘tweaked’
where appropriate to ft local circumstances.
We transferred our ‘house system’ where
assistant principals lead houses with groups
of subject staff responsible for both the
academic and pastoral welfare of students,
removing the previous roles of heads of
year. We also transferred an innovative
14–19 vocational curriculum, a tried and
tested computerised system for tracking
and monitoring individual students and
behaviour management systems. To boost
post-16 achievement, we created a joint sixth
form between three academies, importing
established systems all in one go.
Moynihan, 2008:17
Copyright © 2010 National College 15
and Madley academies, which are all sponsored
by the Mercers Company in association with
Thomas Telford School, have all come from
Thomas Telford School. The head of Merton
Academy, which is part of the Harris Federation,
was previously a vice-principal at Harris City
Technology College. The principal of Crayford
Academy comes from the leadership team of
the Haberdashers’ Aske’s Federation, of which it
is a part.
These leaders are not only able leaders in their
own right but also, particularly in the early days of
a chain, expert proponents and guardians of the
teaching and learning model on which the chain
is based. As Lord Adonis has commented in the
context of establishing new academies in a chain:
[Academy sponsors] often appoint principals
to their new academies from within their
existing ‘family’ of schools, identifying the
most promising leaders who are specially
trained to take up headships elsewhere
within their ‘group’.
Adonis, 2008b:vii
Deployment of key leaders
across the Kemnal Trust schools
A vice-principal at Kemnal Technology College
moved to become headteacher at Debden Park High
School and having led the transformation of that
school, is now also acting executive head of King
Harold School.
The director of e-learning and the head of maths
at Kemnal Technology College also transferred to
Debden Park as assistant headteachers.
Two heads of college and the vice-principal with
responsibility for science at Kemnal Technology
College moved to Welling School to take
over respectively as headteacher, frst deputy
headteacher and deputy headteacher (with
responsibility for science at Key Stages 3 and 4).
Two of the current vice-principals at Kemnal
Technology College support new schools that join
the trust. One focuses on Year 11 and sorting out
systems and structures and training staff in the use
of data. The other interviews all staff and trains a
continuing professional development co-ordinator.
The director of special educational needs (SEN) at
Kemnal Technology College ensures that all schools
in the trust have robust systems for identifying and
supporting pupils with SEN and provides training for
all SEN staff.
The CEO oversees the work of all the schools in the
trust and his previous post as principal of Kemnal
Technology College has been flled by one of the
vice-principals at the school.
The director of fnance, estates and administration of
the Kemnal Trust exercises fnancial oversight across
all the schools in the trust.
Source: The Kemnal Trust
(www.ktc.bromley.sch.uk/information/kemnal_trust.asp)
Case study 7:
Copyright © 2010 National College 16
Direct employment of all or key staff: ?
The deployment of leaders and other staff across
a chain is in part made possible because in many
of the academy chains all the staff are employed
on a central, academy-wide contract. In trusts
and federations, the position may be slightly
different – senior staff may be on a central
trust or federation-wide contract with new staff
moved to a central contract as staff turnover
naturally occurs.
At Outwood, for example, vice-principals have
contracts that oblige them to work across the
north of England. Other staff, who are able and
developing as leaders or expert practitioners
but who may not be able to gain promotion
because other high-quality staff are flling lead
positions, may be put on assignment posts. That
means that they too can be deployed across all
the schools in the Outwood family. This fexible
approach also means that staff can be moved
around as contracts come to an end.
Geographical proximity: ?
Most of the chains are operating in a relatively
defned area or sub-region. The Harris
academies, for example, are concentrated
in four boroughs in south London. The three
Haberdashers’ Aske’s schools are located in
south-east London. The Outwood family is based
in Yorkshire and adjacent local authorities.
Thomas Telford and the three Mercer academies
are all situated quite close to each other in the
West Midlands, though there are plans to open a
new academy in Hammersmith in west London.
The four Emmanuel Foundation academies
are based in the north east. The Kemnal Trust
operates across Bromley, Bexley and Essex,
which thanks to the Dartford crossing provides a
relatively geographically compact focus for the
trust. The Cabot Learning Federation consists of
three academies in Bristol and one in nearby
Weston-Super-Mare that will join the federation
when it opens in 2010.
There are, however, exceptions to this
geographic rule. Six of the eight ARK academies
are located in inner London (which it considers
to be important in terms of the support the
academies provide for each other) but there is
also now an ARK academy in Portsmouth and
one in Birmingham. Similarly, four Academy
Enterprise Trust (AET) academies are located in
Essex, and new academies that are relatively
close by are coming on stream in Suffolk
and Enfeld. However, AET is also expecting
to run academies in the London borough of
Richmond and the Isle of Wight, which will
result in the chain having 10 academies by
2011. As it expands, AET is planning to group its
academies in clusters as the basis for providing
management and support.
The seven academies sponsored by Edutrust
Academies Charitable Trust are dispersed across
the Midlands, Yorkshire and North London.
The 11 Oasis academies are situated around the
country, though signifcantly most of them are
in pairs that are near to each other, providing a
basis for mutual learning and support. The 17
academies of the largest academy sponsor,
the United Learning Trust, are also fairly
scattered though they fall into around 5
geographic clusters.
Central resources and systems: ?
Just about every chain is organising some of its
functions centrally, ie across the chain. As Case
study 8 illustrates, the functions that are most
commonly provided centrally are executive
leadership (and associated support), human
resources, fnancial management (including
invoicing, payments and payroll systems)
and ICT. Premises management is sometimes
organised centrally and sometimes by each
academy individually.
Copyright © 2010 National College 17
Examples of central functions
managed by chains of schools
Case study 8:
Chain Number
of staff
employed
centrally
Centrally organised functions Arrangements for funding central functions
Chain A
(5 schools)
5 executive principal ?
director of executive ?
services
director of human ?
resources (HR)
director of fnance ?
director of facilities ?
Each school contributes a modest charge to
cover the cost of central functions and
capacity-building support. As the family of
schools grows, it is expected to reduce this
charge to between 0.5% and 1% of
budgets. In addition, income is received for
the support provided for assisting schools in
special measures or national challenge.
Chain B
(4 schools)
6 chief executive ?
bursar who provides ?
fnancial and business
planning support across
the trust
vice-principal, who ?
leads work on a funded
programme of school-to-
school improvement
network manager and ?
two technicians employed
centrally to oversee the
ICT function
There are three sources of funding:
payments from schools for centrally ?
provided services such as ICT
payments from external bodies for ?
services, eg SSAT
fees from local authorities, schools ?
and DCSF for providing support for
underperforming schools
Chain C
(4 schools)
6.8 executive principal and ?
part of the salaries of two
assistant principals
fnance and procurement ?
HR ?
marketing and public ?
relations
one team assistant/ ?
personal assistant
Each academy contributes £95 per student
to the central running costs, yielding
around £250,000 in total (about 1% or
less of income). This is matched by income
from consultancy, software sales and local
authority contracts for school improvement
support. The chain also carries out a large
part of its own project management on
planning new academies, which brings in
additional income.
Copyright © 2010 National College 18
Chain Number
of staff
employed
centrally
Centrally organised functions Arrangements for funding
central functions
Chain D
(9 schools)
15 approx chief executive and personal assistant ?
director of fnance and operational ?
development (including site
maintenance)
director of projects ?
ICT director and supporting ICT and ?
fnance staff
small team of subject specialists and ?
project managers
The central offce also deals with HR ?
and pay roll, including negotiation with
the unions.
A charge is made on each
academy’s budget.
Chain E
(8 schools)
40 approx HR and performance management ?
of staff
centrally procured and managed ?
ICT systems
fnance (invoicing, payroll and accounts ?
management)
project management of new ?
academies,
education services, including ?
negotiating improvement targets with
academies, data and performance
management, internal inspection of
schools, brokering support (particularly
in relation to maths and, literacy
and assessment) and challenging
underperformance
Income includes:
fees from DCSF for costs of ?
setting up an academy
fees charged to academies ?
of just under 5% of total
government funding, which
is about half the amount that
would be retained by the
local authority in relation to a
community school
subsidies from the sponsor’s ?
charitable trust, though
the long-term objective is
for central functions to be
fnancially self-suffcient
Copyright © 2010 National College 19
All the secondary chains interviewed for this
project said that having common IT systems was
essential for the effective operation of the chain,
though some were constrained by existing PFI
contracts from putting this into practice. One chain
even considered the issue so important that it had
stripped out the PFI ICT systems it had inherited
and paid to have its own ft-for-purpose systems
installed throughout schools when they joined
the chain.
The number of staff centrally employed by chains is
generally quite small, though comparisons between
chains need to be treated with caution as the
chains are of different sizes and at different stages
of development. In the case of the chain with
the largest number of staff, the numbers refect
a different approach to providing improvement
support: it is more chain- than school-based.
Funding for central functions comes from two main
sources: charges on schools in the chain and income
generated from improvement support services
provided to schools outside the chain, either under
contract or bought in. In one case, a sponsor is
contributing to the central costs but this is not
considered to be a long-term arrangement.
? Strong quality-assurance arrangements:
Systematic and intelligent use of data is an
essential element in the life of most secondary
schools. School chains have similarly put in place
information systems to track performance on
both a whole-school and pupil-level basis. They
understand the importance of timely data both
for enhancing performance and protecting what
a brand stands for.
Systematic monitoring and intervention forms ?
strand 4 of the Outwood model (Case study 4)
and was a key aspect of the Harris Federation’s
work with Merton Academy described above.
Similarly, the Kemnal Trust’s ICT systems support
registration seven times a day, online school
reports, timetabling, behaviour records and
homework management. All this is available
to staff, pupils and parents on a 24–7 basis.
In addition, the progress of every student is
monitored against demanding targets across
all key stages. The data is available to be
interrogated in real time by the trust leadership
and is monitored on a weekly basis and again
parents can access this information at any time.
The teaching and learning practices needed to
deliver demanding improvement targets are
subject to rigorous quality assurance, linked
to performance management and continual
professional development.
As well as having central ICT data management ?
systems, the ARK Schools director of education
leads a team that inspects all its schools so that
it has an external view and assessment of how
they are performing.
The executive principal of the Cabot Learning ?
Federation sees it as part of his role to
observe lessons with colleagues from the
senior leadership team (SLT) to moderate the
judgements they are making about teaching
and learning. He attends one SLT meeting in
each academy every month to give feedback
to colleagues on the federation and to keep up
to date with developments. He also manages
the federation’s key performance indicators,
using data provided by the academy leadership
teams and, in conjunction with his chair, leads
the performance management of the academy
principals. The executive principal also leads
reviews of core areas of development such
as the quality of sixth form provision or the
progress being made in English and maths across
the academies.
Effective and clear corporate governance: ?
In general, the chains interviewed for this
project had clearly defned corporate governance
arrangements that reserve central accountability
for a parent board, balanced with maintaining
autonomy for individual institutions. In most
cases the overarching corporate board reserves
the right to nominate the majority of governors
to the governing body of each institution within
the chain.
Copyright © 2010 National College 20
Figure 1 shows the governance structure for the
Cabot Learning Federation and the membership
of the individual academy councils and the overall
federation board. Underpinning the membership
arrangements is a formal memorandum that
describes the roles and accountabilities of the
Figure 1: Governance of the
Cabot Learning Federation
board and the councils in respect of strategic
responsibilities, governance, fnance and asset
management, staffng, communications, monitoring
and evaluation, students, curriculum, teaching and
learning and communities.
Source: Cabot Learning Federation (adapted)
Student parliament – Advisory education panel – Parent and community group – Staff voice group
Cabot Learning Federation Board
Three sponsor representatives from Rolls Royce ?
Three sponsor representatives from the University ?
of West of England (UWE)
One elected parent academy councillor ?
Three chairs of the academy Councils ?
Executive principal ?
Federation strategic leadership team
– Executive principal
– Academy principals
Federation hubs
– Personalised learning and innovation
– Leadership and succession planning
– Student development and
– community liaison
– Primary school partnership
John Cabot
Academy Council
Bristol Brunel
Academy Council
Bristol Metropolitan
Academy Council
Membership of academy councils
Six local representatives:
principal ?
two elected parent councillors ?
one elected teacher councillor ?
one elected support staff councillor ?
one local authority councillor ?
Seven sponsor representatives
executive principal ?
one adult students advocate ?
fve Rolls Royce/UWE nominees ?
who know the community well
and have the right skills
Copyright © 2010 National College 21
The link between the main corporate board and
that of individual institutions is normally secured
by having the chairs of each school in the chain
take a seat on the main board and/or by the
executive head/principal and chair of the main
board sitting on both the main board and board
of individual schools.
The corporate board, and in particular the chair of
the board, also play a key role in most chains in
reviewing the performance of the executive head/
principal and in setting their salary.
All of the academy chains and nearly all of the
chains that are growing out school improvement
contracts have external sponsors or people with
commercial or academic expertise on their boards.
This is hugely valued and is seen as bringing greater
rigour, challenge and innovative thinking to the
work of the chain.
The Cabot model includes a local authority
representative on each academy council, illustrative
of how some chains chose to work with local
agencies. Doncaster Metropolitan Council, for
example, is a co-sponsor of the Outwood
Academy, Adwick.
The chains that were interviewed also placed great
emphasis on identifying and securing able and
appropriate local representatives to contribute to
the governing bodies of the individual schools or
academies. They recognised the importance of
the local context but were also determined to fnd
people of the right calibre and the experience for
these positions.
The formal accountability and governance of chains
is in most chains complemented by an executive
group that leads and manages the whole chain. In
the Cabot model it is called the federation strategic
leadership team. It is composed of the executive
principal and the academy principals and its role is to:
agree common goals and shared practice across ?
the academies
identify areas of focus where support and help ?
from another academy could be of use
check the alignment of the federation vision ?
with that of the academies
monitor and quality-assure the performance ?
of students across the federation
The Harris Federation has a principals’ executive
group, chaired by the chief executive offcer (CEO)
that meets half-termly and reports directly to the
Harris Federation Board through the CEO.
Copyright © 2010 National College 22
Section 3: The benefts and
potential benefts of chains
Not all the schools that are promoted by the same
sponsor or share the same overall governance meet
the criteria for being chains in the full sense of that
term and as defned in section 2. But where chains
are truly chains, they are contributing to real and
defned benefts to the education system in England.
The chain phenomenon is helping to address some
of the systemic challenges that the school system
has wrestled with for generations.
Sustaining educational
improvement in challenging schools
We already know that a strong school, with good
systems and a clear model of school improvement,
can, if it is moored alongside an underperforming
school, be a very if not the most effective way of
addressing its problems (Potter, 2004; DfES, 2005;
Hill, 2008; Hill & Matthews, 2008). This concept
lies at the heart of NLEs and NSSs. Structured
partnerships of this kind have a good track record
in helping to lead struggling and weak schools out
of special measures rapidly and bringing about a
signifcant improvement in results. The Kemnal Trust
example (Case study 1) is one of many examples
that could be cited.
The challenge has been to sustain schools as
they emerge from an Ofsted category or other
challenging circumstances, take their performance
and development to the next level and ensure
that high achievement is, as it were, embedded in
their DNA. Too often, as tended to be the case with
schools that were part of Fresh Start, institutions slip
back after an initial burst of improvement.
Becoming part of a school chain is not the only
solution but, provided it follows the model described
in section 2, it does offer a structural framework for
enabling improving schools to continue to progress.
It is not just that this model provides an ongoing
source of leadership, teaching and curriculum
support and development – though that in itself is
signifcant. It is also because integration within a
chain embeds on a permanent basis the aspirations,
expectations, systems, standards and accountability
associated with the success of one or a group of
schools (see Case study 9).
There is, however, one caveat. A chain and, as they
expand, each sub-cluster should have at least one
school that has performed highly over a sustained
period at the heart of its operation if it is to deliver
this mission. A chain where all the schools are still
en route to achieving high attainment, as some
of the academy chains still are, may not be in the
position to take on a struggling school. The effort
in taking an underperforming but improving school
may divert resources and effort away from more
immediate priorities. The accreditation criteria for
both accredited school providers and accredited
school groups (DCSF, 2009b) guards against this risk
by putting an appropriate emphasis on a sustained
track record of achievement.
Copyright © 2010 National College 23
Providing a new model
of governance
For a long time, many headteachers have been
concerned about the governance of schools. They
generally acknowledge the dedication and time that
governors give to their institution. A good number
of headteachers will also readily accept that they
are fortunate enough to have an able chair who
brings a wealth of expertise and experience to the
work. Others describe how some of their governors
add real value. But overall the school governance
system often seems to deliver less than the sum of
its parts with too much of the work of governing
bodies bound up in committees, papers and
procedures.
The introduction of trusts and academies and, to an
extent, federations, is effectively inventing a new
form of school governance. A clearer distinction
is being made between strategic direction and
oversight and more operational accountability,
with the former being exercised at chain level and
the latter at school level. On the whole, governing
bodies are smaller and more focused and they
are bringing in new sources of expertise from the
business, academic, faith and charitable sectors.
The net effect, as section 2 highlighted and the
experience of the Harris Federation shows, is a
sharper and more driven form of accountability
(In Case study 10, Dan Moynihan, CEO of the Harris
Federation, explains this in more detail.)
The commercial sector’s preoccupation with
bottom-line performance is rubbing off when
applied to schools. The involvement of higher
education is helping to bring rigour to the
evaluation of teaching and learning models and
interventions. Faith- and charitable foundation-
based chains are bringing an enhanced sense of
moral purpose to educational governance.
Sustaining improvement
at Haberdashers’ Aske’s
Knights Academy
Knights Academy came into being in its current
form in September 2005. Since then the academy
has made and sustained huge progress moving
from 9 per cent of students achieving 5 or more
GCSEs at grades A*–C in 2005 to 64 per cent in
2009. In addition, although it recognises that
further progress is still needed, 35 per cent of
students gained 5 or more GCSEs at grades
A*–C, including mathematics and English. In
2008 Ofsted assessed the academy as ‘good’
and improving rapidly.
The academy is the frst to acknowledge
that these achievements have been gained
and sustained through being part of the
Haberdashers’ Aske’s Federation – Knights shares
a chief executive, board of governors and sixth
form provision with nearby Haberdashers’ Aske’s
Hatcham College. Knight’s principal says:
Case study 9:
We draw on the support and expertise
of Hatcham College, and the vision
and ethos of the Haberdashers’ Aske’s
Federation.
The federation has now added a third
school to its chain with the opening in
September 2009 of a 3–18 academy in
Crayford in the London borough of Bexley.
Source: Haberdashers’ Aske’s Federation
(www.hahc.org.uk)
Copyright © 2010 National College 24
Not all academies are part of a chain but of 21
academies that formed part of the academy
evaluation programme, the quality of governance,
as assessed in Ofsted inspections, was found to
be outstanding or good in all but one of them
(PricewaterhouseCoopers, 2008).
Training a new generation
of school leaders
At the present time, 3 out of 5 headteachers are
aged over 50 and over a quarter are over 55. The
ensuing retirement bulge is not expected to work its
way through the system until 2015 (Pattison, 2009).
The school system faces a big challenge in recruiting
suffcient leaders, particularly as it has until now
typically taken up to 20 years for a teacher to
progress from the classroom to headship.
It is not just the quantity of headteachers that
need to be trained and recruited that is an issue.
Headship is becoming more demanding and
complex. It is requiring increased skills in strategic
and change management as society, the economy
and education policy constantly evolve. Partnership
working between schools, which continues to
grow, involves new ways of working, particularly in
terms of relating to other leaders and institutions.
The National Professional Qualifcation for
Headship (NPQH), now a requirement for all new
headteachers or principals, has been reviewed to
refect these new demands.
School partnerships provide a good context for
supporting and developing aspiring and middle
leaders. They enable emerging leaders to observe
the style of leadership of leaders from institutions
other than their own. They often have the
opportunity to take on new responsibilities either in
another school or across a partnership. There may
well be joint leadership training with colleagues
from other schools.
As section 2 illustrated, chains build on this
approach, align it with their teaching and learning
model and systematically use the chain to grow,
nurture and deploy new leaders. The Harris
Federation, for example, has its own MA programme
which is focused on school improvement and is
designed to help teachers of all levels progress to
leadership and management roles.
Staff in the AET academies who are working
towards promotion or who are identifed through
a talent management programme are offered two
leadership routes – one to become a leader of
Governance of the
Harris Federation
Case study 10:
The governing body comprises a range
of people representing the community
as well as business people who bring
a sharper accountability than might
normally be the case in the state sector.
A key difference with other schools
is that sponsors are not constrained
by thinking inside the standard
‘educational box’. For the sponsor, there
are never problems or excuses that
prevent things from happening, just
situations which need solutions. It is this
absolute expectation of success which
makes the difference.
Moynihan, 2008:15
Copyright © 2010 National College 25
pedagogy and the other to enable them to develop
as leaders of organisations. These routes are linked
by a set of common development opportunities
covering access to Master’s qualifcations, in-house
middle leadership programmes, opportunities
for action-based research and shared leadership
activities. A coaching programme supports
participants, enabling them to develop their
expertise and, if required, change routes mid-fow.
Schools in a chain are also able to shorten the
period of development by investing in the training
of emerging leaders and being able to move them
around the chain. A head of department or an
assistant principal does not have to apply for a
new post in a new school, bed themselves in and
work their passage before applying for the next
promotion. They can, as with the Outwood model,
simply apply for an assignment post that will move
them round the chain’s schools in different roles.
In many ways it might be described as a more
apprenticeship-based approach to growing school
leaders – a development that will have implications
for the National College as it plans the future of
leadership development training and support.
Chains are creating what one executive principal
describes as an internal employment market that
is providing a ladder of opportunity within a chain
for aspiring leaders. Of more signifcance for the
maintained school sector as a whole is that the
chains are providing a resource that addresses the
vexed issue of succession planning. Effectively they
are helping to build what is often referred to as
system leadership.
Several chains are being encouraged in their
leadership development role by bidding successfully
for additional resources to develop leadership
capacity. This is enabling them to offer leadership
development support to a much wider group of
schools and potential leaders (see Case study 11).
Future leaders
Case study 11:
ARK Schools partnered with the National
College and the Specialist Schools and
Academies Trust to establish Future
Leaders, a programme that aims
to develop the next generation of
headteachers for secondary schools
that are in challenging circumstances.
It offers a four-year leadership
development programme for current
and former teachers. ARK also provided
signifcant funding, especially in the
start-up phase.
After a year-long apprenticeship under
a successful urban head, participants
receive cutting-edge UK- and US-
based training, along with coaching
and mentoring from education and
business leaders, to help them gain a
senior leadership role after 12 months.
The goal is for them to be working
towards headship within four years. The
programme recruits participants and
training schools for London, north-west
England and the West Midlands on a
rolling basis throughout the year.
Source: Ark Schools (www.arkonline.org)
Copyright © 2010 National College 26
Creating an economy of scale
Schools in England have seen their budgets rise in
real terms (ie, after taking account of infation) by
more than half since 1997 and, given that there are
fewer pupils, by 65 per cent in terms of spending
per pupil (Audit Commission, 2009). However, the
fnancial outlook is, to use the Audit Commission’s
term, ‘more austere’.
DCSF is expecting schools to contribute £3.7 billion
of cash-releasing effciency savings from 2008/09
to 2010/11. As part of this, a 1 per cent effciency
saving, worth £307 million, has been incorporated
into school funding for the period from 2008/09
to 2010/11. Beyond 2010/11, the government
has said it will increase schools’ budgets by 0.7
per cent in real terms – far lower than in recent
years – and schools will also have to generate
further effciencies and pay for increases in national
insurance (NI) contributions and salaries from within
this total.
The introduction of local management of schools
and the increased autonomy of schools fostered
by successive governments have liberated the
leadership of many schools and enabled them
to be more creative and innovative in using
their resources. But decentralisation of fnancial
management has also brought some diseconomy
of scale.
It is not cost-effective for each and every school to
purchase its own ICT licences or organise its own
ICT procurement. Although many schools buy in
some services such as HR and legal services from
their local authorities, many take responsibility for
their own premises management, administration
and procurement. There is great variation between
schools’ spending on standard items, suggesting
that there is scope for large savings. For example,
the Audit Commission has stated that £400 million
could be saved by better procurement alone (Audit
Commission, 2009).
School chains point to a sensible way of organising
school fnances. Chains can afford to employ fully
qualifed and experienced fnancial and business
managers and can make savings in back offce
administration by pooling resources and using
standard systems across the chain. The chain also
provides a better and more economically viable
basis for business planning, the organisation of
procurement and maintenance of premises:
This approach has been reinforced by the Audit
Commission, which reports that:
By managing our ICT, fnances, human
resources and site maintenance from one
central location our costs are reduced. This
also means that individual academies can
spend more time focussing on education
and improving standards.
www.harrisfederation.org.uk
The secondary school example (in
our Managing School Resources tool)
demonstrates how, by employing an
executive principal and administrative
staff across two schools and having single
department heads, the management and
administrative costs for one school have
reduced from £633,000 to £447,000, a
reduction of nearly 30 per cent. This is
approximately 6 per cent of the school’s £3
million total annual revenue expenditure.
Audit Commission, 2009:38
Copyright © 2010 National College 27
One needs to beware of generalising from individual
examples, and partnerships or mergers between
schools are unlikely to be effective if they are
undertaken primarily for fnancial reasons. However,
it would be odd if chains were not able to take
advantage of their economies of scale.
Chains are also beginning to look at their business
model for delivering the curriculum and are starting
to identify ways of managing their resources more
effectively by, for example, sharing specialist posts
across the chain, establishing joint sixth forms and
rationalising the use of support staff.
In some cases, chains are using their teaching
and learning model as the basis for establishing
a benchmark unit cost for teaching a particular
module or programme because they know from
the lead school what it costs to apply the model
effectively and successfully. They are then using
these unit costs as a point of comparison when
they incorporate another school into the chain
(see Case study 12).
In short, organised clusters or groups of schools are
much more likely to provide an economy of scale
that will enable schools and academies to weather
a period of fnancial stringency.
Maintaining a sense of
perspective
Claiming these benefts for chains does not mean
that they should be considered a magic bullet to
deal with all the ills of the school system. Section
4 raises a series of questions that need to be
considered and addressed as the concept of chains
of schools is developed and extended.
Applying the model has helped to take
out costs without prejudicing standards
or attainment. For example, at X school
over £500,000 has been saved but
the proportion of students gaining 5
or more A*–Cs (including English and
maths) has risen from 34 to 64 per cent
in 6 months. The curriculum bonus that
accrues from this approach is ploughed
back into the school through, for
example, extra investment in ICT and
other services.
Source: Interview with
anonymous executive principal
Using an effective teaching
and learning model to
rationalise costs
Case study 12:
Copyright © 2010 National College 28
Section 4: Issues and
challenges for chains
The development of chains of schools is still a
relatively new phenomenon in the education
system. Accreditation is only just being introduced.
It is not surprising, therefore, that there are issues
and challenges to be resolved. This section describes
seven questions that need to be considered and
addressed by the education community, school
leaders, policymakers and government ministers in
relation to the development of chains.
1. Is there an optimum size
for chains?
None of the representatives of the chains that were
interviewed for this study felt that their chain had
reached its optimum size. In part, they wished to
continue to expand as part of fulflling what they
saw as their educational mission but they also
wanted a larger operating base so as to generate a
suffcient economy of scale for their central support
functions.
There was, however, recognition that there might
in certain circumstances be a diseconomy of scale
if a chain became too big. For example, there were
thought to be limits on the span of control that
one executive principal could reasonably exercise,
particularly if s/he saw it as part of his/her role to
provide mentoring support and challenge to school
and/or academy principals.
There was no consensus on what an upper limit for
a chain might be, though somewhere between 8
and 15 schools/academies was the most common
suggestion. One chain has aspirations to have
nearer to 20 schools in its family. However, in
discussions, another organisational model began
to emerge. It was suggested that the larger the
chain, the more likely it would be to spawn either
separate geographical clusters or sub-chains;
indeed, there is already evidence that this is starting
to happen. Thus an overall chain might have a
number of geographical clusters or sub-chains
overseen by local executive principals reporting to
a main board. The model was likened by one chief
executive to the business model developed by
the chain’s sponsor, ie very lean at the centre and
using regional managers to oversee operations on a
geographical basis.
This thinking was prompted by an acceptance that
geographic proximity was important for facilitating
mutual support and learning across a chain. In this
regard, it will be interesting to track and compare
the performance of chains that are geographically
concentrated and/or use geographical clusters with
those that are, or become, more geographically
dispersed as they expand and develop.
2. Is the process by which chains
acquire schools suffciently
transparent?
Chains have to date grown in fve main ways:
Schools have formed and expanded their own ?
federations and trusts.
Schools have been awarded local authority ?
contracts to turn round underperforming schools
(often drawing on NLE accreditation).
Schools have won competitions run by local ?
authorities for establishing new schools.
Schools have been accepted as lead partners in ?
forming national challenge trusts or federations.
Academies have been awarded a new academy ?
franchise. The process for this has become more
transparent in recent years.
Figure 2 summarises how the accreditation process
proposed by the government in October 2009
would work. The frst three routes described above
would not require chains to be accredited in order
to increase the number of schools in their chain.
However, the introduction of the accreditation
system might well mean that local authorities will
in future expect promoters of new schools and
schools undertaking general improvement support
work on their behalf to be accredited.
Copyright © 2010 National College 29
Accreditation would, however, be required if a
school wanted to be a lead partner in a majority
(national challenge) trust or federation, or if one
academy wanted to take on another academy.
In a further signifcant change, DCSF proposed in the
October 2009 consultation (DCSF, 2009b) a more
systematic and open approach to selecting sponsors
for new academies. All accredited school providers
and groups in a region would be able to attend a
briefng and submit a bid. The bids would then be
shortlisted and a contract awarded after a ‘brief
presentation and a discussion with a local authority
and DCSF panel’.
Figure 2: Operation of
accreditation system, as
announced in February 2010
* Both accredited school providers and accredited schools groups could take on willing partners, enter into federations, enter
and win school competitions and accept other local authority contracts (other than national challenge trusts/federations)
without requiring accreditation.
Is there enough transparency?
Accredited school provider*
Educational institution, academy sponsor, ?
church or faith group, educational consultancy,
other educational providers or private and third
sector organisations
Wanting to support up to one or two other schools ?
Eligible to run majority (national ?
challenge) trust or federation
Able to gain sponsorship of ?
new academy through
‘competetive’ process
Accredited schools group*
Educational organisations directly responsible ?
for the leadership and governance of two or more
academies or schools in majority trusts or federations
Wanting to support three or more schools ?
Eligible to run majority (national ?
challenge) trust or federation
Able to gain sponsorship of ?
new academies through
‘competetive’ process
Accreditation threshold
Initial
school
Another
school
Another
school
Another
school
Another
school
Another
school
Another
school
Copyright © 2010 National College 30
As more commercial enterprises become involved
in school chains as co-sponsors, the process of
selecting school providers and groups for specifc
academy projects may well be open to legal
challenge if it is not perceived to be fair and above
board. However, the proposals described above for
selecting new academies would, if implemented,
be more transparent than anything that has gone
before.
The same cannot be said, however, in relation to
identifying lead partners for majority trusts and
federations. Local authorities must follow statutory
guidance and school reorganisation procedures for
establishing national challenge trusts/federations
(including, depending on the structural solution
chosen, a period of consultation). They must also
consult with DCSF. But there are no set criteria, rules
or procedures for them to follow in deciding which
accredited school provider or group to select to
partner the underperforming school.
DCSF sees local authorities as exercising a
commissioning function in this situation but has
not to date provided guidance on how to exercise
this role transparently and fairly, given that in
any area there could be a number of accredited
school providers or groups that could undertake the
support function. Indeed, where a local authority
chooses to close a weak school and reopen it as
a national challenge trust, this may result in less
rather than more transparency as authorities can
ask the secretary of state for exemption from the
requirement to hold a competition for a new school:
It is understandable that the government wishes to
see rapid action where schools are underperforming.
However, all actions should be consistent with
UK and EU competition requirements: sums of up
to £750,000 can be allocated to a school that is
selected to partner a weak school. Becoming a
majority trust or federation entails a permanent
arrangement that brings control over a substantially
larger amount of public funding.
It is signifcant that the Department of Health, for
example, has recognised the need to introduce
transparency criteria as a diverse range of suppliers
become more involved in providing health services.
It has introduced new rules on competition and
collaboration that conform with EU requirements
(Department of Health, 2007). It has also
established an independent panel to oversee the
operation of this new system. DCSF might well fnd
that it is necessary to adopt a similar approach.
3. Is the basis for funding
chains fair?
One of the by-products of the current school funding
system is that academies in chains are inadvertently
at an advantage compared with other state schools
involved in chains.
The government’s policy is to fund academies on
a comparable basis to other schools in their areas
with similar characteristics. Each academy receives
a general annual grant from the secretary of state
to meet its normal running costs. This is calculated
on the basis of the funding formula of the local
authority in which it is situated, with an additional
allowance for the money that local authorities hold
back from maintained schools. Academy chains
effectively draw on this additional allowance when
they make a charge on academies for the central
services and functions that they provide.
Where a [national challenge trust] solution
has been brokered and a strong school
partner and possibly other strong external
partners identifed there would be little
beneft in requiring a competition and it
would delay the process.
DCSF, 2008:20
Copyright © 2010 National College 31
Schools in non-academy chains still have to pay a
central charge to their local authority in the form of
a sum held back by the authority which is agreed
following consultation with the local schools’ forum,
even though they may not be using the services
provided by the local authority. In reality, these
schools may well be drawing on the central services
provided by a chain but any charge that is made for
the services has to be paid in addition to the local
authority deduction.
Short of moving to funding all schools directly on a
per capita basis, there may be no easy answer to
this dilemma, though should accredited schools that
currently do not have academy status be offered the
chance to acquire it, then it seems likely that many
of them will take the opportunity to do so. It may
be that the current school funding review is able to
provide another solution to this problem.
Whatever the means of funding central services for
chains, the arrangements should form part of the
national framework for consistent fnancial reporting
of spending by schools and local authorities. This
will ensure that there is transparency about the
fnancial management of school chains in an
area that for many years bedevilled relationships
between local authorities and schools.
4. Do all school chains have a
sustainable education and
business model?
The risks to the sustainability of emergent school
chains come from several sources. First, some
chains are expanding quite fast. They will need to
ensure they have suffcient management support
and expertise to sustain their growth and meet
their commitments. They are, after all, taking on
some of the toughest educational assignments in
the country. It takes years to build up a reputation
but it only needs one project to go wrong for the
whole brand and chain to become discredited. This
risk is all the greater because of the way in which
chains expand. In the commercial world, businesses
generally do not grow by taking over failing
organisations but that is largely how school chains
are expanding.
The business guru, Jim Collins, has recently written
about the ‘undiscipline of more’ (Collins, 2009). He
cautions against confusing growth with excellence
and advises that you can only grow as fast as you
can attract or develop the right people, a lesson
that is surely applicable to school chains. Those
leading school chains need to ensure that they have
within their chain a suffcient number of high-
performing schools and school leaders to support
the assignments and growth they are taking on.
Investing in the right level of leadership and support
in turn raises issues about a chain’s business model.
Providing that support requires investment and
some chains are getting themselves in the position
where they are effectively in hock to their next
school improvement contract, meaning they need
the work to sustain their central infrastructure.
That is fne all the time they are winning school
improvement business, but as the market becomes
more crowded and funding gets tighter, they
will need to ensure that their business model is
sustainable. This is where the expertise of business
sponsors and commercial organisations that might
be involved with chains as co-sponsors could prove
very valuable.
The third risk relates to sustaining the educational
performance of chains. There has been some
remarkable progress and turnaround in schools
taken on by chains but not every school in every
chain is yet performing at the level that it should
be, nor achieving all that the chain and the schools
themselves aspire to. Already we have seen DCSF
advise local authorities that the United Learning
Trust will not be taking on any further academies
until it resolves some of the problems with the very
challenging schools it has taken on (BBC, 2009).
Copyright © 2010 National College 32
The draft accreditation criteria mean that providers
and groups can lose their accreditation if, for
example:
performance falls, to the extent that a chain ?
would not meet the criteria for accreditation if it
were to apply again
there is no improvement in the performance of ?
the school being supported
So there will be no room for complacency – chains
will need to stay on top of their game to maintain
their status.
5. Will schools in chains still be
committed to working with
other local schools?
As we argued in section 4, chains of schools are
bringing signifcant gains to the school system. But
they are not the only form of school partnership
that is valuable. More informal, though rigorous,
partnerships focused on providing mutual curriculum
support are also effective and have impact. Sports
school partnerships have, for example, helped
schools to improve the quality and supply of
physical education and the range of sports young
people can take up (Loughborough Partnership,
2008; Ofsted, 2006). The Leading Edge programme
has been effective in providing curriculum support
at Key Stages 3 and 4 (Hill, 2009), and many
schools, whether through soft or hard federations or
partnerships, are providing mutual support.
There is of course room for both vertical
partnerships (ie, schools working together in a
chain) and horizontal partnerships (ie, schools
working together in a locality) and some schools
in chains are successfully combining both
elements. The tracking surveys used to evaluate
the academies programme – that monitor both
academies in chains and those that are not – shows
that over half of staff (55 per cent) supported
local schools through the sharing of expertise and
resources, an increase on the 45 per cent recorded
in 2003/04 (PricewaterhouseCoopers, 2008).
It will, for example, be important for schools in
chains to play a full role in 14–19 consortia so
that their students can beneft from the increased
choice that having an area-wide 14–19 curriculum
can bring. Sixth-form provision and independent
information and advice for students may also often
be best organised on a cross-school locality basis.
It is therefore worrying that in some areas, school
leaders report that schools that are part of chains
are choosing not to work with other local schools.
Schools in chains need to commit to being part of
a wider community of schools. The Outwood chain,
for example, has adopted the principle that it will
not adopt policies or practices that are detrimental
to any young person or school in a neighbouring
community. Another chain that was interviewed
explained that the extent of joint working with
other schools sometimes depended on the stability
of the schools in its chain. If a school were in a
period where it was trying to stabilise performance,
tackle poor behaviour and attendance and generally
bring order to its systems, it might well effectively
opt out of local collaboration for a time. But those
schools in the chain that were in a much stronger
position would generally be expected to play a
leading role in local behaviour partnerships.
Combining the dual commitment to a chain and
to other local institutions will not always be easy,
particularly when it comes to issues relating to
behaviour and hard-to-place pupils. The policy
of a chain on exclusions or admissions could, for
example, put it at odds with the policies being
pursued by other schools in the area. Some of the
tension might be eased now that funding for pupils
excluded from academies has to follow the pupil
and is not retained by academies.
The context for managing this tension will also
change as the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children
and Learning Act 2009 (HM Government, 2009)
takes effect. This makes it a statutory requirement
that schools enter into behaviour and attendance
partnerships with other schools in their local authority
area. Chains will need to discuss and work with their
schools on how to handle this new obligation.
Copyright © 2010 National College 33
6. Is the accountability system for
school chains ft for purpose?
The current accountability framework for schools is
focused on individual schools. Performance tables
assess the performance of each school separately.
The new school report card that is being planned
will have a similar focus, though the government
is committed to consulting on how partnership
can be refected in it (DCSF, 2009c). Maintaining
institutional accountability is clearly essential but
as chains play a bigger part in the school system,
further thought needs to be given to their overall
accountability.
One option, as has been introduced for sixth-form
consortia, would be to report the performance of
chains as well as of individual institutions.
Another option would be to rely on the accreditation
process, including the procedures for removing
accreditation for underperforming chains and
schools. However, the draft criteria only seemed to
focus on the performance of the lead school and a
particular school being supported rather than the
performance of the chain as a whole.
In September 2009, Ofsted introduced revised
inspection arrangements that assess, as part
of reviewing the quality of leadership and
management, a school’s involvement in partnership
working. Inspectors report on the extent and
effectiveness of a ‘school’s partnership activity
with other providers, organisations and services to
promote learning and well-being for its own pupils
and those of its partners’ (Ofsted, 2009a; revised
January 2010). In addition, all schools in a hard
federation or sharing ‘important aspects of their
provision’ are inspected at the same time (Ofsted,
2009a; revised January 2010).
However, it is unclear how these provisions will
apply to schools that are part of the same trust or
chain and whether Ofsted has suffcient capacity to
inspect all schools simultaneously as chains grow
well into double fgures.
Perhaps more signifcant is that the inspection
regime has not yet got to grips with what a
school is responsible for and what the central
organisation of a chain (which might well act as the
accountable governing body or appoint the majority
of governors) is accountable for. Nor is the extent
to which Ofsted inspections understand or have
a remit to look at and comment on the role of an
executive principal or CEO entirely clear.
Another aspect of the debate relates to the
accountability of chains to local people. The
establishment of academies and trusts has moved
the governance of schools away from a stakeholder
model, based on groups such as parents, the local
authority, the community, and staff having places
on the governing body. In its stead we now have
a corporate sector model. There are still places as
of right for parents but the governing body has
become a board with governors acting as non-
executives and recruited for their expertise and
experience. It is similar to the changes that have
been made to the governance of hospital and
primary care trusts.
Critics argue that this development, which the
establishment of chains is entrenching, undermines
the local democratic accountability of schools.
They say that any concerns on how a school
conducts itself (unless its performance signifcantly
deteriorates) are now outside of the remit of the
local authority and that local elected representatives
are excluded from any oversight of a schooling
system which is an issue of major concern to local
people.
Advocates of chains counter that they work hard to
include parents and local representatives in their
governance arrangements, that they are part of
the same school accountability system as all other
maintained schools, that all schools are now subject
to the duty to co-operate with the local children’s
trust and that the sharpest accountability of all
comes in the form of how parents choose to apply
for schools.
Copyright © 2010 National College 34
One way that might help to square this circle would
be to consider whether the overview and scrutiny
committees of councils (which act in a similar way
to parliamentary select committees) might be
developed to look at the role and work of all schools
in their area, irrespective of who runs them. Many
overview and scrutiny committees, for example,
already receive reports on the establishment and
operation of academies. These committees are also
already used to examine the work of other agencies
such as the police and local health providers.
The intention would not be for them to infuence
the day-to-day running of chains, nor to have an
executive or governance role, but to review the
work of chains, alongside that of other local schools.
7. Are chains of schools doing
enough to share learning
between each other?
Many of the chains are being led by leaders who
have great vision and entrepreneurial energy and
ability. They have a strong belief in what they are
doing and the model they are implementing. The
education system can only but beneft from this
dynamism and commitment.
However, such is the degree of their zeal, that they
are failing to take advantage of sharing and learning
from other chains. The conviction that the particular
teaching and learning model they have developed is
right could inhibit their openness to learn from the
experience of others, particularly since some chains
are beginning to claim intellectual property rights
for their teaching and learning model. It would
be ironic if learning across an education system
were stifed rather than stimulated by the arrival of
chains. There could well be a role for the National
College to stimulate a learning community among
emerging chains.
It will also be important to build up this mutual
understanding because inevitably staff will want
to move between schools in different chains. The
commercial sector understands that collaboration of
this kind can help make an organisation more, not
less, competitive.
Copyright © 2010 National College 35
Section 5: What does this agenda
mean for primary schools?
The context
The last 15 years have seen a succession of
programmes rolling out of Whitehall aimed at
incentivising secondary schools to work together,
draw in external sponsors and develop school-
to-school improvement. Specialist status, 14–19
pathfnders, academies, the leadership incentive
grant, London challenge and national challenge
have all been programmes that have focused
mainly on the secondary sector. Any involvement
of primary schools has tended to come about
indirectly. Even where primary schools have been
written into the script, as they have with sports
school partnerships, this has tended to be as
recipients rather than as contributors.
Crucially, there have been few initiatives that have
promoted leadership of the primary sector by the
primary sector. Some of the education action zones,
Excellence in Cities clusters, behaviour improvement
partnerships and federation pilots have involved
groups of primary schools. The most positive
development of system leadership in the primary
sector has been the creation of 144 NLEs. But the
scale of what has been funded and supported is
small in relation to the total number of primary
schools.
Even with school chains, the primary sector was
not in the vanguard of policy developments. The
government’s proposals (DCSF, 2009b) did not apply
to primary schools, though some of the chains that
will almost certainly seek accreditation include
all-though 3–19 schools. The consultation paper
(DCSF, 2009b) noted that structural solutions such
as trusts and federations are used less frequently
for low-performing primary schools than they are
for secondary schools. It went on to argue that
these options should ‘be more readily considered
when looking at securing long-term improvements
for primary schools’ (DCSF, 2009: para 3.6.2)
since standalone primary academies are not a
proportionate or cost-effective response.
However, as part of its World Class Primary
Programme launched in December 2009 (DCSF,
2009c), the government announced a frm
commitment to an accredited schools group
programme for primary schools and to trialling
the concept in key local authority and City
Challenge areas.
A range of challenges
The relative lack of action thus far on promoting
primary schools to come together is all the more
surprising since they face a set of challenges that
are every bit as demanding, if not more so, than
those faced by the secondary sector. Some of these
challenges overlap with those of secondary schools
but in addition there are other issues that are
peculiar to the primary sector.
Performance
While performance in the secondary sector at Key
Stage 4 is progressing year-on-year, progress in
the primary sector, as measured by the proportion
of pupils achieving level 4 at Key Stage 2, has
plateaued. There is also a large tail of schools
struggling to reach standards achieved by the
majority of schools. In 2009 there were 1,472
primary schools where fewer than 55 per cent
of pupils achieved level 4 at Key Stage 2 in both
English and maths, an increase of over 100 since
2008 (DCSF & BIS, 2009).
In addition, although a relatively small proportion
(3 per cent) of primary schools were assessed
as ‘inadequate’ in 2008/09, in overall terms this
indicates that there could be several hundred such
schools across the country. Just under a third of
primary schools (equating to up to 6,000 schools
if the proportion were applied nationally) were
assessed as ‘satisfactory’ (Ofsted, 2009b).
Copyright © 2010 National College 36
Applications for and appointments
to headship
There is a continuing problem with securing
suffcient applications for headship posts in primary
schools. A recent study (Howson, 2009) reveals that:
primary headteacher vacancies averaged 4.8 ?
applications compared with 15.9 for
secondary sector
the number of applicants deemed suitable ?
to interview for headship posts averages 2.7
per vacancy
over a quarter of primary headships remain ?
unflled after advertisement
40 per cent of adverts by Roman Catholic schools ?
and 30 per cent of adverts by Church of England
schools were readvertisements
The gravity of this situation becomes all the more
apparent in the light of the retirement profle of
primary school leaders (see Figure 3). A 15–20 per
cent increase in the overall recruitment of leaders
is needed between the years leading up to 2012,
which is the peak retirement year.
Figure 3: Age and retirement
profle of primary school leaders
28,000
26,000
24,000
22,000
20,000
18,000
16,000
14,000
12,000
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
1999
Number of leaders age 50+
Number of leaders retiring
No. of leaders
age 50+
No. of leaders
retiring
2005 2009 2012 2016
3,500
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
Peak retirement
Note: The term ‘leaders’ includes headteachers, deputy headteachers and assistant heads
Source: DfES (based on Penstats data and McKinsey analysis)
Copyright © 2010 National College 37
The model of primary headship
The model of having a single headteacher
responsible for the leadership of each individual
primary school is struggling to cope with the current
demands of the post. As Figure 4 shows, many
primary headteachers are spending a considerable
number of hours each week teaching, even in many
medium-sized primary schools. The merit of this is
that it keeps their practitioner skills sharp and in
touch and involved with their pupils. But inevitably
it reduces the time they have for their leadership
role and tasks.
Figure 4: Hours taught by
primary school headteachers,
by size of school
As the National College has argued:
When the National College was asked to provide
advice to the secretary of state on primary
leadership (National College, 2007), it described
how primary headteachers are under increasing
pressure from an ‘unprecedented mix of high levels
of devolved responsibility, sharp accountability
structures, and radical changes in the way schools
interact with other services and their communities’
(National College, 2007:4). It cited the Every
Child Matters agenda and personalisation as two
examples of this. Since then, more challenges have
landed in the in-tray of primary headteachers: the
introduction of extended schools, the review of
the primary curriculum, the implementation of the
review of maths by Sir Peter Williams, the increase
from 12.5 to 15 hours in the early years education
entitlement for three and four year olds along with
the ability for parents to take the entitlement in a
more fexible form, a new statutory duty in relation
to social cohesion – and so on.
In addition to these pressures, there are also the
dual challenges of:
fuctuating pupil numbers – in some parts of the ?
country pupil numbers are going down while in
other parts of the country they are increasing as
the birth rate rises
public spending constraints – the smaller the ?
size of an organisational unit, the harder it is to
manage reductions in resources
In short, as the National College has so aptly put it,
primary headteachers have remodelled the primary
school workforce but have not yet remodelled their
own role.
Very small
Small
Medium
Large
0 50 100%
Headteachers teaching 0 hours per week
Headteachers teaching 1-6 hours per week
Headteachers teaching 6-16 hours per week
Headteachers teaching more than 16 hours per week
Source: National College 2008
Headteachers deal with too many operational
issues and administrative tasks. The small
size of many primary schools makes
distributed leadership diffcult, and the
system places a lot of expectations – and
many individual accountabilities – on the
single headteacher of the individual school.
National College, 2007:4
Copyright © 2010 National College 38
Small and rural schools
There is a particular challenge for very small
schools, which are normally but not exclusively
found in rural areas. A total of 1,400 schools have
fewer than 75 pupils and 4,239 have fewer than
150. Small schools are on a per-pupil basis funded
more generously than other schools and research
undertaken for the National College estimates that
this subsidy amounts to around £700 million per
year (Greany, 2009).
The same research indicates that despite the
additional funding, small schools have fewer
resources to spend on support staff with the result
that headteachers are increasingly stretched by
bureaucratic and managerial activity, and report
a negative effect on their work–life balance. Not
surprisingly, in the light of this headteachers of
small rural schools are fnding it increasingly
diffcult to fulfl their leadership and management
responsibilities and there is real diffculty in flling
headship vacancies when they arise (Todman et al,
2009).
Small schools also provide fewer opportunities for
pupils and staff to learn from peers.
A range of innovative responses
Although the primary sector has not had the same
level of institutional incentives as the secondary
sector to work in partnership or to develop
school-to-school improvement, it has nonetheless
generated a range of interesting responses and
innovative models of leadership and governance in
response to the challenges primary schools face. In
some instances, local authorities have been in the
lead, while in other cases it has been school leaders
and sometimes forward-thinking chairs of governors
that have been the catalyst for change. The models
include the following:
Management partnerships ? involve small
schools sharing a headteacher, who may be
referred to as an executive headteacher. This
approach tends to be used where one school
cannot recruit anyone suitable for a headship
post and so teams up with another local school
to share leadership capacity. Sometimes it is a
permanent arrangement but sometimes it is
temporary, en route to a longer term solution
such as federation. Norfolk has 18 management
partnerships of this type, which are supported by
the local authority through its funding formula.
The model was felt to be ‘a highly effective
response both to struggling rural schools and
to headteacher recruitment diffculties’ and has
helped to build leadership capacity (Todman et
al, 2009:23).
Business support partnerships ? typically take
the form of a group of primary schools coming
together to appoint a school business director or
a secondary school providing a range of business
services for its local feeder primary schools.
Wellacre Technology College in Manchester,
for example, provides business management
services to more than 20 local primaries
(covering fnancial support to 9 schools,
grounds maintenance to 11 and ICT consultancy
to 1), enabling primary headteachers to
delegate aspects of their work and so reduce
their workload. Two primary school business
managers work to a school business director
and the services provided include training for
other support staff in the primary schools and
audit and procurement support for ICT (ASCL,
2009). The scheme is one of 35 that has been
sponsored by the National College.
? Hard federations between two or more
primary schools are sometimes formed
in response to the problems of recruiting a
headteacher and sometimes in response to
the underperformance of a school and it being
placed in special measures or been given a
notice to improve by Ofsted (see Case study 13).
Copyright © 2010 National College 39
First Federation, Devon
Blackpool Primary School in Devon has 320 pupils
and in April 2009 was classifed as good with
outstanding features by Ofsted.
In 2004, a new chair of governors was appointed
whose background as a regional bank manager
with responsibility for a large number of branches
gave him a wider perspective on the education
system. In 2005, the governing body agreed to form
a federation, though at that stage it did not have a
particular partner school in mind.
In spring 2006, the local authority pointed Blackpool
to a school three miles away with 67 pupils
(Chudleigh Knighton) that had had 9 headteachers
in 6 years and had received a notice to improve.
Both schools had voluntary-controlled status and so
discussions with diocesan representatives were held
as part of moving to establish the First Federation in
September 2006.
The headteacher of Blackpool Primary became
executive headteacher, supported by a head of
teaching and learning in each school. This helped
to secure parental support, and heads of teaching
and learning have all the day-to-day contact with
parents.
The federation helped Chudleigh Knighton to
develop higher expectations of pupils, clear tracking
and progress monitoring systems, a stronger
application of assessment for learning and more
effective and consistent standards of teaching. In
partnership with Blackpool Primary, the head of
teaching and learning used classroom observation,
mentoring, coaching, shadowing and visits to other
schools as part of the improvement process. A single
special educational needs co-ordinator worked
across the two schools and applied the same
approach to lesson planning, assessment, classroom
display and the use of interactive whiteboards.
The executive headteacher coached and mentored
the heads of teaching and learning and inspected
the systems and structures and teaching and
learning to ensure progress was being made. New
staff are appointed on a federation contract and
around half of the staff are now on such a contract.
By June 2007, Chudleigh Knighton was assessed
overall by Ofsted as being good, and outstanding in
leadership and management. Inspectors commented:
This rapid improvement has occurred because
of the outstanding leadership and management
resulting from the federation with a nearby
primary school. The executive headteacher and
head of teaching and learning have brought
positive change to every aspect of the school.
The school now has 86 pupils and its contextual
valued-added score has increased from 96.6 to
101.3 since becoming part of the federation.
In November 2008, two further schools approached
the First Federation with a view to joining. One
was Lady Seawards Primary School 16 miles north
of Blackpool Primary, which has 70 pupils. The
school had had a longstanding problem recruiting a
headteacher on a substantive basis.
The other school to join the federation was a
voluntary-controlled school, Salcombe Primary, which
is 30 miles south and with 79 pupils and that had not
long emerged from having a notice to improve.
The new federation, which came into being in April
2009, used the same model of having heads of
teaching and learning under the direction of the
executive head.
The formation of a new federation required the
dissolution and reconstitution of governing body.
In autumn 2009, the federation began conversations
with two further schools that have expressed
an interest in becoming part of the federation.
The federation has also started investigating the
prospect of working in collaboration or forming a
school company with two larger primary schools
outside the federation that have specialist expertise.
This would enable the federation to continue to
work at raising standards across all the schools in
the federation while at the same time offering a
broader range of expertise, advice and intervention
in areas such as school improvement, addressing
the needs of challenging children, speech and
language and curriculum innovation.
Another area that is being explored with one of
Devon’s learning communities is the possibility of
forming a primary school federation of eight to nine
schools and working with the local secondary school
on improved transition arrangements and the Every
Child Matters agenda.
Source: Interview with executive headteacher
Case study 13:
Copyright © 2010 National College 40
? Hard clusters of primary schools bring together
all the primary schools in an area to support
each other on leadership and curriculum
development. This is done through a formal
structural relationship such as a federation or
education company (see Case study 14).
Secondary–primary hard federations ? in
which a secondary school provides leadership,
curriculum and business support to one or
more primary schools is a further model of
collaboration. Banbury Secondary School
and Dashwood Community Primary School
in Oxfordshire, which over the years had
collaborated on a range of issues, are one
recent example of this (see Case study 15).
Gloucester Council divides the county into seven
areas for the purposes of working with its schools.
One of these areas covers Gloucester City. The 39
primary schools in the city work together though
the Gloucester schools’ partnership (GSP). The
partnership grew out of the Gloucester excellence
cluster. When government funding ended in
August 2008, the 15 primary schools in the
excellence cluster decided to continue working
collaboratively and opened up membership more
widely across the city. In September 2008, a group
of 39 schools became the GSP.
An NLE was instrumental in providing the drive
for the initiative. The GSP is governed by an
elected partnership board and funded by a levy
on schools. It has set up an education company as
the vehicle for conducting its work which covers:
supporting intelligent accountability by ?
providing challenge, customised support for
headteachers and opportunities for succession
planning
co-ordinating delivery of extended services ?
and the Every Child Matters agenda
organising and delivering CPD programmes to ?
support high-quality teaching and learning
The GSP is itself reviewing how schools in the city
are organising HR, fnance and other functions. GSP
has a good relationship with the local authority
and makes use of its staff and expertise.
Source: Interview with local authority
offcer, Gloucester City Council
Dashwood Community Primary School had been
placed in special measures at the end of 2007 and
an interim executive board, which included the
principal of Banbury School, was set up to help the
school tackle its problems. The assistance Banbury
School provided with leadership, management and
classroom monitoring was one of the factors that
resulted in federation being agreed as the natural
long-term solution.
There is a single governing body but both
schools remain separate and are inspected by
Ofsted separately. An executive headteacher has
overall accountability for the two schools and is
supported by a headteacher on each site who
runs the schools on a day-to-day basis. Dashwood
Community Primary School came out of special
measures in September 2009.
Banbury is also helping Dashwood School with
fnances, caretaking and grounds maintenance.
However, the value of the federation is not all
one way. For example, Banbury School staff are
keen to draw on the expertise of Dashwood
colleagues in thinking about the best learning
methods to use with younger secondary students
when they join Year 7.
Source: Interview with executive
headteacher and sources on Banbury School
website (www.banbury.oxon.sch.uk)
Gloucester primary
school cluster
Banbury Dashwood
Federation
Case study 14:
Case study 15:
Copyright © 2010 National College 41
? Whole-learning community federations/
partnerships bring together schools across
phases and age-ranges to work together on
curriculum issues and the wider welfare of
children and young people in the area (see Case
study 16). This type of collaboration is most
commonly found in parts of the country where
primary schools feed into one or two secondary
schools and so there is a logical and stronger
basis for the partnership.
? All-through 3–19 schools and academies
is a form of school and governance that has
largely been developed and led by the school
sector itself: signifcantly, the number of such
institutions is growing fast. Those who advocate
3–19 schools argue that it has the following
advantages.
• It avoids the problem of students slipping
back when they move from Year 6 to Year 7.
• It enables schools to operate a more fexible
curriculum where pupils can learn and be
grouped according to their progress rather
than how old they are.
• It provides a stronger basis for engaging with
the local community and other agencies to
address the Every Child Matters agenda.
• It helps to raise aspiration as pupils see and
relate to the achievements of older students.
• It provides a platform for student leadership.
• It provides a much more sustainable
leadership model for the primary phase
of education.
Some of the secondary chains are increasingly
involved in this agenda. For example, the
Haberdashers’ Aske’s Federation has integrated two
primary schools into the federation and has plans
for more. Both were primaries in very challenging
circumstances and are now part of an all-through
schools plan. AET is developing the frst district-wide
3–19 academy school network.
In addition to these more structural models, there
is also a host of more informal ways that primary
schools are using to work together and support
each other.
The North Pennine Learning Partnership is a trust
that encompasses fve schools – a frst school, two
middle schools, a high school and a technology
college – located across 1,000 square miles of
Northumberland and Cumbria. The trust has
brought the following benefts to the schools:
a stronger framework for existing ?
collaboration on, for example, delivering the
Every Child Matters agenda through extended
schools and a sports school partnership
access to external expertise since the trust ?
includes a range of external partners including
two universities, a company specialising in ICT
systems and support, the Institute for Outdoor
Education and the Rugby Football Union
effciencies of scale, including the opportunity ?
to work with the National College on a project
to develop partnership school management
and business support
increased curriculum coherence, including ?
strengthening the link between primary and
secondary strategies and securing seamless
provision from early years to Key Stage 5
support for leadership development by ?
providing the confdence and context to
develop strategic leadership skills, practise
distributed leadership and develop innovative
leadership models to support all schools
within the partnership
sharing expertise and resources in teaching ?
and learning, especially at Key Stages 3 and 4,
at a time of a falling pupil rolls and associated
budget reductions
Source: North Pennine Learning Partnership
(www.trustandfoundationschools.org.uk
and www.nplp.org.uk)
North Pennine
Learning Partnership
Case study 16:
Copyright © 2010 National College 42
Features shared by emerging
primary models and chains
Few if any of the primary school federations or
partnerships could be described as chains in the
sense in which this term has been used in the
earlier part of this thinkpiece. However, they do
have some features in common and are beginning
to deliver some of the benefts that chains of
schools in the secondary sector are producing.
Developing a clear teaching and
learning model
As primary school federations develop, particularly
where they take the form of performance
federations (ie, a stronger school supporting an
underperforming one), they are increasingly
developing and applying a standardised teaching
and learning model.
In some cases, as with Case study 17 below, the
model has been very consciously and deliberately
developed and implemented. In other cases, as
described in Case study 13, a lead school is taking
the systems it has successfully developed and
applied in its own school and transferred them to
another. Sometimes the teaching and learning is
based on a lead school’s own effective practice but
is allied with an external curriculum scheme such as
Read Write Inc
1
.
1
Read Write Inc programmes, developed by Ruth Miskin, are based on the premise that children learn most effectively when
excellent modelling, followed by partner discussion and teaching, are deeply embedded into every lesson.
Learning Federation, Oldham
Mills Hill is a primary school of 600 pupils in
Oldham. It is high achieving: the headteacher is an
NLE and the school has NSS status.
Mill Hill has developed a teaching and learning
model based on Professor Spencer Kagan’s approach
to co-operative learning. Children are placed in
mixed-ability groups of four, which remain in place
for about six weeks. Co-operative teaching and
learning processes are highly structured. The aim is to
maximise each child’s contribution and to develop the
idea that members of the team are co-learners who
are mutually accountable for each other’s success.
In order to introduce the model into Mills Hill, there
was a review of the curriculum, based on legal
requirements but modifed to allow a fexible, skills-
based, cross-curricular approach with purposeful
links between subjects and blocking. Learning
follows children’s interests and is more responsive.
For example, children can pursue a line of enquiry if
they are particularly interested in a science topic.
The model is allied to an intensive use of data. The
assigned teachers in each year group meet the head
of school to determine cohort targets and identify
which pupils are above, at, or below national
expectations. Targets are used in performance
management. All teaching staff belong to one of
three curriculum teams that investigate and address
variations in the achievement of different groups.
There are termly assessments in the core areas of
reading, writing and maths using optional tests
produced by the Qualifcations and Curriculum
Development Authority (QCDA) and Testbase
materials. An external agency marks the tests and
evaluates attainment after the optional tests in the
summer term and a consultant analyses RAISEonline
data to provide feedback.
Every child who is achieving below national
expectations has some sort of intervention and
this information is shared with individual pupils
and parents. The school uses national booster
programmes such as Further Literacy Support
(FLS) or may set up additional reading with a
parent or grandparent. A member of the leadership
team meets assigned teachers each term to
monitor progress.
Case study 17:
Copyright © 2010 National College 43
Termly and weekly assessments inform gap
teaching periods, which are week-long spaces in
curriculum time that enable focused teaching in
core literacy and numeracy skills where a need has
been identifed. Teaching may be individual, group
or whole-class. Year 6 pupils are being trained as
certifcated reading mentors so they can support
individual pupils in nursery and reception.
Mills Hill is now applying this teaching and learning
model in Medlock Valley Community School, which
is some fve miles away and had been recording
scores below the foor targets at Key Stage 2 for
seven years. Despite the school having a brand-new
building, the school was not popular with parents
and suffered from high levels of pupil mobility.
Following consultation with the eight NLEs in the
borough, the local authority decided on a federation
as an alternative to closure, which was the path it
had been considering.
The governors at Medlock Valley supported the
change and the two schools came together in a
hard federation with a single governing body. The
headteacher of Mills Hill became the executive
principal of the Learning Federation with a head of
school on each site. The head of school appointed
to Medlock Valley was formerly the deputy at Mills
Hill and an assistant headteacher at Mills Hill was
promoted to headteacher of school on that site.
All new members of staff have from September
2008 been appointed on a federation contract and
can be deployed across the two sites. Progress
at Medlock has been steady and sustained as
measured by results at Key Stage 2 and the school is
now above the foor targets (Table 1).
Source: Interview with executive principal;
www.nationalcollege.org.uk
Hackney Learning Trust has helped broker the
formation of three federations in the borough.
The trust’s experience is that the federations
have brought stronger strategic leadership, raised
expectations of the standards that pupils can
achieve, a clear pedagogy and high-quality teaching
that plans and uses effectively all the available
curriculum time and is continually tracking and
monitoring progress.
Subject 2007 2008 2009
Percentage of pupils achieving level 4 or higher in English 52 55 69
Percentage of students achieving increase of two levels in English
since Key Stage 1
71 73 77
Percentage of pupils achieving level 4 or higher in maths 48 61 88
Percentage of students achieving increase of two levels in maths
since Key Stage 1
68 82 94
Percentage of pupils achieving level 4 or higher in English and maths 39 48 69
Table 1: Medlock Valley Community School results 2007 2009
Copyright © 2010 National College 44
The trust has concluded that a school has to be
outstanding on pedagogy to be able to impart and
infuence the performance of another school:
Signifcantly, as with the secondary chains, lead
schools in federations are deploying their key staff
and leaders from the home or lead schools across
the schools they are supporting in order to ensure
that their teaching and learning model is understood,
adapted to the particular circumstances of a school
and applied in an informed and appropriate way.
Like secondary school federations, they are also
recruiting new staff on federation contracts, which
not only provides greater fexibility in deploying
staff resources but also helps to apply the teaching
and learning model in a consistent fashion.
Evolving a new leadership model
The primary sector is throwing up a range of
structural solutions in response to the challenges
it faces but characteristic of them all is the
remodelling of how leadership functions within
primary schools. Many of the hard federations have
moved, as described in Case studies 13, 14 and
15, to a school leadership model of an executive
headteacher with overall responsibility for two or
more schools who works with a head of teaching
and learning on each school site, with the latter
running the school on a day-to-day basis (Figure 5).
If it is just good overall it won’t be strong
enough or have enough clarity about its
model to be able to change the culture
and performance of the school with which
it is linked.
Executive director, Hackney Learning Trust
Figure 5: Emerging model of
headship in hard federations
Co-ordination
ICT, admin support, fnancial/business management, premises, procurement
Integration
Executive
headteacher
School A
Head of school or
head of teaching
and learning
School B
Head of school or
head of teaching
and learning
School C
Head of school or
head of teaching
and learning
School D
Head of school or
head of teaching
and learning
Sometimes the model starts with two or more primary schools forming a hard federation with a single governing body, and
that normally includes an executive headteacher. In other cases executive headship may come frst, with this providing the
platform for schools moving to federation.
Copyright © 2010 National College 45
The model has many similarities with the model
of non-school heads developed within the Dutch
primary school system (see Case study 18), and
enjoys a number of advantages. It brings clear
and dedicated leadership capacity to a group of
schools. This ensures the schools have the capability
to think and plan for the medium term as well
as manage school affairs on a day-to-day basis.
It strengthens the operation of leadership teams,
proving a broader base for organising development
and support. For example, the leadership team of
the Learning Federation in Oldham meets jointly
and this has helped it become a real driver of school
improvement across the two schools. Leadership
development is also undertaken jointly and each
half-term one member of the leadership team
spends fve days in the other school to observe and
exchange learning and ideas.
Development of leadership
of primary schools in the
Netherlands
In 1998, the Dutch government introduced an
Education Act that encouraged the 7,000 primary
schools in the Netherlands to merge, and backed
the legislation with a fve-year time-limited
scheme of fnancial incentives. By 2005, 4 out of 5
schools were part of a federation consisting of 2 or
more schools, with the average size of federation
comprising 11 schools.
Within federations, principals may lead a single
school or multiple schools. Where a principal
oversees more than one school, a specifc teacher
may take on the role of location leader to be the
point of contact for parents and staff on a day-
to-day basis. A federation may also employ an
educational professional as a superintendent to
oversee strategy and operational management
within the federation. In total, 20 per cent of a
school’s capital funding and a small proportion of
its staffng budget are devolved to the federation.
The federation takes overall responsibility for school
improvement and professional development.
Advantages associated with the Dutch federation
model include:
principals having more time to lead their ?
schools, particularly where they were previously
combining teaching and leading
staff and leaders benefting from joint planning ?
and wider thinking
schools gaining a stronger sense of direction ?
an increased economy of scale enabling schools ?
to purchase services more effectively and share
the cost of specialist staff
being able to transfer skills and jobs from one ?
school to another
a broader pool of expertise on which to draw ?
to provide curriculum leadership, development
and support
Source: Collins et al, 2005
Case study 18:
Copyright © 2010 National College 46
The value of the new leadership model has been
recognised by Ofsted, particularly in turning around
underperforming schools.
The new model described in Figure 5 also provides
a source of coaching, mentoring and support
for emerging leaders who have opportunities to
develop their leadership skills under the guidance of
an experienced practitioner.
The post of head of teaching and learning provides
a bridge between being a classroom-based
practitioner and leadership. In effect it is providing a
popular new career path for primary school leaders.
For example, in the summer term of 2008 the First
Federation in Devon (featured in Case study 13)
advertised for a new head of teaching and learning
at Chudleigh Knighton. There were 17 applicants
for the post. This compares with an average of four
applications for primary headship posts in Devon
overall. This new leadership model has the potential
to be a large part of the solution to the succession
planning challenge that the primary sector faces.
Strengthening governance
The different forms of partnership structure
are, as with the secondary sector, bringing new
governance models. Schools in a hard federation
have a single governing body. That means that in
total they have fewer governors than the previous
two schools would have had on a combined basis.
This requires federations to think harder about the
specifc role of each governor and the organisation
of the governing body itself. The First Federation in
Devon started off with 16 governors when it was
frst formed, but reduced that to 11 and formed an
executive group of 6 to ensure that the federation
had strong strategic leadership. The number was
expanded to 13 when the federation took on 2
further schools.
Having fewer governors also means that
recruitment to the governing body becomes less a
matter of fnding people to fll vacancies and more
a question of ensuring that applicants have the right
skills and experience for the role on the governing
body that they are being asked to play.
Whole-learning community models and all-though
schools also bring a range and depth of governance
arrangements to the primary sector. In addition,
primary schools that are using shared or multi-
school trusts as the basis for joint work or taking on
other schools are able to draw on the expertise and
resources of external partners, as Case study
16 showed.
Improving professional development
There is good evidence of the effectiveness of
collaborative learning and CPD in such school
networks (Cordingley & Temperley, 2006). The
schools studied as part of this project indicate that
leaders and staff have been quick to exploit the
opportunities for shared professional development
that working in a federation or a multi-school trust
brings. Joint INSET days, shared curriculum planning,
exchanges of schemes of work and lesson plans,
cross-school lesson observation and mentoring as
well as more formal development programmes
have all formed part of the approach.
For example, as part of establishing the Learning
Federation in Oldham, fve extra INSET days were
secured for Medlock Valley staff which were used to
observe and work with Mills Hill staff and so help
to transfer and embed the new system of teaching
and learning. Some CPD is undertaken jointly and
staff from both schools are now working together
on developing the curriculum to refect the changes
resulting from the Rose review.
A small number of schools causing concern
have formed federations or more informal
partnerships with other schools. This has
been successful in many cases in hastening
the recovery of inadequate schools. The key
elements in this recovery are more incisive
leadership and management, bringing
about improvements in the quality of
teaching and learning.
Ofsted, 2008:33
Copyright © 2010 National College 47
Securing better use of resources
Primary schools are for the most part not forming or
joining federations and other structured partnerships
to save money, though in the case of small/rural
schools, federation may well be part of a long-term
solution to maintaining educational and fnancial
viability. However, being part of a larger corporate
group helps deliver better use of resources on
three fronts.
First, federations and trusts provide the basis
for rationalising the organisation of back offce
and other functions. For example, the Learning
Federation in Oldham has a business manager
who works across the two sites. This has enabled
some costs to be taken out at Medlock Valley. The
federation is also able to procure IT licences across
the federation and there is some economy of scale
in terms of reduced charges from the local authority
in respect of service provision and training on child
protection.
Another example is Comberton Education Trust,
which is not only responsible for Comberton Village
College but has won a competition to set up and run
a new primary school. In setting up the school, full
use was made of a range of the Comberton staffng
resources. Comberton, for example, ran the initial
HR and administrative services until the new school
could begin to appoint its own staff. ICT systems and
resources are provided by the trust. As the primary
school grows in size, catering, HR and premises
management could also become shared services.
As Figure 5 indicates, the model for organising
support functions can vary: in some cases functions
are being integrated but co-ordination is another
option. For example, one federation in Devon has
retained three administrative offcers over the
three schools in the federation, but one focuses on
premises, another on fnance and the third on HR
and personnel issues.
Second, federations provide the basis for sharing
and deploying specialist staff, whether that is
special educational needs, language, music,
behaviour management or advanced skills teacher
(AST) support.
Third, there can be savings from introducing new
leadership models, particularly in rural and small
schools. Figure 6 provides an example of how re-
engineering leadership across two or three schools
in Northumberland could yield potential savings.
The sums are relatively modest, though for small
schools they may be signifcant, particularly where
schools are under pressure from falling rolls and
tighter annual budget increases.
Model Savings Additional costs Available for school
improvement
Executive headship
(two frst schools)
One head’s
salary
£53,200
Salary rise (head): £5,505
Class teacher (to cover costs of teaching duties previously
undertaken by headteacher): £24,500
Assistant headteacher: £3,800
£19,935
Executive headship
(three frst schools)
Two heads’
salaries
£106,400
Salary rise (head): £5,505
Class teacher (to cover costs of teaching duties previously
undertaken by headteacher): £28,000
Two assistant headteachers: £7,600
£58,339
Executive headship
(one middle and one
frst school)
One head’s
salary
£53,200
Salary rise (head): £5,505
Class teacher (to cover costs of teaching duties previously
undertaken by headteacher): £24,500
Assistant headteacher: £3,800
£26,000
Figure 6: Example of savings to be gained from introducing new leadership models
Source: Todman et al, 2009
Copyright © 2010 National College 48
Pace of change and inhibitors
of progress
The merits of federations and shared trusts that
are acting in similar ways to chains are becoming
clearly established. However, the rate at which
structural change is occurring is slow. Research for
the National College in 2009 (Chapman et al, 2009)
based on a survey of 50 local authorities found 264
schools in 122 federations, across both primary
and secondary phases. In the same study, 9 out of
10 involved just 2 schools, 4 out of 5 had a joint
headteacher, but just 15 per cent had a joint (ie,
hard federation) governing body. Three-quarters of
these had been formed in 2007 or 2008, suggesting
that the pace of change is picking up but even so,
if the data from these 50 local authorities were
extrapolated for all 152, there may still be only
260–270 federations in total across England.
More signifcantly, the research indicates that
primary-phase schools (including infant, junior and
frst schools) are under-represented in comparison
with secondary schools. This may in part be
explained by the variety of developments in the
primary sector (managed partnerships, shared
trusts, formal cluster arrangements and all-through
3–19 schools) not being included in a survey on
federations. Nevertheless, the number of primary
schools involved in federations relative to the
scale of the challenges and the potential beneft of
structured partnerships is extremely low.
Interviews for this project with local authority
representatives and school leaders indicate that
there are a number of reasons for this:
In some cases there is resistance by parents ?
and governors (and some school leaders), who
fear that the identity of their local school and
the control they have over it will disappear as a
result of federation.
Funding disincentives can emerge in the form of ?
local authority funding formulas that build in an
allowance over and above a standard per-pupil
entitlement to help cover the fxed costs of running
small schools, where ministers have committed
to a presumption against closure. The reasons for
this funding are entirely understandable, given the
many benefts that small rural primaries offer, but
it could shield them from fnding alternative ways
to remain viable.
Funding infexibilities can also come to light due ?
to federation. Schools generally have retained
their separate identity within federations and
trusts in order to maintain their entitlement to
an individual funding allocation. Three or four
schools that amalgamate have to date been
allocated less funding as a single institution than
they receive if they are funded separately and
individually. It has been possible to overcome
the problem of keeping separate budgets
within a federation or trust, but the schools
involved have had to show a clear audit trail that
links spending to a particular school’s budget.
They have not been able to simply merge the
separate budgets into one pooled budget to be
deployed across all the schools in the federation
or trust as the leadership team and governors
think ft. DCSF has recognised this problem and
plans to change the existing regulations so that
federations of schools can be funded as a single
institution (DCSF, 2009c). It is also proposing to
make clear that governing bodies can allocate
funding to provide facilities and services to
pupils at schools other than their own.
Federations, trusts and education companies ?
provide a good menu of options from which
primary schools can choose when deciding how
to organise or hardwire their relationships with
other schools. But there is an issue with the
governance of federations in that the governing
body has to be dissolved and reformed each
time another school joins the federation. If
federations are to become more like chains
and acquire new schools as matter of course,
this could be a factor that holds them back. It
may be that the government’s proposals (DCSF,
2009c) to enable accredited governing bodies
to be involved in the establishment of new
maintained schools and academies could provide
a way to help resolve this issue. The aim of the
proposed new power is to allow innovative and
high-performing schools to create new schools
without the need for governing bodies to set
up a trust or schools’ company. These proposals
Copyright © 2010 National College 49
have at the time of writing not yet received
parliamentary approval.
Around a third of primary schools are either ?
voluntary-controlled or voluntary-aided church
schools, though the proportion is much higher
in some local authorities. Church schools have
severe problems in recruiting headteachers,
but they also face diffculties in moving into a
structured partnership. They cannot at present
be part of a trust because their voluntary status
means they already have their own trust or
foundation. They can join or form a federation
but unless it is a federation of exclusively church
schools (which is not always possible) it will
mean being part of a mixed federation of faith
and non-faith schools. This means that a faith
tradition may in effect have to accept some
dilution of the infuence it exercises over a
governing body and headteacher appointments.
A faith school will also want to be reassured that
the distinct religious character of the school is
going to be retained. The National Society for
Promoting Religious Education (NSPRE) and DCSF
have produced joint guidance on how voluntary
schools can work with trust schools (NSPRE
& DCSF, 2008) but all the solutions proposed
involve complex arrangements.
As with the secondary school system, the ?
accountability regime is focused on individual
institutions and so creates little incentive for
schools to join together to tackle problems.
The primary sector is developing a diverse range ?
of models in response to the challenges it faces.
This is no bad thing, but would be more effective
if there were an overall vision of how primary
schools might be organised and delivered in,
say, 10 years’ time. At present there is no clear
long-term vision and similarly there has been no
articulation of the long-term sustainable model
of school leadership that primary schools should
be moving towards.
Options for the future
While the challenge in the secondary sector is
to steer and channel the growth of chains, the
challenge in the primary sector is different. We need
to create structures and frameworks that provide
primary schools with the critical mass necessary
to develop strategic leadership, create new career
structures, support professional and curriculum
development, address school underperformance
and realise economies of scale.
Primary schools should not be clustered together
for the sake of it. That will not add value. Primary
schools do not all have to be part of chains; the
scope of the evolving organisational structures is, as
we have seen, more diverse than that.
The government is proposing to move schools
towards more formal partnership working by
introducing regulations requiring schools from
September 2011 to consider shared headship and/
or governance arrangements before appointing
a new headteacher (DCSF, 2009c). This is an
interesting move and could well help to change the
way that federations and other forms of partnership
are perceived, but it will take a long time to make
a substantial impact on the primary school system,
given the rate at which headship vacancies occur.
Even then a duty to consider shared headship and/
or governance is unlikely on its own to overcome
resistance to change.
An alternative approach would be for all primary
schools to be part of a group of schools – which one
might call accredited primary school groups (APSGs)
– that adopt and work to chain-like standards.
APSGs might operate under the umbrella of a trust,
a federation, an education company, an all-through
school, a whole-learning community or town-wide
cluster or, were the Conservatives’ policies to be
adopted, through chains of primary academies.
The APSG would provide the basis and scale
for creating dedicated executive and strategic
leadership, growing new leaders, organising support
functions, sharing specialist posts and supporting
school-to-school curriculum and professional
development.
Copyright © 2010 National College 50
Whatever the organisational form, the accreditation
process would promote consistency of operating
standards and educational outcomes. If this were
agreed as a policy objective, there are several steps
that could be taken that would help to turn the
policy into reality:
Articulate a clear vision ? of the future of
primary school organisation and primary school
leadership. The World Class Primary Programme
does provide a much clearer steer towards
greater collaboration. The government could,
however, go further and adopt an approach
similar to the Dutch one, and pass enabling
legislation that provides a framework for
expecting all primary schools to be part of an
APSG within a defned period of, for example,
fve years.
Create a clear accreditation system for APSGs ?
that retains and encompasses the range of
organisational models, provided they met
the sort of criteria associated with effective
chains of schools, ie, APSGs would have to
demonstrate that they had a proven and
effective teaching and learning model, clear
executive leadership, governance and cross-
school support service arrangements and a track
record of using partnership to improve school
performance. Such a system would preserve the
integrity of the chain approach while allowing
fexibility for school organisation to refect local
circumstances. The government has also taken
the frst steps in this direction by introducing
accreditation for groups of primary schools. It is
also intending to learn from the establishment
of formal partnerships between strong schools
and primary schools in the most challenging
circumstances (see below).
Incentivise primary schools to join an APSG. ?
This would not so much be about making new
funding available as maximising the leverage of
existing funding streams:
• The allocation of primary capital could be made
dependent on schools being part of an APSG or
the allocation could be routed via APSGs.
• Funding for professional development and
school improvement could be channelled
though APSGs. The government is proposing
that partnerships of schools will in future
be able to receive funding for school
improvement as a group of schools rather
than individually (DCSF, 2009c). Children’s
trusts are also being encouraged to devolve
additional funding to partnerships to offer and/
or commission their own services on behalf of
the local authority. These measures could act as
an incentive by only being available to schools
that were part of an APSG.
• The receipt of the small schools’ supplement
via a local authority’s funding formula could
be made dependent on schools being part of
an APSG.
? Redesign the National Professional
Qualifcation for Headship, or aspects of the
Leadership Pathways programme that feeds into
it, for the primary sector to refect the head of
teaching and learning/executive headteacher
model and the different roles they encompass.
Use the outcomes of Ofsted inspections ?
so that all primary schools given a notice to
improve or placed in special measures are
automatically incorporated into an APSG. The
government has already ventured a long way
down this path with its plans to establish
primary partnerships in those local authorities
with a high number or proportion of what it
calls hard-to-shift primary schools. A fund of
£10 million has been allocated to support up
to 150 of the highest quality projects, which
are expected to be based on underperforming
schools becoming part of shared governance
arrangements such as federations or majority
trusts. Potentially this approach could be
extended to all primary schools that are
consistently underperforming. The government
is hoping to extend the level of its fnancial
support but is encouraging local authorities to
use their existing school improvement resources
to develop this scheme (DCSF, 2009c).
Change the regulations on funding for ?
federations as proposed by DCSF to enable
APSGs to use budgets fexibly across all the
schools in their group.
Copyright © 2010 National College 51
? Encourage and empower all local authorities
to develop a network of APSGs throughout their
area. Many are already active on this agenda
(see Case study 19) but some headteachers in
the study commissioned by DCSF (Todman et
al, 2009) reported that a frmer steer from the
local authority would be helpful in giving greater
legitimacy to formal collaborative models. The
latest policy statement from the government
(DCSF, 2009c) does give local authorities a
very clear statement about the importance of
their role in ‘driving partnership solutions’ and
‘brokering partnerships’ via federations, shared
trusts, short- or longer term support through
NLEs/NSSs, and new partners or accredited
schools groups to support improvement priorities.
Development of primary school
federations in Devon
Devon has 316 primary schools, many of which are
in rural areas and a signifcant proportion of which
have falling rolls. Some 16 per cent of primary-aged
pupils are educated in 41 per cent of the primary
schools and only 81 schools have more than 210
pupils.
There have been problems recruiting headteachers
of suffcient leadership potential and prior
leadership experience. Many of the small schools
do not have deputies so do not have a route for
developing and bringing through emerging leaders.
Devon County Council has been pursuing a policy of
promoting federations among primary schools since
September 2005. A federation toolkit was produced,
and linked to a joint exercise to promote the toolkit
to governing bodies around the county.
Schools interested in federation have been able to
draw on a small budget (between £500 and £2,000)
from the county’s innovation through collaboration
fund to help explore what federation would mean
for them and their potential partners. Intensive
effort also goes into communicating with parents,
and not just using leafets and meetings. Surgeries,
drop-in sessions and one-to-one meetings are also
arranged.
The frst federation was established in September
2006 and the executive head and chair of governors
of that federation have become powerful advocates
of the approach.
The county council produces a newsletter for
governors on a termly basis and this has been
used over the past three or four years to drip feed
messages about federation. The county council also
works very closely with its diocesan colleagues as
nearly one third of Devon’s primaries are also Church
of England schools.
As of October 2009, there were 9 hard federations
involving around 22 schools. Two other federations
are in the process of being formed. In addition,
some other schools have a management
partnership which means that they share a
headteacher.
The county council is increasingly moving toward
pursuing a more strategic approach towards
federation. Devon’s schools are grouped into 31
learning communities. The council is instigating
area reviews of primary education within these
learning communities. The approach is not based
on proposing a master plan for each area but
presenting governors and headteachers with data
on surplus places, the demographic profle and
projections and asset management. The learning
communities are asked to develop options for
the future linked to the deployment of the
primary capital programme. This is beginning
to result in federation emerging as more of a
mainstream option.
Source: Interviews with local authority offcers
Case study 19:
Copyright © 2010 National College 52
? Create a cadre of school leaders to lead and
champion this agenda, perhaps based on the
existing NLEs in the primary sector:
The National College has been commissioned by
DCSF to take forward a national leadership models
and partnerships programme. Its aim will be to
inspire and enable schools and localities to develop
ft-for-purpose models of leadership and governance
that refect their local context and circumstances
(DCSF, 2009c). This programme could be one way of
helping to identify and create champions of change.
? Work with faith groups and their national
representatives to fnd solutions to the problems
associated with incorporating church schools into
APSGs. The government plans (DCSF, 2009c),
subject to parliamentary approval, confrm that
all governing bodies may become members of
foundations of other maintained schools and this
may help to address one aspect of the problem.
Part of the answer may also lie in developing
ethos committees as pioneered by the First
Federation in Devon (see Case study 20).
Acting to foster and develop APSGs would recognise
the role and contribution that primary schools have
to make to the education system. As importantly, it
would help to grow the next generation of primary
school leaders and provide primary schools with the
capacity to lead change and address the range of
challenges that schools face over the next decade.
APSGs would take the concept and principles of
chains but apply them in a way that is relevant and
appropriate to the primary school context.
Emerging evidence suggests that the
advocacy of headteachers themselves
has been an important factor both in
planning and in sustaining formal
collaborative arrangements. Their
personal enthusiasm and vision are
likely to be crucial in overcoming initial
reservations and misgivings that may be
felt in their communities.
Todman et al, 2009
The First Federation, Devon is developing
the concept of ethos committees as a way of
continuing to recognise the distinctive nature of
the church schools in the federation, given that
there are only 2 foundation governors (plus a
vicar who serves as a governor ex-offcio) out of a
total of 13 that specifcally represent the church’s
interests. The role of the foundation governors is
to provide oversight and be a link between the
schools in the federation and the governing body.
In addition, each of the four schools in the
federation has an ethos committee which includes
a nominated person from the parochial church
council, a parent from a local church, pupils and
the head of teaching and learning. Each of the
two foundation governors on the governing body
is linked to two of the committees. The outcomes
of committee meetings are minuted. The remit is
to look at how well the school is working on its
Christian distinctiveness and it uses the Statutory
Inspection of Anglican Schools report and toolkit as
a means of focusing its work.
Source: Interview with executive
headteacher, First Federation
The role of ethos committees
in federations involving
church schools
Case study 20:
Copyright © 2010 National College 53
Appendix 1: How performance federations
help weak schools to improve
Characteristics of
effective school
improvement
models as
evidenced in
academic studies
How performance federations help deliver the model
Intolerance of system
failure
The stronger school comes in with a culture of high expectations and challenges
the acceptance of poor performance across the board.
A clear sense of
primary mission with
a number of small
goals set
A clear mandate or contract (along with governance arrangements) for the
stronger school to work with the weaker school is agreed. This includes the
problems to be tackled and the improvements to be achieved.
Creation of a critical
mass to get a school
moving
The stronger school, with its high expectations, proven ways of working,
secondment of key staff and access to additional resources, provides the impetus
to get the weaker school moving by saturating the school with its approach.
Early identifcation
and tackling of
problems
The stronger school confronts the weaker school with the problems and any
personnel – be they staff or students – that are blocking progress. The schools
agree what action will be taken, including making changes in the leadership of
the weaker school where necessary.
Consistent application
of standard operating
procedures
The stronger school insists on – and if necessary imports – clear rules and
procedures for uniform, behaviour, pupil attendance, lesson planning and quality
assurance, study leave, course assessment, staff absence etc.
A culture of
monitoring, including
peer monitoring, to
improve teaching
and learning
There is intensive observation and monitoring of lessons, including enabling
teachers from the weaker school to observe colleagues at the stronger school
and vice versa.
Co-construction of
support to meet
fexibly the precise
needs of the
weaker school while
adhering to the
principles of effective
school improvement
The stronger school is responsible for maintaining a systematic school
improvement model, but enables the weaker school to tailor support to address
specifc weaknesses and concerns, for example in teaching a particular subject
or ensuring a relevant curriculum for a discrete group of students. The weaker
school is involved throughout in shaping the work of the support federation.
Extensive training
and retraining
and very careful
recruitment
The results of lesson observations form the basis for a structured staff
development and training programme. This may include shared training with
staff in the stronger school, one-to-one coaching and mentoring or working
with an advanced skills teacher. The stronger school ensures that the right
staff are recruited to fll key skill gaps. These are often at the level of assistant
headteacher or curriculum leader.
Copyright © 2010 National College 54
Rich use of data The stronger school ensures that data systems are in place in the weaker school
to track the progress of each pupil, year group and department and to set
appropriate targets for improvement.
Simultaneous top-
down and bottom-up
leadership
The stronger school provides clear strategic leadership but also builds up the
confdence and skills of middle, senior and aspiring or potential leaders in
the weaker school. The aim is to equip them to take responsibility and be
accountable for quality and standards.
Close attention to the
quality of resources
and the learning
environment
Short-term measures are put in place to improve the learning environment, for
example by redecorating or refurbishing parts of the school and/or reorganising
areas to accommodate different teaching methods. A long-term plan for the
development of the school premises is drawn up.
Simultaneous
engagement at
school and
classroom level
The support federation model provides the strong leadership the weaker
school needs, but also focuses on improving the quality of teaching and learning
in every lesson.
Capacity developed
for self-sustaining
improvement
As the support federation develops, the relationship between the schools
changes to one in which there is mutual learning. What was the weaker school
starts to regain the capacity and confdence to conduct its own improvement
agenda and/or forms a longer-term partnership with the stronger or
another school.
Adonis, A, 2008a, Academies and social mobility.
Speech to the National Academies Conference,
London, 7 February. At www.standards.dfes.gov.
uk/academies/software/Andrew_Adonis_Speech_
feb08.doc?version=1 [accessed 9 January 2010]
Adonis, A, 2008b, Foreword. In Astle & Ryan (eds),
Academies and the future of state education, v xi
ASCL, 2009, Primary objectives by Louise Staunton,
Leader, 42, pp28,29, September
Astle, J & Ryan, C (eds), 2008, Academies and the
future of state education, London, CentreForum.
At www.centreforum.org/assets/pubs/academies-
web.pdf [accessed 9 January 2010]
Audit Commission, 2009, Valuable lessons:
Improving economy and effciency in schools,
Local government national report, London, Audit
Commission. At www.audit-commission.gov.uk/
localgov/nationalstudies/Pages/valuablelessons_
copy.aspx [accessed 9 January 2010]
BBC, 2009, BBC News website [accessed on 6
November 2009],http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/
education/8346615.stm
Chapman, C, Muijs, D, Sammons, P, Armstrong,
P & Collins, A, 2009, The impact of federations on
student outcomes, Nottingham, National College for
Leadership of Schools and Children’s Services
Collins, J, 2009, How the mighty fall: and why some
companies never give in, London, Random House
Business Books
Collins, A, Ireson, J, Stubbs, S, Nash, K & Burnside, P,
2005, Federations: Does every primary school need
a headteacher? Key implications from a study of
federations in The Netherlands, Nottingham, NCSL
Cordingley, P & Temperley, J, 2006, Leading
Continuing Professional Development in School
Networks: Adding value, securing impact,
Networked Research series, Nottingham, NCSL
DCSF, 2008, National Challenge Trusts Guidance,
Nottingham, DCSF. Athttp://publications.dcsf.gov.
uk/default.aspx?PageFunction=productdetails&Pa
geMode=publications&ProductId=NCT+GUIDANCE&
[accessed 9 January 2010]
DCSF, 2009a, Your child, your schools, our future:
building a 21st century schools system,
Norwich, TSO
Bibliography
Copyright © 2010 National College 55
DCSF, 2009b, Consultation on accreditation of school
providers and schools group and on academy
sponsors selection, London, DCSF. At www.dcsf.gov.
uk/consultations/index.cfm?action=consultationDet
ails&external=no&consultationId=1602 [accessed
9 January 2010]
DCSF, 2009c, Your child, your schools, our future,
building a 21st century school\ system: timetable
for action, Nottingham, DCSF
DCSF & BIS, 2009, National curriculum assessments
at Key Stage 2 in England, 2009 (revised),
produced by the Department for Business,
Innovation and Skills on 1 December 2009
according to the arrangements approved by the
UK Statistics Authority
DCSF, 2010, Guidance on becoming an accredited
school provider or an accredited schools group in the
secondary phase: information on the accreditation
system, Nottingham, DCSF
Department of Health, 2007, Principles and rules for
cooperation and competition, London, DoH
DfES, 2005, Replicating effective school practice as
a tool to improve the weakest schools: research
project for academies division, Nottingham, DfES
Greany, T, 2009, Federations: sustaining small
schools. Presentation to DCSF Small Primary Schools
Federation Conference, Birmingham, 23 June
Harris Federation, undated, Prospectus, np, Harris
Federation of South London Schools. At www.bexley.
gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=714&p=0 [accessed 9
January 2010]
Hill, 2008, Achieving more together: adding value
through partnership, Association of Schools and
College Leaders.
Hill & Matthews, 2008, Schools leading schools,
the power and potential of National Leaders of
Education, National College for School Leadership.
Hill, 2009, Powerful Partnerships: a Leading Edge
perspective, Specialist Schools and Academies Trust.
Howson, 2009, 15th Annual Report: The State of the
Labour Market for Senior Staff in Schools in England
and Wales 2008-2009, London, ASCL & NAHT
HM Government, 2009, Apprenticeships, Skills,
Children and Learning Act 2009 [online]. At www.
opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2009/ukpga_20090022_en_1
[accessed 9 January 2010]
Loughborough Partnership (Institute of Youth Sport
and School of Sport and Exercise Sciences), 2008,
Final annual monitoring and evaluation report:
The Partnership Development Manager survey,
Loughborough, Loughborough University
Moynihan, D, 2008, Sponsors. In Astle & Ryan (eds),
Academies and the future of state education, 14–24
NCSL, 2007, Primary leadership: advice to the
Secretary of State, Nottingham, NCSL. At www.
nationalcollege.org.uk/national-college-advice-to-
sos-primary-leadership.pdf [accessed 13 January
2010]
NCSL, undated, Mills Hill School case study.
[online]. At www.nationalcollege.org.uk/index/
leadershiplibrary/leadingschools/improving-
outcomes-for-schools/personalisedlearning/
leading-personalised-learning-case-studies/mills-
hill-school
NSPRE & DCSF, 2008, How voluntary schools can
work with trust schools: National Society/DCSF joint
guidance, Nottingham, DCSF. At www.natsoc.org.uk/
downloads/index.html [accessed 9 January 2010]
Ofsted, 2006, School sport partnerships: a survey of
good practice, London, Ofsted
Ofsted, 2008, The Annual Report of Her Majesty’s
Chief Inspector of Education, Children’s Services and
Skills 2007/08, Norwich, The Stationery Offce
Ofsted, 2009a [revised January 2010], The
framework for school inspection, London, Ofsted.
At www.ofsted.gov.uk/Ofsted-home/Forms-
and-guidance/Browse-all-by/Other/General/
Framework-for-the-inspection-of-maintained-
schools-in-England-from-September-2009
[accessed 9 January 2010]
Ofsted, 2009b, The Annual Report of Her Majesty’s
Chief Inspector of Education, Children’s Services and
Skills 2008/09, Norwich, The Stationery Offce
Pattison, M, 2009, The leadership challenge.
Presentation to the NASUWT Conference on Leading
the 21st Century School, Nottingham, 22 June
Potter, D, 2004, School federations: research for
academies division, Nottingham, DfES
PriceWaterhouseCoopers, 2008, Academies
evaluation: ffth annual report, Nottingham, DCSF
Todman, P, Harris, J, Carter, J & McCamphill, J, 2009,
Better together: exploratory case studies of formal
collaborations between small rural primary schools,
DCSF Research Report RR162, London, DCSF. At
www.dcsf.gov.uk/research/programmeofresearch/
projectinformation.cfm?projectid=15437&resultspag
e=1 [accessed 9 January 2010]
The National College for Leadership
of Schools and Children’s Services is
committed to excellence and dedicated
to inclusiveness. We exist to develop
and inspire great leaders of schools,
early years settings and children’s
services. We share the same ambition
– to make a positive difference to the
lives of children and young people.
Membership of the National College
gives access to unrivalled development
and networking opportunities,
professional support and leadership
resources.
©2010 National College for Leadership
of Schools and Children’s Services –
All rights reserved. No part of this
document may be reproduced without
prior permission from the National
College. To reuse this material,
please contact the Marketing and
Communications Team at the National
College or email publications@
nationalcollege.org.uk.
P
B
5
6
7
Triumph Road
Nottingham NG8 1DH
T 0845 609 0009
F 0115 872 2001
E [email protected]
www.nationalcollege.org.uk
doc_676327635.pdf
The work builds on thinking undertaken by a group of national leaders of education (NLEs), of which we were part, who formed a fellowship commission, supported by the National College. The commission was asked to address the question 'How can the school system develop the most effective numbers of trusts/federations/chains, and what would be the associated accountability framework?'
Resource
Chain reactions: a thinkpiece on the
development of chains of schools
in the English school system
Robert Hill
Schools and academies
Inspiring leaders to
improve children’s lives
Copyright © 2010 National College 2
The National College for Leadership of
Schools and Children’s Services would like
to thank the following for their support
in providing information, participating in
a group discussion or being part of a case
study for this project:
Fiona Allen, Executive Headteacher, Corsham
Primary School
George Ashford, Managing Director, European Retail,
Inchcape plc
John Atkins, Chief Executive, Kemnal Trust
Kathy August, Executive Director, Manchester
Academy
Jane Balderstone, Offce of the Schools Commissioner,
Department for Children, Schools and Families
Steve Belk, Executive Director of Learning and
Standards, Hackney Learning Trust
Steve Bolingbroke, Managing Director,
Kunskappskolan
David Carter, Executive Principal, Cabot Learning
Federation
Debbie Clapshaw, Strategic Lead, Achievement
through Collaboration, Devon County Council
Sue Clarke, Governor Services, Devon County Council
Jon Coles, Director General, Schools, Department for
Children, Schools and Families
Barry Day, Chief Executive, Nottingham Academy
John Dowler, Headteacher, Haydon Bridge High
School Sports College
Dr John Dunford, General Secretary, Association of
School and College Leaders
Dr Fiona Hammans, Executive Headteacher, Banbury
Dashwood Schools Federation
Lucy Heller, Managing Director, ARK Schools
Andrew Hutchinson, Executive Principal, Parkside
Federation
Sue Innes, Leadership Development Consultant,
Gloucestershire County Council
Paul Jones, Executive Headteacher, First Federation,
Devon
Tarun Kapur, Executive Headteacher, Parrs Wood
High School
Darran Lee, Executive Principal, Learning Federation
Paul Lincoln, Managing Director, EdisonLearning
Alasdair Macdonald, Headteacher, Morpeth School
Daniel Moynihan, Chief Executive Offcer, Harris
Federation
Baroness Sally Morgan, Advisor to ARK Board
Stephen Munday, Executive Principal, Comberton
Village Education Trust
Amanda Phillips, Executive Headteacher, Culloden
and Old Ford Primary Schools
Chris Pickering, Executive Headteacher, National and
Tuxford Learning Community
Erica Pienaar, Executive Headteacher, Leathersellers’
Federation of Schools
Paul Scofeld, Deputy Director, Offce of the Schools
Commissioner, Department for Children, Schools and
Families
Dr Liz Sidwell, Chief Executive Offcer, Haberdashers’
Aske’s Federation
Frankie Sulke, Executive Director, Children and Young
People, London Borough of Lewisham
Richard Thornhill, Executive Headteacher,
Loughborough Primary School
David Triggs, Chief Executive Offcer, Academies
Enterprise Trust
Michael Wilkins, Executive Principal, Outwood
Academies
The views expressed in this publication are
those of the author and should not be taken as
representative of the above named nor of the
National College.
Copyright © 2010 National College 3
Contents
Preface 4
Section 1: The context 7
Partnerships and federations 7
Academies 9
Accreditation of school providers and groups 9
Section 2: What is a chain? 10
Section 3: The benefts and potential benefts of chains 22
Sustaining educational improvement in challenging schools 22
Providing a new model of governance 23
Training a new generation of school leaders 24
Creating an economy of scale 26
Maintaining a sense of perspective 27
Section 4: Issues and challenges for chains 28
Section 5: What does this agenda mean for primary schools? 35
The context 35
A range of challenges 35
A range of innovative responses 38
Features shared by emerging primary models and chains 42
Pace of change and inhibitors of progress 48
Options for the future 49
Appendix 1: How performance federations help weak schools to improve 53
Bibliography 54
Copyright © 2010 National College 4
Introduction
We were delighted to be asked by the National
College for Leadership of Schools and Children’s
Services to work with Robert Hill and help steer
this thinkpiece examining the impact of chains of
schools on the English school system. It is, so far
as we know, the frst time that this issue has been
studied in depth. And it is very timely, given that
the government is introducing accreditation of
groups, or chains, of schools.
The work builds on thinking undertaken by a group
of national leaders of education (NLEs), of which we
were part, who formed a fellowship commission,
supported by the National College. The commission
was asked to address the question ‘How can the
school system develop the most effective numbers
of trusts/federations/chains, and what would be
the associated accountability framework?’ In early
2009, the commission presented its fndings to
ministers as they were planning the white paper
Your child, your schools, our future: building a 21st
century schools system (DCSF, 2009a).
We have no doubt that this publication will be of
immense value to leaders of schools, academies
and colleges as they refect on the challenges facing
schools and the growing role that chains of schools
look set to play as the accreditation of school
providers and groups develops.
In section 1, Robert Hill explains how the chains
agenda in the secondary sector has grown out of:
school-to-school improvement initiatives, ?
including the NLE programme, that have paired
high-performing schools with those that are
struggling or underperforming
the growth of groups of academies sharing ?
the same sponsor
Section 2 sets out the defning characteristics of
a chain from an educational perspective. Most
importantly, Robert points to how chains have
developed a distinct teaching and learning model
and common operating systems that are applied in
all the chain’s schools, though their application is
normally adjusted to refect the particular context
and circumstances of an individual school. Chains
train their leaders intensively and deploy them
across the schools in the chain to help ensure that
the teaching and learning model and other systems
(for managing behaviour and attendance, for
example) are consistently and appropriately applied.
The chains are employing, or moving to employ,
staff on a chain rather than a school contract. Most,
though not all, chains are running schools that are
in reasonably close proximity to each other or, as
they grow, are developing geographical clusters
of schools within their chains. This is important for
facilitating the practicalities of school-to-school
support. Chains are organising functions and
systems such as ICT, human resources, fnancial
administration and facilities management on
a central basis. They have strong performance
management systems that underpin quality
assurance procedures and help to protect the brand
value of the chain. They also have clear, effective
corporate governance arrangements, with governors
fulflling a role similar to that of non-executive
directors.
Section 3 identifes important benefts from the
growth of chains where these are constituted in
accordance with the key criteria and principles
described above. Improvements in attainment and
the results of Ofsted inspections show how chains
offer a way of helping to turn around and, crucially,
sustain educational improvement in challenging
schools. They are also in effect inventing a new
and arguably sharper form of governance for the
school sector.
Copyright © 2010 National College 5
There is growing evidence that chains are
developing a new and able generation of school
leaders, which, given the age profle of school
leaders and the rate of impending retirements,
could be a considerable plus for the school system.
Chains can also provide a more effcient economy
of scale for organising back offce and specialist
services which, in the current fnancial climate,
could be of signifcant value to schools.
However, the development of chains is raising as
many questions as answers. In section 4, Robert
highlights and discusses seven questions that need
further consideration by school leaders, promoters
of chains and the government as well as the
wider public:
1. Is there an optimum size for chains?
2. Is the process by which chains acquire schools
suffciently transparent?
3. Is the basis for funding chains fair?
4. Do all school chains have a sustainable
education and business model?
5. Will schools in chains still be committed to
working with other local schools?
6. Is the accountability system for school chains
ft for purpose?
7. Are chains of schools doing enough to share
learning between each other?
Section 5 considers what the development of
school chains means for the primary sector. The last
15 years have seen a succession of programmes
rolling out of Whitehall aimed at incentivising
secondary schools to work together, draw in
external sponsors and develop school-to-school
improvement. But there have been few initiatives
that have promoted leadership of the primary sector
by the primary sector, even though the challenges
facing primary schools are as great, if not greater.
There is a large tail of primary schools that are
struggling to achieve the standards achieved by the
majority. There are too few applicants for vacant
headships. Too many primary headteachers have
insuffcient capacity to give a suffcient amount
of time to strategic leadership, which, given the
range of issues that primary schools have to work
on (eg, fuctuating pupil numbers, curriculum
review, extended schools and changes in early years
education) is essential. Small schools and rural
schools are receiving a substantial subsidy but are
often still struggling to remain fnancially viable.
Although the primary sector has not enjoyed the
same scale of institutional incentives to work
in partnerships as the secondary sector, it has
nonetheless generated a range of innovative
models of leadership and governance. Management
partnerships, business support partnerships, primary
school federations, hard, town-wide clusters of
primary schools, secondary–primary federations,
whole-learning community federations and all-
through 3–19 schools have been some of the main
responses. Some of these initiatives have been led
by local authorities, some by school leaders and
others by innovative governors.
Growing numbers of these developments have
characteristics and benefts in common with
secondary school chains. They apply a clear teaching
and learning model and associated systems. They
have evolved a new and stronger model of primary
school leadership: an executive head responsible
for two or more schools, supported by a head of
teaching and learning on each site. This is turn is
creating a new career pathway.
Primary school federations and trusts are also
providing a broader basis for organising professional
development that enables staff to share, learn and
work with a wider group of colleagues. They are
also strengthening governance and securing better
planning and use of resources.
Copyright © 2010 National College 6
Despite these developments, a number of factors
inhibit the pace of change. There is resistance
by parents and governors in some quarters. The
funding and accountability systems reinforce the
status quo. There are particular issues for faith
schools, which account for a third of schools in the
primary sector, if they want to partner formally with
non-faith schools.
In addition, the government has still to provide a
clear roadmap of how it expects the organisation of
primary schooling to evolve over the next 5 to 10
years, although it has made partnership working a
key element of its world-class primary programme
(DCSF, 2009c), announced in December 2009.
Robert concludes this paper by arguing that we
need to create frameworks that provide primary
schools with the critical mass necessary to develop
strategic leadership, support the new career
structures, improve professional and curriculum
development, address school underperformance
and realise economies of scale.
Noting that the government is introducing
accreditation for the primary sector, he proposes
that all primary schools could (or arguably should)
be part of what he calls accredited primary school
groups (APSGs) that adopt and work to chain-like
standards. That does not mean squeezing primary
schools into a single mould: APSGs might operate
under the umbrella of a trust, a federation, an
education company, an all-through school, a whole-
learning community or town-wide cluster or, were
the Conservatives’ policies to be adopted, chains of
primary academies.
Adopting this policy objective would mean:
clearly articulating the vision and, potentially, ?
setting a timetable for all primary schools to be
part of an APSG
creating a clear system of accreditation for APSGs ?
incentivising primary schools to join an APSG, ?
not so much by making new funding available
as maximising the leverage of existing funding
streams
redesigning the National Professional ?
Qualifcation for Headship (NPQH) to refect the
executive head/head of teaching and learning
model
incorporating all primary schools assessed as ?
inadequate by Ofsted into an APSG
enabling APSGs to use budgets fexibly across all ?
the schools in their group
encouraging and empowering local authorities to ?
develop a network of APSGs in their area
creating a cadre of school leaders to champion ?
this agenda
working with faith groups to resolve the ?
particular problems associated with faith schools
The government’s recent plan for implementing the
2009 white paper proposes a number of actions
that support the development of these ideas. This
is a bold and exciting agenda, and we invite fellow
school leaders to join the debate on these issues.
Margaret Holman, Headteacher,
Bishop Stopford C of E School, Kettering
Dr Martin Young, Executive Headteacher,
The Park Federation, London
February 2010
Copyright © 2010 National College 7
Section 1: The context
The growth of chains of schools, sponsored or run
by the same foundation or charitable trust, is a
phenomenon that has crept up on the state school
system in England over the last decade. It has
come about as a result of two main factors, formal
partnerships (in the form of trusts and federations)
and academies.
Federations and trusts
Evidence on how to kickstart and sustain school
improvement – particularly in areas of deprivation
and in underperforming schools – has increasingly
pointed to the value of partnership working and
of schools leading and supporting other schools.
Independent evaluations of a range of programmes
starting with Excellence in Cities in 1999 but
including Leading Edge, London Challenge and
national leaders of education (NLEs) and national
support schools (NSSs) attest to the positive value
of focused, systematic and rigorous school-to-school
improvement support.
The most recent affrmation of this partnership
dividend comes in research undertaken for
the National College by Manchester University
(Chapman et al, 2009). The researchers studied
264 schools from a random sample of 50 local
authorities and grouped into 122 federations. They
compared these with an equivalent sample of
264 non-federated schools with a similar baseline
in terms of performance. Their analysis showed
that federation was not only positively related to
performance in the years following federation but
that the impact was greatest where the aim of the
federation was to raise educational standards by
federating lower and higher attaining schools.
In 2004 and 2005, researchers in the Department for
Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) had produced
reports (Potter, 2004; DfES, 2005) identifying the
processes that a stronger school in a performance
federation followed or applied when working with
another school (see Appendix 1). They also charted
how progress in such federations moved through
four phases:
a preparatory phase that triggers and sets the ?
scene for activity
an initial phase focused on making sure that the ?
schools’ basic operating systems are in place
a development phase to address the underlying ?
weaknesses and build up staff skills
a fnal phase in which the partnership becomes ?
much more one of mutual learning and when
the long-term future of the supported school is
planned
Although it may not have been realised at the time,
this seminal analysis started to capture what were,
in effect, the essential elements of a chain-like
approach to school improvement. The research was
also instrumental in the development of two new
policy approaches:
the inclusion of new powers (Section 63) in ?
the Education and Inspections Act 2006, giving
local authorities the option of requiring schools
in special measures or in receipt of a notice
to improve to enter into a collaboration or
federation with another school
the creation in 2008 of national challenge ?
trusts, providing a mechanism to take schools
that were below the benchmark standard for
fve GCSEs at grades A*–C (including English and
maths) within the control and governance of a
high-performing school
The creation of 20 national challenge trusts had
been approved by June 2009 and up to 70 are
envisaged.
Copyright © 2010 National College 8
Development of a chain of
trust schools
The Kemnal Trust was formed in 2008, based on
Kemnal Technology College in Bromley in south-east
London. The headteacher is an accredited national
leader of education and the college is a national
support school. The trust has taken responsibility
for three other schools: Welling, Debden Park High
and King Harold. The schools retain their distinct
personalities but share a chief executive offcer, as
well as knowledge, systems and teachers.
Kemnal, graded by Ofsted as an outstanding school,
was brought in by Essex County Council to take over
the day-to-day running of Debden Park High School
after the latter was placed in special measures in
January 2007. The same happened with Welling
School in Bexley in January 2008. Kemnal introduced
its systems to both schools and ensured that there
was good leadership on site, bringing in leaders and
expertise from other schools in the trust and making
sure there was good support and professional
development for all the staff.
As a result, both schools came out of special
measures on their second monitoring visit, the
quickest recorded turnaround for a secondary school.
Debden Park has now been judged outstanding in
its own right, just 21 months after it came out of
special measures.
A similar approach has been taken with King Harold
School in Waltham Abbey, Essex where the Kemnal
Trust appoints a majority of the governors as part of
its role as a national challenge trust school.
Despite only working with the school for a year,
the proportion of students gaining 5 GCSEs at
grades A*–C (including English and maths) has
risen by 10 percentage points to 36 per cent. In
September 2009, Ofsted assessed King Harold
School as satisfactory and improving quickly. ‘This
improvement’, inspectors concluded, ‘is due largely
to the school’s recent association with the Kemnal
Trust and the expertise in school improvement that
it has shared and provided’.
Source: DCSF, July 2009a; updated with
material supplied by the Kemnal Trust
Case study 1:
Copyright © 2010 National College 9
Academies
The academy model frst emerged around the turn
of the 20th century. The idea was to create a new
model of independently managed state schools
outside the traditional local authority system,
with a focus on areas of underperformance and
disadvantage. External sponsors would bring added
commitment, expertise and funding to this cause.
In September 2009, 200 academies were open in 82
local authorities, and up to a further 100 are due to
open by September 2010.
When academies frst started, each one was a
free-standing institution. However, as sponsors
came to terms with the concept and practicalities
of establishing an academy as well as the
opportunities arising from the expansion of the
academy programme, they increasingly moved
to sponsoring more than one academy. By
February 2008, there were 40 sponsors of multiple
academies either open or in the pipeline, including
5 (ARK, Harris, Oasis, ULT and British Edutrust) with
plans for more than 10 each. Chains now account for
more than half of all open academies.
As Lord Adonis, the former education minister,
has commented:
Accreditation of school
providers and groups
The formal recognition of the scope and potential
of the school chains agenda came in the latter half
of 2009. The government’s white paper referred to
the many examples ‘where federations, Trusts and
other multi-school models have tackled problems
in schools which have been identifed by Ofsted
as weak and failing’ (DCSF, 2009a:49). The white
paper announced the intention to introduce and
consult on an accreditation system for education
providers wishing to operate groups of schools. In
October 2009, DCSF published a consultation paper
on accreditation (DCSF, 2009b) and in February 2010
(DCSF, 2010) announced the fnal criteria for:
accredited school providers, led by educational ?
institutions (such as schools, further education
colleges and universities), academy sponsors,
church and faith groups, educational
consultancies, other educational providers or
private and third sector organisations, wanting to
run one or two schools
accredited schools groups, led by educational ?
organisations directly responsible for the
leadership and governance of two or more
academies or schools in majority trusts or
federations, wanting to run three or more
schools
Both accredited school providers and accredited
schools groups may apply with other organisations
that are not accredited but who wish to co-sponsor
or be a partner to the application.
Those leading an accreditation application will be
expected to have (or demonstrate the capacity to
access) a track record in their own feld; the vision
to be able to lead a partnership; accountability and
governance mechanisms for ensuring improvement;
and the knowledge and experience to support
signifcant school improvement.
The proposed criteria are fully aligned with the
existing criteria developed by the National College
for designating national leaders of education and
national support schools.
All schools and education providers will in future
have to be accredited if they want to be considered
for formal school intervention projects, such as
new academies and instances where a school is
taking over another school via a majority trust
or federation. These proposals originally related
only to secondary schools and academies, but
the government has since announced plans to
introduce accreditation within the primary sector.
DCSF plans to accredit the frst groups of schools in
March 2010.
The rise of these academy chains is a highly
signifcant development for English state
education.
Adonis, 2008a
Copyright © 2010 National College 10
Section 2: What is a chain?
Defning elements of a
commercial chain
George Ashford is a senior executive for Inchape plc,
and has worked in a range of commercial chains in
the retail sector for many years. In a presentation
for the National College he identifed seven defning
aspects of chains in the commercial sector.
1. The brand is a combination of two things: a)
values – what an organisation stands for, and b)
delivery – what it achieves.
2. Getting real ownership of the brand in each
outlet is essential and needs to be addressed
as a priority.
3. The biggest challenge is ensuring quality in
every outlet – one or two poorly performing
outlets can soon damage the reputation of
the brand.
4. The key to addressing this is high-quality
leadership and management in each outlet
and across the chain, coupled with ensuring
consistency of implementation of the
fundamentals in each outlet.
5. 80 per cent of what each outlet needs to do is
based on standard operating procedures. We
know these procedures work so why invent
something new? All outlets need to accept
and implement the 80 per cent. That leaves
20 per cent for creativity, inspiration and
contextualisation. Problems arise when those in
charge of outlets try to amend the 80 per cent
instead of focusing on the 20 per cent.
6. There is a need for a well-defned set of
performance measures for evaluation and a clear
process for ‘exiting’ poor performers.
7. Increasing the scale of the overall chain needs to
be handled very carefully. Many come unstuck
by over-expanding. Increased size gives you
fexibility and increases income but you must
not compromise on quality and capacity to lead.
Case study 2:
In the commercial sector, chains are a commonplace
part of the market system. A chain may supply a
service, license the manufacture of a product or run
a set of retail outlets. A chain-based enterprise is
frequently driven by a vision and set of values that
are backed up with standardised operating systems
and/or a product range that provides the basis of
the customer offer. Chains are normally strong on
metrics and quality assurance procedures in order
to protect the value of the brand, secure a healthy
fnancial return and satisfy customers’ aspirations
(see Case study 2). An overarching board normally
provides the main governance and is ultimately
accountable for the success of the chain.
Copyright © 2010 National College 11
Vision and value statement
The Haberdashers’ Aske’s Federation consists
of three sister academies in south-east London
– ‘three schools, one vision’ is the federation’s
strapline:
Case study 3:
The secondary school chains that are developing
share many of the characteristics of their
commercial cousins, though they have also
developed features that are peculiar to an
educational environment. Typically they will have
the features described below.
Clear vision and values: ? These capture and
describe the central driving educational ethos of
the chain. Most schools have a vision statement
but what tends to set a chain’s statement apart
is an explicit or implicit description of how it
sees the mission going beyond the boundaries of
an individual institution (see Case study 3).
? A distinct teaching and learning model: Along
with systems covering areas such as behaviour,
pastoral support and engagement with parents,
chains adopt a common teaching and learning
model across all the member schools. This is
the crucial defning feature that makes a school
chain a chain and distinguishes it from other
groups of schools that are working together with
shared governance. The teaching and learning
model underpins the operation of all the schools
in the chain. One chain captures the importance
of its common teaching and learning model in
this way:
Case studies 4 and 5 give examples of how teaching
and learning models operate in practice and how
they apply across a chain.
The Aske’s vision is one where all pupils
in the federation are inspired to reach
their full potential, regardless of their
ability or background, where aspirations
and achievements are constantly raised
through the highest quality academic,
personal and vocational teaching and
guidance, and where the pupils and
staff at the three Academies beneft
from each other’s strengths.
Source: Haberdashers’ Aske’s Federation
(www.hahc.org.uk)
By sharing common standard operating
procedures, frameworks and policies,
we will be developing academies that
can lead an educational evolution
rather than revolution on their way to
sustainable, high-performing status.
Academies Enterprise Trust
(www.academiesenterprisetrust.org)
Copyright © 2010 National College 12
Outwood Transformation
Model
©
The Outwood Grange family currently consists of
fve schools serving over 6,000 students. It includes
approximately 800 staff with a budget of £35
million and involves work with 4 local authorities.
Two of the schools are academies (Outwood Grange
Academy, Wakefeld and Outwood Academy,
Adwick, Doncaster) and the other three schools
in Yorkshire and Stockton-on-Tees were linked to
Outwood Grange because they were in special
measures, national challenge or both. Outwood
Grange is working with these schools under NLE
contracts. Each school retains its own governing
body or has an interim executive board.
In four of the fve schools, the individuals acting
as headteachers have as their substantive position
vice-principal at Outwood Grange. In the ffth,
the headteacher has been appointed by the
executive principal and inducted into the Outwood
Transformation Model
©
, which has seven strands.
Strand 1: Leadership with vision and effcacy
The vision, Students come frst, is critical to setting
the tone for a school’s improvement strategy.
Schools are organised round the ‘deeps’ model
developed by Professor David Hargreaves with the
Specialist Schools and Academies Trust.
Strand 2: Quality learning and teaching in
the classroom
There is a clear focus on quality in the classroom
with fve-part lessons and lessons for learning
implemented across a whole school. There is an
emphasis on outstanding lessons and the Ofsted
criteria for outstanding lessons. A classroom
observation database is set up to allow speedy
analysis of good practice within the school.
Strand 3: Flexible curriculum model
The curriculum is reviewed and a two-year Key
Stage 3 followed by a three-year Key Stage 4 is
introduced, including vertical mentor groups and
vertical teaching groups. GCSEs are offered in
one year as a default mode, with whole-subject
immersion days planned at intervals throughout the
academic year.
Strand 4: Systematic monitoring and
intervention
A whole-school monitoring and systematic
intervention programme is used which involves
sharing with students and reporting to parents at six-
weekly intervals on progress across every subject in
relation to their Fischer Family Trust band D target.
Strand 5: Systems, protocols and learning
environments
A range of inter-related systems and protocols
(including a whole-school behaviour programme,
curriculum-led fnancial planning and changes to
the school day) are introduced so that a school can
develop cohesively across the board.
Strand 6: Bespoke professional development
Professional development for all staff, including
support staff, is seen as the key to sustaining
improvement. A school’s leadership team will attend
a two-day leadership challenge residential event that
equips them with an understanding of the processes
and the tools required to be effective leaders. Middle
leaders and aspiring middle leaders are invited
to attend two courses, each of 10 modules, on
transforming middle leaders. Every week, two hours
are set aside for a professional development session
with all staff, including support staff, where the
models, systems and protocols are embedded.
Strand 7: A praise and reward achievement
culture for staff and students
Heavy emphasis is placed on raising self-esteem
and praising progress. Students, staff, governors
and the community need to feel positive about
themselves and rally behind a school as it starts to
become a successful institution. This also involves
immersion visits to Outwood Grange Academy so
that staff, students, governors and parents can see
for themselves the impact of the vision.
Source: Outwood Grange Academy
Case study 4:
Copyright © 2010 National College 13
Kunskapsskolan
educational model
Kunskapsskolan is the largest secondary
education provider in Sweden. The company
runs 32 schools for 10,000 12–19 year olds as
part of the Swedish free schools system, which
enables parents to spend an education voucher
at a school of their choice. The schools are
comprehensive, inclusive and co-educational
in their intake. They are typically smaller than
English schools and have up to 500 students. The
schools all follow the same pedagogic approach.
The Kunskapsskolan model is based on
personalised learning. Every student follows a
long-term learning and attainment plan agreed
between the student and the student’s personal
tutor and parents. Students work at a pace that
matches their abilities and goals, using the most
effective learning style to achieve the goals
set out in the national curriculum. Parents are
actively engaged in their children’s education,
participating in setting goals and able to monitor
progress through online reporting systems.
Although the model is focused on a student-
centred approach to learning, Kunskapsskolan
follows the national curriculum, participates
in national tests and conforms to national
assessment systems.
Kunskapsskolan has been selected as a preferred
provider to run two academies in the London
borough of Richmond-upon-Thames and a third in
Suffolk, which will be called learning schools.
Source: Kunskapsskolan
(www.kunskapsskolan.co.uk)
ARK model: principles
and approach
1. High expectations for:
– student achievement and behaviour
– staff professionalism, skill and commitment
2. Rigorous and engaging lessons
3. Respect for teachers and a calm orderly
environment
4. Continuing assessment and responsive
support for each child
5. Depth before breadth: an emphasis on
literacy and maths
6. More time for learning
7. Larger schools broken down into smaller
units: schools-within-schools
8. Aspirational identity
9. Motivational culture
10. Strong partnership with parents
The four key aspects of the ARK model
1. Focus on the key levers of improvement
2. Clear and simple aims, roles and
accountability
3. Transparent and honest feedback
4. Principal autonomy
Source: ARK Schools (www.arkschools.net)
Case study 5:
Case study 6:
Such is the importance that ARK Schools (which
sponsors eight academies and has a further one
set to open in 2012) attaches to its teaching and
learning model that it has formalised the core
content in a handbook. It explains in practical
terms how the 10 principles of the ARK model
and the 4 aspects of its operating approach (see
Case study 6) should apply in each ARK academy.
Other aspects of the handbook cover academic
tracking arrangements, HR, fnance and governance
arrangements.
Nearly all of the chains interviewed for this project
were clear that it was not just a question of
automatically imposing an infexible central model
on an institution. They recognised the need to take
account of the local context.
Copyright © 2010 National College 14
For example, EdisonLearning, an education
company working with 100 schools including
several academies, has developed a comprehensive
secondary school model, e2. This covers:
relationships and ethos between learners ?
and teachers
curriculum (instructional leaning, conceptual ?
learning, collaborative learning and
personal learning)
organisation and systems ?
change management ?
people development ?
performance measures ?
EdisonLearning sees the model as being 70–75 per
cent non-negotiable and 25–30 per cent context
specifc (ie, adapted to the circumstances of an
individual school).
In the nine Harris academies in south London, the
teaching and learning model comes out of proven
approaches used in the frst Harris schools. All the
Harris academies are expected to follow a template
which is supported by structures, systems and
policies, but they have fexibility to adapt it to the
local context.
How this works in practice is illustrated by what
happened when in January 2006 the Harris
Federation agreed to convert Tamworth Manor
High School in the London borough of Merton to an
academy on a fast-track basis. Dan Moynihan, CEO
of the Harris Federation writes:
A system for training leaders and other staff: ?
This means the teaching and learning model is
applied consistently and in a way that ensures
that the model is understood and internalised.
This approach is an integral feature of the
Outwood chain (see Case study 4). In the Harris
Federation, the heads of English, maths and
science come together to study data on relative
performance and observe lessons in each other’s
academies both to provide challenge and also
to learn from each other’s practice. A specialist
team of advanced skills teachers works across
all the federation’s schools. There are common
professional development training days across
the federation and all 85 newly qualifed
teachers working in the 9 Harris academies are
supported and trained together.
? Deployment of key leaders and staff across
the chain: Case study 4 showed how vice-
principals from Outwood were being deployed
as headteachers across the family of schools.
Case study 7 below illustrates how the Kemnal
Trust has made extensive use of its leadership
resources across the four schools that are part of
the trust. The headteachers of Walsall, Sandwell
Each of our academies has its own
personality and way of doing things.
Harris Federation of South London
Schools Prospectus 2009/10,
(www.harrisfederation.org.uk)
All of the Harris CTC policies and procedures
were imported to the new academy and
have since been developed and ‘tweaked’
where appropriate to ft local circumstances.
We transferred our ‘house system’ where
assistant principals lead houses with groups
of subject staff responsible for both the
academic and pastoral welfare of students,
removing the previous roles of heads of
year. We also transferred an innovative
14–19 vocational curriculum, a tried and
tested computerised system for tracking
and monitoring individual students and
behaviour management systems. To boost
post-16 achievement, we created a joint sixth
form between three academies, importing
established systems all in one go.
Moynihan, 2008:17
Copyright © 2010 National College 15
and Madley academies, which are all sponsored
by the Mercers Company in association with
Thomas Telford School, have all come from
Thomas Telford School. The head of Merton
Academy, which is part of the Harris Federation,
was previously a vice-principal at Harris City
Technology College. The principal of Crayford
Academy comes from the leadership team of
the Haberdashers’ Aske’s Federation, of which it
is a part.
These leaders are not only able leaders in their
own right but also, particularly in the early days of
a chain, expert proponents and guardians of the
teaching and learning model on which the chain
is based. As Lord Adonis has commented in the
context of establishing new academies in a chain:
[Academy sponsors] often appoint principals
to their new academies from within their
existing ‘family’ of schools, identifying the
most promising leaders who are specially
trained to take up headships elsewhere
within their ‘group’.
Adonis, 2008b:vii
Deployment of key leaders
across the Kemnal Trust schools
A vice-principal at Kemnal Technology College
moved to become headteacher at Debden Park High
School and having led the transformation of that
school, is now also acting executive head of King
Harold School.
The director of e-learning and the head of maths
at Kemnal Technology College also transferred to
Debden Park as assistant headteachers.
Two heads of college and the vice-principal with
responsibility for science at Kemnal Technology
College moved to Welling School to take
over respectively as headteacher, frst deputy
headteacher and deputy headteacher (with
responsibility for science at Key Stages 3 and 4).
Two of the current vice-principals at Kemnal
Technology College support new schools that join
the trust. One focuses on Year 11 and sorting out
systems and structures and training staff in the use
of data. The other interviews all staff and trains a
continuing professional development co-ordinator.
The director of special educational needs (SEN) at
Kemnal Technology College ensures that all schools
in the trust have robust systems for identifying and
supporting pupils with SEN and provides training for
all SEN staff.
The CEO oversees the work of all the schools in the
trust and his previous post as principal of Kemnal
Technology College has been flled by one of the
vice-principals at the school.
The director of fnance, estates and administration of
the Kemnal Trust exercises fnancial oversight across
all the schools in the trust.
Source: The Kemnal Trust
(www.ktc.bromley.sch.uk/information/kemnal_trust.asp)
Case study 7:
Copyright © 2010 National College 16
Direct employment of all or key staff: ?
The deployment of leaders and other staff across
a chain is in part made possible because in many
of the academy chains all the staff are employed
on a central, academy-wide contract. In trusts
and federations, the position may be slightly
different – senior staff may be on a central
trust or federation-wide contract with new staff
moved to a central contract as staff turnover
naturally occurs.
At Outwood, for example, vice-principals have
contracts that oblige them to work across the
north of England. Other staff, who are able and
developing as leaders or expert practitioners
but who may not be able to gain promotion
because other high-quality staff are flling lead
positions, may be put on assignment posts. That
means that they too can be deployed across all
the schools in the Outwood family. This fexible
approach also means that staff can be moved
around as contracts come to an end.
Geographical proximity: ?
Most of the chains are operating in a relatively
defned area or sub-region. The Harris
academies, for example, are concentrated
in four boroughs in south London. The three
Haberdashers’ Aske’s schools are located in
south-east London. The Outwood family is based
in Yorkshire and adjacent local authorities.
Thomas Telford and the three Mercer academies
are all situated quite close to each other in the
West Midlands, though there are plans to open a
new academy in Hammersmith in west London.
The four Emmanuel Foundation academies
are based in the north east. The Kemnal Trust
operates across Bromley, Bexley and Essex,
which thanks to the Dartford crossing provides a
relatively geographically compact focus for the
trust. The Cabot Learning Federation consists of
three academies in Bristol and one in nearby
Weston-Super-Mare that will join the federation
when it opens in 2010.
There are, however, exceptions to this
geographic rule. Six of the eight ARK academies
are located in inner London (which it considers
to be important in terms of the support the
academies provide for each other) but there is
also now an ARK academy in Portsmouth and
one in Birmingham. Similarly, four Academy
Enterprise Trust (AET) academies are located in
Essex, and new academies that are relatively
close by are coming on stream in Suffolk
and Enfeld. However, AET is also expecting
to run academies in the London borough of
Richmond and the Isle of Wight, which will
result in the chain having 10 academies by
2011. As it expands, AET is planning to group its
academies in clusters as the basis for providing
management and support.
The seven academies sponsored by Edutrust
Academies Charitable Trust are dispersed across
the Midlands, Yorkshire and North London.
The 11 Oasis academies are situated around the
country, though signifcantly most of them are
in pairs that are near to each other, providing a
basis for mutual learning and support. The 17
academies of the largest academy sponsor,
the United Learning Trust, are also fairly
scattered though they fall into around 5
geographic clusters.
Central resources and systems: ?
Just about every chain is organising some of its
functions centrally, ie across the chain. As Case
study 8 illustrates, the functions that are most
commonly provided centrally are executive
leadership (and associated support), human
resources, fnancial management (including
invoicing, payments and payroll systems)
and ICT. Premises management is sometimes
organised centrally and sometimes by each
academy individually.
Copyright © 2010 National College 17
Examples of central functions
managed by chains of schools
Case study 8:
Chain Number
of staff
employed
centrally
Centrally organised functions Arrangements for funding central functions
Chain A
(5 schools)
5 executive principal ?
director of executive ?
services
director of human ?
resources (HR)
director of fnance ?
director of facilities ?
Each school contributes a modest charge to
cover the cost of central functions and
capacity-building support. As the family of
schools grows, it is expected to reduce this
charge to between 0.5% and 1% of
budgets. In addition, income is received for
the support provided for assisting schools in
special measures or national challenge.
Chain B
(4 schools)
6 chief executive ?
bursar who provides ?
fnancial and business
planning support across
the trust
vice-principal, who ?
leads work on a funded
programme of school-to-
school improvement
network manager and ?
two technicians employed
centrally to oversee the
ICT function
There are three sources of funding:
payments from schools for centrally ?
provided services such as ICT
payments from external bodies for ?
services, eg SSAT
fees from local authorities, schools ?
and DCSF for providing support for
underperforming schools
Chain C
(4 schools)
6.8 executive principal and ?
part of the salaries of two
assistant principals
fnance and procurement ?
HR ?
marketing and public ?
relations
one team assistant/ ?
personal assistant
Each academy contributes £95 per student
to the central running costs, yielding
around £250,000 in total (about 1% or
less of income). This is matched by income
from consultancy, software sales and local
authority contracts for school improvement
support. The chain also carries out a large
part of its own project management on
planning new academies, which brings in
additional income.
Copyright © 2010 National College 18
Chain Number
of staff
employed
centrally
Centrally organised functions Arrangements for funding
central functions
Chain D
(9 schools)
15 approx chief executive and personal assistant ?
director of fnance and operational ?
development (including site
maintenance)
director of projects ?
ICT director and supporting ICT and ?
fnance staff
small team of subject specialists and ?
project managers
The central offce also deals with HR ?
and pay roll, including negotiation with
the unions.
A charge is made on each
academy’s budget.
Chain E
(8 schools)
40 approx HR and performance management ?
of staff
centrally procured and managed ?
ICT systems
fnance (invoicing, payroll and accounts ?
management)
project management of new ?
academies,
education services, including ?
negotiating improvement targets with
academies, data and performance
management, internal inspection of
schools, brokering support (particularly
in relation to maths and, literacy
and assessment) and challenging
underperformance
Income includes:
fees from DCSF for costs of ?
setting up an academy
fees charged to academies ?
of just under 5% of total
government funding, which
is about half the amount that
would be retained by the
local authority in relation to a
community school
subsidies from the sponsor’s ?
charitable trust, though
the long-term objective is
for central functions to be
fnancially self-suffcient
Copyright © 2010 National College 19
All the secondary chains interviewed for this
project said that having common IT systems was
essential for the effective operation of the chain,
though some were constrained by existing PFI
contracts from putting this into practice. One chain
even considered the issue so important that it had
stripped out the PFI ICT systems it had inherited
and paid to have its own ft-for-purpose systems
installed throughout schools when they joined
the chain.
The number of staff centrally employed by chains is
generally quite small, though comparisons between
chains need to be treated with caution as the
chains are of different sizes and at different stages
of development. In the case of the chain with
the largest number of staff, the numbers refect
a different approach to providing improvement
support: it is more chain- than school-based.
Funding for central functions comes from two main
sources: charges on schools in the chain and income
generated from improvement support services
provided to schools outside the chain, either under
contract or bought in. In one case, a sponsor is
contributing to the central costs but this is not
considered to be a long-term arrangement.
? Strong quality-assurance arrangements:
Systematic and intelligent use of data is an
essential element in the life of most secondary
schools. School chains have similarly put in place
information systems to track performance on
both a whole-school and pupil-level basis. They
understand the importance of timely data both
for enhancing performance and protecting what
a brand stands for.
Systematic monitoring and intervention forms ?
strand 4 of the Outwood model (Case study 4)
and was a key aspect of the Harris Federation’s
work with Merton Academy described above.
Similarly, the Kemnal Trust’s ICT systems support
registration seven times a day, online school
reports, timetabling, behaviour records and
homework management. All this is available
to staff, pupils and parents on a 24–7 basis.
In addition, the progress of every student is
monitored against demanding targets across
all key stages. The data is available to be
interrogated in real time by the trust leadership
and is monitored on a weekly basis and again
parents can access this information at any time.
The teaching and learning practices needed to
deliver demanding improvement targets are
subject to rigorous quality assurance, linked
to performance management and continual
professional development.
As well as having central ICT data management ?
systems, the ARK Schools director of education
leads a team that inspects all its schools so that
it has an external view and assessment of how
they are performing.
The executive principal of the Cabot Learning ?
Federation sees it as part of his role to
observe lessons with colleagues from the
senior leadership team (SLT) to moderate the
judgements they are making about teaching
and learning. He attends one SLT meeting in
each academy every month to give feedback
to colleagues on the federation and to keep up
to date with developments. He also manages
the federation’s key performance indicators,
using data provided by the academy leadership
teams and, in conjunction with his chair, leads
the performance management of the academy
principals. The executive principal also leads
reviews of core areas of development such
as the quality of sixth form provision or the
progress being made in English and maths across
the academies.
Effective and clear corporate governance: ?
In general, the chains interviewed for this
project had clearly defned corporate governance
arrangements that reserve central accountability
for a parent board, balanced with maintaining
autonomy for individual institutions. In most
cases the overarching corporate board reserves
the right to nominate the majority of governors
to the governing body of each institution within
the chain.
Copyright © 2010 National College 20
Figure 1 shows the governance structure for the
Cabot Learning Federation and the membership
of the individual academy councils and the overall
federation board. Underpinning the membership
arrangements is a formal memorandum that
describes the roles and accountabilities of the
Figure 1: Governance of the
Cabot Learning Federation
board and the councils in respect of strategic
responsibilities, governance, fnance and asset
management, staffng, communications, monitoring
and evaluation, students, curriculum, teaching and
learning and communities.
Source: Cabot Learning Federation (adapted)
Student parliament – Advisory education panel – Parent and community group – Staff voice group
Cabot Learning Federation Board
Three sponsor representatives from Rolls Royce ?
Three sponsor representatives from the University ?
of West of England (UWE)
One elected parent academy councillor ?
Three chairs of the academy Councils ?
Executive principal ?
Federation strategic leadership team
– Executive principal
– Academy principals
Federation hubs
– Personalised learning and innovation
– Leadership and succession planning
– Student development and
– community liaison
– Primary school partnership
John Cabot
Academy Council
Bristol Brunel
Academy Council
Bristol Metropolitan
Academy Council
Membership of academy councils
Six local representatives:
principal ?
two elected parent councillors ?
one elected teacher councillor ?
one elected support staff councillor ?
one local authority councillor ?
Seven sponsor representatives
executive principal ?
one adult students advocate ?
fve Rolls Royce/UWE nominees ?
who know the community well
and have the right skills
Copyright © 2010 National College 21
The link between the main corporate board and
that of individual institutions is normally secured
by having the chairs of each school in the chain
take a seat on the main board and/or by the
executive head/principal and chair of the main
board sitting on both the main board and board
of individual schools.
The corporate board, and in particular the chair of
the board, also play a key role in most chains in
reviewing the performance of the executive head/
principal and in setting their salary.
All of the academy chains and nearly all of the
chains that are growing out school improvement
contracts have external sponsors or people with
commercial or academic expertise on their boards.
This is hugely valued and is seen as bringing greater
rigour, challenge and innovative thinking to the
work of the chain.
The Cabot model includes a local authority
representative on each academy council, illustrative
of how some chains chose to work with local
agencies. Doncaster Metropolitan Council, for
example, is a co-sponsor of the Outwood
Academy, Adwick.
The chains that were interviewed also placed great
emphasis on identifying and securing able and
appropriate local representatives to contribute to
the governing bodies of the individual schools or
academies. They recognised the importance of
the local context but were also determined to fnd
people of the right calibre and the experience for
these positions.
The formal accountability and governance of chains
is in most chains complemented by an executive
group that leads and manages the whole chain. In
the Cabot model it is called the federation strategic
leadership team. It is composed of the executive
principal and the academy principals and its role is to:
agree common goals and shared practice across ?
the academies
identify areas of focus where support and help ?
from another academy could be of use
check the alignment of the federation vision ?
with that of the academies
monitor and quality-assure the performance ?
of students across the federation
The Harris Federation has a principals’ executive
group, chaired by the chief executive offcer (CEO)
that meets half-termly and reports directly to the
Harris Federation Board through the CEO.
Copyright © 2010 National College 22
Section 3: The benefts and
potential benefts of chains
Not all the schools that are promoted by the same
sponsor or share the same overall governance meet
the criteria for being chains in the full sense of that
term and as defned in section 2. But where chains
are truly chains, they are contributing to real and
defned benefts to the education system in England.
The chain phenomenon is helping to address some
of the systemic challenges that the school system
has wrestled with for generations.
Sustaining educational
improvement in challenging schools
We already know that a strong school, with good
systems and a clear model of school improvement,
can, if it is moored alongside an underperforming
school, be a very if not the most effective way of
addressing its problems (Potter, 2004; DfES, 2005;
Hill, 2008; Hill & Matthews, 2008). This concept
lies at the heart of NLEs and NSSs. Structured
partnerships of this kind have a good track record
in helping to lead struggling and weak schools out
of special measures rapidly and bringing about a
signifcant improvement in results. The Kemnal Trust
example (Case study 1) is one of many examples
that could be cited.
The challenge has been to sustain schools as
they emerge from an Ofsted category or other
challenging circumstances, take their performance
and development to the next level and ensure
that high achievement is, as it were, embedded in
their DNA. Too often, as tended to be the case with
schools that were part of Fresh Start, institutions slip
back after an initial burst of improvement.
Becoming part of a school chain is not the only
solution but, provided it follows the model described
in section 2, it does offer a structural framework for
enabling improving schools to continue to progress.
It is not just that this model provides an ongoing
source of leadership, teaching and curriculum
support and development – though that in itself is
signifcant. It is also because integration within a
chain embeds on a permanent basis the aspirations,
expectations, systems, standards and accountability
associated with the success of one or a group of
schools (see Case study 9).
There is, however, one caveat. A chain and, as they
expand, each sub-cluster should have at least one
school that has performed highly over a sustained
period at the heart of its operation if it is to deliver
this mission. A chain where all the schools are still
en route to achieving high attainment, as some
of the academy chains still are, may not be in the
position to take on a struggling school. The effort
in taking an underperforming but improving school
may divert resources and effort away from more
immediate priorities. The accreditation criteria for
both accredited school providers and accredited
school groups (DCSF, 2009b) guards against this risk
by putting an appropriate emphasis on a sustained
track record of achievement.
Copyright © 2010 National College 23
Providing a new model
of governance
For a long time, many headteachers have been
concerned about the governance of schools. They
generally acknowledge the dedication and time that
governors give to their institution. A good number
of headteachers will also readily accept that they
are fortunate enough to have an able chair who
brings a wealth of expertise and experience to the
work. Others describe how some of their governors
add real value. But overall the school governance
system often seems to deliver less than the sum of
its parts with too much of the work of governing
bodies bound up in committees, papers and
procedures.
The introduction of trusts and academies and, to an
extent, federations, is effectively inventing a new
form of school governance. A clearer distinction
is being made between strategic direction and
oversight and more operational accountability,
with the former being exercised at chain level and
the latter at school level. On the whole, governing
bodies are smaller and more focused and they
are bringing in new sources of expertise from the
business, academic, faith and charitable sectors.
The net effect, as section 2 highlighted and the
experience of the Harris Federation shows, is a
sharper and more driven form of accountability
(In Case study 10, Dan Moynihan, CEO of the Harris
Federation, explains this in more detail.)
The commercial sector’s preoccupation with
bottom-line performance is rubbing off when
applied to schools. The involvement of higher
education is helping to bring rigour to the
evaluation of teaching and learning models and
interventions. Faith- and charitable foundation-
based chains are bringing an enhanced sense of
moral purpose to educational governance.
Sustaining improvement
at Haberdashers’ Aske’s
Knights Academy
Knights Academy came into being in its current
form in September 2005. Since then the academy
has made and sustained huge progress moving
from 9 per cent of students achieving 5 or more
GCSEs at grades A*–C in 2005 to 64 per cent in
2009. In addition, although it recognises that
further progress is still needed, 35 per cent of
students gained 5 or more GCSEs at grades
A*–C, including mathematics and English. In
2008 Ofsted assessed the academy as ‘good’
and improving rapidly.
The academy is the frst to acknowledge
that these achievements have been gained
and sustained through being part of the
Haberdashers’ Aske’s Federation – Knights shares
a chief executive, board of governors and sixth
form provision with nearby Haberdashers’ Aske’s
Hatcham College. Knight’s principal says:
Case study 9:
We draw on the support and expertise
of Hatcham College, and the vision
and ethos of the Haberdashers’ Aske’s
Federation.
The federation has now added a third
school to its chain with the opening in
September 2009 of a 3–18 academy in
Crayford in the London borough of Bexley.
Source: Haberdashers’ Aske’s Federation
(www.hahc.org.uk)
Copyright © 2010 National College 24
Not all academies are part of a chain but of 21
academies that formed part of the academy
evaluation programme, the quality of governance,
as assessed in Ofsted inspections, was found to
be outstanding or good in all but one of them
(PricewaterhouseCoopers, 2008).
Training a new generation
of school leaders
At the present time, 3 out of 5 headteachers are
aged over 50 and over a quarter are over 55. The
ensuing retirement bulge is not expected to work its
way through the system until 2015 (Pattison, 2009).
The school system faces a big challenge in recruiting
suffcient leaders, particularly as it has until now
typically taken up to 20 years for a teacher to
progress from the classroom to headship.
It is not just the quantity of headteachers that
need to be trained and recruited that is an issue.
Headship is becoming more demanding and
complex. It is requiring increased skills in strategic
and change management as society, the economy
and education policy constantly evolve. Partnership
working between schools, which continues to
grow, involves new ways of working, particularly in
terms of relating to other leaders and institutions.
The National Professional Qualifcation for
Headship (NPQH), now a requirement for all new
headteachers or principals, has been reviewed to
refect these new demands.
School partnerships provide a good context for
supporting and developing aspiring and middle
leaders. They enable emerging leaders to observe
the style of leadership of leaders from institutions
other than their own. They often have the
opportunity to take on new responsibilities either in
another school or across a partnership. There may
well be joint leadership training with colleagues
from other schools.
As section 2 illustrated, chains build on this
approach, align it with their teaching and learning
model and systematically use the chain to grow,
nurture and deploy new leaders. The Harris
Federation, for example, has its own MA programme
which is focused on school improvement and is
designed to help teachers of all levels progress to
leadership and management roles.
Staff in the AET academies who are working
towards promotion or who are identifed through
a talent management programme are offered two
leadership routes – one to become a leader of
Governance of the
Harris Federation
Case study 10:
The governing body comprises a range
of people representing the community
as well as business people who bring
a sharper accountability than might
normally be the case in the state sector.
A key difference with other schools
is that sponsors are not constrained
by thinking inside the standard
‘educational box’. For the sponsor, there
are never problems or excuses that
prevent things from happening, just
situations which need solutions. It is this
absolute expectation of success which
makes the difference.
Moynihan, 2008:15
Copyright © 2010 National College 25
pedagogy and the other to enable them to develop
as leaders of organisations. These routes are linked
by a set of common development opportunities
covering access to Master’s qualifcations, in-house
middle leadership programmes, opportunities
for action-based research and shared leadership
activities. A coaching programme supports
participants, enabling them to develop their
expertise and, if required, change routes mid-fow.
Schools in a chain are also able to shorten the
period of development by investing in the training
of emerging leaders and being able to move them
around the chain. A head of department or an
assistant principal does not have to apply for a
new post in a new school, bed themselves in and
work their passage before applying for the next
promotion. They can, as with the Outwood model,
simply apply for an assignment post that will move
them round the chain’s schools in different roles.
In many ways it might be described as a more
apprenticeship-based approach to growing school
leaders – a development that will have implications
for the National College as it plans the future of
leadership development training and support.
Chains are creating what one executive principal
describes as an internal employment market that
is providing a ladder of opportunity within a chain
for aspiring leaders. Of more signifcance for the
maintained school sector as a whole is that the
chains are providing a resource that addresses the
vexed issue of succession planning. Effectively they
are helping to build what is often referred to as
system leadership.
Several chains are being encouraged in their
leadership development role by bidding successfully
for additional resources to develop leadership
capacity. This is enabling them to offer leadership
development support to a much wider group of
schools and potential leaders (see Case study 11).
Future leaders
Case study 11:
ARK Schools partnered with the National
College and the Specialist Schools and
Academies Trust to establish Future
Leaders, a programme that aims
to develop the next generation of
headteachers for secondary schools
that are in challenging circumstances.
It offers a four-year leadership
development programme for current
and former teachers. ARK also provided
signifcant funding, especially in the
start-up phase.
After a year-long apprenticeship under
a successful urban head, participants
receive cutting-edge UK- and US-
based training, along with coaching
and mentoring from education and
business leaders, to help them gain a
senior leadership role after 12 months.
The goal is for them to be working
towards headship within four years. The
programme recruits participants and
training schools for London, north-west
England and the West Midlands on a
rolling basis throughout the year.
Source: Ark Schools (www.arkonline.org)
Copyright © 2010 National College 26
Creating an economy of scale
Schools in England have seen their budgets rise in
real terms (ie, after taking account of infation) by
more than half since 1997 and, given that there are
fewer pupils, by 65 per cent in terms of spending
per pupil (Audit Commission, 2009). However, the
fnancial outlook is, to use the Audit Commission’s
term, ‘more austere’.
DCSF is expecting schools to contribute £3.7 billion
of cash-releasing effciency savings from 2008/09
to 2010/11. As part of this, a 1 per cent effciency
saving, worth £307 million, has been incorporated
into school funding for the period from 2008/09
to 2010/11. Beyond 2010/11, the government
has said it will increase schools’ budgets by 0.7
per cent in real terms – far lower than in recent
years – and schools will also have to generate
further effciencies and pay for increases in national
insurance (NI) contributions and salaries from within
this total.
The introduction of local management of schools
and the increased autonomy of schools fostered
by successive governments have liberated the
leadership of many schools and enabled them
to be more creative and innovative in using
their resources. But decentralisation of fnancial
management has also brought some diseconomy
of scale.
It is not cost-effective for each and every school to
purchase its own ICT licences or organise its own
ICT procurement. Although many schools buy in
some services such as HR and legal services from
their local authorities, many take responsibility for
their own premises management, administration
and procurement. There is great variation between
schools’ spending on standard items, suggesting
that there is scope for large savings. For example,
the Audit Commission has stated that £400 million
could be saved by better procurement alone (Audit
Commission, 2009).
School chains point to a sensible way of organising
school fnances. Chains can afford to employ fully
qualifed and experienced fnancial and business
managers and can make savings in back offce
administration by pooling resources and using
standard systems across the chain. The chain also
provides a better and more economically viable
basis for business planning, the organisation of
procurement and maintenance of premises:
This approach has been reinforced by the Audit
Commission, which reports that:
By managing our ICT, fnances, human
resources and site maintenance from one
central location our costs are reduced. This
also means that individual academies can
spend more time focussing on education
and improving standards.
www.harrisfederation.org.uk
The secondary school example (in
our Managing School Resources tool)
demonstrates how, by employing an
executive principal and administrative
staff across two schools and having single
department heads, the management and
administrative costs for one school have
reduced from £633,000 to £447,000, a
reduction of nearly 30 per cent. This is
approximately 6 per cent of the school’s £3
million total annual revenue expenditure.
Audit Commission, 2009:38
Copyright © 2010 National College 27
One needs to beware of generalising from individual
examples, and partnerships or mergers between
schools are unlikely to be effective if they are
undertaken primarily for fnancial reasons. However,
it would be odd if chains were not able to take
advantage of their economies of scale.
Chains are also beginning to look at their business
model for delivering the curriculum and are starting
to identify ways of managing their resources more
effectively by, for example, sharing specialist posts
across the chain, establishing joint sixth forms and
rationalising the use of support staff.
In some cases, chains are using their teaching
and learning model as the basis for establishing
a benchmark unit cost for teaching a particular
module or programme because they know from
the lead school what it costs to apply the model
effectively and successfully. They are then using
these unit costs as a point of comparison when
they incorporate another school into the chain
(see Case study 12).
In short, organised clusters or groups of schools are
much more likely to provide an economy of scale
that will enable schools and academies to weather
a period of fnancial stringency.
Maintaining a sense of
perspective
Claiming these benefts for chains does not mean
that they should be considered a magic bullet to
deal with all the ills of the school system. Section
4 raises a series of questions that need to be
considered and addressed as the concept of chains
of schools is developed and extended.
Applying the model has helped to take
out costs without prejudicing standards
or attainment. For example, at X school
over £500,000 has been saved but
the proportion of students gaining 5
or more A*–Cs (including English and
maths) has risen from 34 to 64 per cent
in 6 months. The curriculum bonus that
accrues from this approach is ploughed
back into the school through, for
example, extra investment in ICT and
other services.
Source: Interview with
anonymous executive principal
Using an effective teaching
and learning model to
rationalise costs
Case study 12:
Copyright © 2010 National College 28
Section 4: Issues and
challenges for chains
The development of chains of schools is still a
relatively new phenomenon in the education
system. Accreditation is only just being introduced.
It is not surprising, therefore, that there are issues
and challenges to be resolved. This section describes
seven questions that need to be considered and
addressed by the education community, school
leaders, policymakers and government ministers in
relation to the development of chains.
1. Is there an optimum size
for chains?
None of the representatives of the chains that were
interviewed for this study felt that their chain had
reached its optimum size. In part, they wished to
continue to expand as part of fulflling what they
saw as their educational mission but they also
wanted a larger operating base so as to generate a
suffcient economy of scale for their central support
functions.
There was, however, recognition that there might
in certain circumstances be a diseconomy of scale
if a chain became too big. For example, there were
thought to be limits on the span of control that
one executive principal could reasonably exercise,
particularly if s/he saw it as part of his/her role to
provide mentoring support and challenge to school
and/or academy principals.
There was no consensus on what an upper limit for
a chain might be, though somewhere between 8
and 15 schools/academies was the most common
suggestion. One chain has aspirations to have
nearer to 20 schools in its family. However, in
discussions, another organisational model began
to emerge. It was suggested that the larger the
chain, the more likely it would be to spawn either
separate geographical clusters or sub-chains;
indeed, there is already evidence that this is starting
to happen. Thus an overall chain might have a
number of geographical clusters or sub-chains
overseen by local executive principals reporting to
a main board. The model was likened by one chief
executive to the business model developed by
the chain’s sponsor, ie very lean at the centre and
using regional managers to oversee operations on a
geographical basis.
This thinking was prompted by an acceptance that
geographic proximity was important for facilitating
mutual support and learning across a chain. In this
regard, it will be interesting to track and compare
the performance of chains that are geographically
concentrated and/or use geographical clusters with
those that are, or become, more geographically
dispersed as they expand and develop.
2. Is the process by which chains
acquire schools suffciently
transparent?
Chains have to date grown in fve main ways:
Schools have formed and expanded their own ?
federations and trusts.
Schools have been awarded local authority ?
contracts to turn round underperforming schools
(often drawing on NLE accreditation).
Schools have won competitions run by local ?
authorities for establishing new schools.
Schools have been accepted as lead partners in ?
forming national challenge trusts or federations.
Academies have been awarded a new academy ?
franchise. The process for this has become more
transparent in recent years.
Figure 2 summarises how the accreditation process
proposed by the government in October 2009
would work. The frst three routes described above
would not require chains to be accredited in order
to increase the number of schools in their chain.
However, the introduction of the accreditation
system might well mean that local authorities will
in future expect promoters of new schools and
schools undertaking general improvement support
work on their behalf to be accredited.
Copyright © 2010 National College 29
Accreditation would, however, be required if a
school wanted to be a lead partner in a majority
(national challenge) trust or federation, or if one
academy wanted to take on another academy.
In a further signifcant change, DCSF proposed in the
October 2009 consultation (DCSF, 2009b) a more
systematic and open approach to selecting sponsors
for new academies. All accredited school providers
and groups in a region would be able to attend a
briefng and submit a bid. The bids would then be
shortlisted and a contract awarded after a ‘brief
presentation and a discussion with a local authority
and DCSF panel’.
Figure 2: Operation of
accreditation system, as
announced in February 2010
* Both accredited school providers and accredited schools groups could take on willing partners, enter into federations, enter
and win school competitions and accept other local authority contracts (other than national challenge trusts/federations)
without requiring accreditation.
Is there enough transparency?
Accredited school provider*
Educational institution, academy sponsor, ?
church or faith group, educational consultancy,
other educational providers or private and third
sector organisations
Wanting to support up to one or two other schools ?
Eligible to run majority (national ?
challenge) trust or federation
Able to gain sponsorship of ?
new academy through
‘competetive’ process
Accredited schools group*
Educational organisations directly responsible ?
for the leadership and governance of two or more
academies or schools in majority trusts or federations
Wanting to support three or more schools ?
Eligible to run majority (national ?
challenge) trust or federation
Able to gain sponsorship of ?
new academies through
‘competetive’ process
Accreditation threshold
Initial
school
Another
school
Another
school
Another
school
Another
school
Another
school
Another
school
Copyright © 2010 National College 30
As more commercial enterprises become involved
in school chains as co-sponsors, the process of
selecting school providers and groups for specifc
academy projects may well be open to legal
challenge if it is not perceived to be fair and above
board. However, the proposals described above for
selecting new academies would, if implemented,
be more transparent than anything that has gone
before.
The same cannot be said, however, in relation to
identifying lead partners for majority trusts and
federations. Local authorities must follow statutory
guidance and school reorganisation procedures for
establishing national challenge trusts/federations
(including, depending on the structural solution
chosen, a period of consultation). They must also
consult with DCSF. But there are no set criteria, rules
or procedures for them to follow in deciding which
accredited school provider or group to select to
partner the underperforming school.
DCSF sees local authorities as exercising a
commissioning function in this situation but has
not to date provided guidance on how to exercise
this role transparently and fairly, given that in
any area there could be a number of accredited
school providers or groups that could undertake the
support function. Indeed, where a local authority
chooses to close a weak school and reopen it as
a national challenge trust, this may result in less
rather than more transparency as authorities can
ask the secretary of state for exemption from the
requirement to hold a competition for a new school:
It is understandable that the government wishes to
see rapid action where schools are underperforming.
However, all actions should be consistent with
UK and EU competition requirements: sums of up
to £750,000 can be allocated to a school that is
selected to partner a weak school. Becoming a
majority trust or federation entails a permanent
arrangement that brings control over a substantially
larger amount of public funding.
It is signifcant that the Department of Health, for
example, has recognised the need to introduce
transparency criteria as a diverse range of suppliers
become more involved in providing health services.
It has introduced new rules on competition and
collaboration that conform with EU requirements
(Department of Health, 2007). It has also
established an independent panel to oversee the
operation of this new system. DCSF might well fnd
that it is necessary to adopt a similar approach.
3. Is the basis for funding
chains fair?
One of the by-products of the current school funding
system is that academies in chains are inadvertently
at an advantage compared with other state schools
involved in chains.
The government’s policy is to fund academies on
a comparable basis to other schools in their areas
with similar characteristics. Each academy receives
a general annual grant from the secretary of state
to meet its normal running costs. This is calculated
on the basis of the funding formula of the local
authority in which it is situated, with an additional
allowance for the money that local authorities hold
back from maintained schools. Academy chains
effectively draw on this additional allowance when
they make a charge on academies for the central
services and functions that they provide.
Where a [national challenge trust] solution
has been brokered and a strong school
partner and possibly other strong external
partners identifed there would be little
beneft in requiring a competition and it
would delay the process.
DCSF, 2008:20
Copyright © 2010 National College 31
Schools in non-academy chains still have to pay a
central charge to their local authority in the form of
a sum held back by the authority which is agreed
following consultation with the local schools’ forum,
even though they may not be using the services
provided by the local authority. In reality, these
schools may well be drawing on the central services
provided by a chain but any charge that is made for
the services has to be paid in addition to the local
authority deduction.
Short of moving to funding all schools directly on a
per capita basis, there may be no easy answer to
this dilemma, though should accredited schools that
currently do not have academy status be offered the
chance to acquire it, then it seems likely that many
of them will take the opportunity to do so. It may
be that the current school funding review is able to
provide another solution to this problem.
Whatever the means of funding central services for
chains, the arrangements should form part of the
national framework for consistent fnancial reporting
of spending by schools and local authorities. This
will ensure that there is transparency about the
fnancial management of school chains in an
area that for many years bedevilled relationships
between local authorities and schools.
4. Do all school chains have a
sustainable education and
business model?
The risks to the sustainability of emergent school
chains come from several sources. First, some
chains are expanding quite fast. They will need to
ensure they have suffcient management support
and expertise to sustain their growth and meet
their commitments. They are, after all, taking on
some of the toughest educational assignments in
the country. It takes years to build up a reputation
but it only needs one project to go wrong for the
whole brand and chain to become discredited. This
risk is all the greater because of the way in which
chains expand. In the commercial world, businesses
generally do not grow by taking over failing
organisations but that is largely how school chains
are expanding.
The business guru, Jim Collins, has recently written
about the ‘undiscipline of more’ (Collins, 2009). He
cautions against confusing growth with excellence
and advises that you can only grow as fast as you
can attract or develop the right people, a lesson
that is surely applicable to school chains. Those
leading school chains need to ensure that they have
within their chain a suffcient number of high-
performing schools and school leaders to support
the assignments and growth they are taking on.
Investing in the right level of leadership and support
in turn raises issues about a chain’s business model.
Providing that support requires investment and
some chains are getting themselves in the position
where they are effectively in hock to their next
school improvement contract, meaning they need
the work to sustain their central infrastructure.
That is fne all the time they are winning school
improvement business, but as the market becomes
more crowded and funding gets tighter, they
will need to ensure that their business model is
sustainable. This is where the expertise of business
sponsors and commercial organisations that might
be involved with chains as co-sponsors could prove
very valuable.
The third risk relates to sustaining the educational
performance of chains. There has been some
remarkable progress and turnaround in schools
taken on by chains but not every school in every
chain is yet performing at the level that it should
be, nor achieving all that the chain and the schools
themselves aspire to. Already we have seen DCSF
advise local authorities that the United Learning
Trust will not be taking on any further academies
until it resolves some of the problems with the very
challenging schools it has taken on (BBC, 2009).
Copyright © 2010 National College 32
The draft accreditation criteria mean that providers
and groups can lose their accreditation if, for
example:
performance falls, to the extent that a chain ?
would not meet the criteria for accreditation if it
were to apply again
there is no improvement in the performance of ?
the school being supported
So there will be no room for complacency – chains
will need to stay on top of their game to maintain
their status.
5. Will schools in chains still be
committed to working with
other local schools?
As we argued in section 4, chains of schools are
bringing signifcant gains to the school system. But
they are not the only form of school partnership
that is valuable. More informal, though rigorous,
partnerships focused on providing mutual curriculum
support are also effective and have impact. Sports
school partnerships have, for example, helped
schools to improve the quality and supply of
physical education and the range of sports young
people can take up (Loughborough Partnership,
2008; Ofsted, 2006). The Leading Edge programme
has been effective in providing curriculum support
at Key Stages 3 and 4 (Hill, 2009), and many
schools, whether through soft or hard federations or
partnerships, are providing mutual support.
There is of course room for both vertical
partnerships (ie, schools working together in a
chain) and horizontal partnerships (ie, schools
working together in a locality) and some schools
in chains are successfully combining both
elements. The tracking surveys used to evaluate
the academies programme – that monitor both
academies in chains and those that are not – shows
that over half of staff (55 per cent) supported
local schools through the sharing of expertise and
resources, an increase on the 45 per cent recorded
in 2003/04 (PricewaterhouseCoopers, 2008).
It will, for example, be important for schools in
chains to play a full role in 14–19 consortia so
that their students can beneft from the increased
choice that having an area-wide 14–19 curriculum
can bring. Sixth-form provision and independent
information and advice for students may also often
be best organised on a cross-school locality basis.
It is therefore worrying that in some areas, school
leaders report that schools that are part of chains
are choosing not to work with other local schools.
Schools in chains need to commit to being part of
a wider community of schools. The Outwood chain,
for example, has adopted the principle that it will
not adopt policies or practices that are detrimental
to any young person or school in a neighbouring
community. Another chain that was interviewed
explained that the extent of joint working with
other schools sometimes depended on the stability
of the schools in its chain. If a school were in a
period where it was trying to stabilise performance,
tackle poor behaviour and attendance and generally
bring order to its systems, it might well effectively
opt out of local collaboration for a time. But those
schools in the chain that were in a much stronger
position would generally be expected to play a
leading role in local behaviour partnerships.
Combining the dual commitment to a chain and
to other local institutions will not always be easy,
particularly when it comes to issues relating to
behaviour and hard-to-place pupils. The policy
of a chain on exclusions or admissions could, for
example, put it at odds with the policies being
pursued by other schools in the area. Some of the
tension might be eased now that funding for pupils
excluded from academies has to follow the pupil
and is not retained by academies.
The context for managing this tension will also
change as the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children
and Learning Act 2009 (HM Government, 2009)
takes effect. This makes it a statutory requirement
that schools enter into behaviour and attendance
partnerships with other schools in their local authority
area. Chains will need to discuss and work with their
schools on how to handle this new obligation.
Copyright © 2010 National College 33
6. Is the accountability system for
school chains ft for purpose?
The current accountability framework for schools is
focused on individual schools. Performance tables
assess the performance of each school separately.
The new school report card that is being planned
will have a similar focus, though the government
is committed to consulting on how partnership
can be refected in it (DCSF, 2009c). Maintaining
institutional accountability is clearly essential but
as chains play a bigger part in the school system,
further thought needs to be given to their overall
accountability.
One option, as has been introduced for sixth-form
consortia, would be to report the performance of
chains as well as of individual institutions.
Another option would be to rely on the accreditation
process, including the procedures for removing
accreditation for underperforming chains and
schools. However, the draft criteria only seemed to
focus on the performance of the lead school and a
particular school being supported rather than the
performance of the chain as a whole.
In September 2009, Ofsted introduced revised
inspection arrangements that assess, as part
of reviewing the quality of leadership and
management, a school’s involvement in partnership
working. Inspectors report on the extent and
effectiveness of a ‘school’s partnership activity
with other providers, organisations and services to
promote learning and well-being for its own pupils
and those of its partners’ (Ofsted, 2009a; revised
January 2010). In addition, all schools in a hard
federation or sharing ‘important aspects of their
provision’ are inspected at the same time (Ofsted,
2009a; revised January 2010).
However, it is unclear how these provisions will
apply to schools that are part of the same trust or
chain and whether Ofsted has suffcient capacity to
inspect all schools simultaneously as chains grow
well into double fgures.
Perhaps more signifcant is that the inspection
regime has not yet got to grips with what a
school is responsible for and what the central
organisation of a chain (which might well act as the
accountable governing body or appoint the majority
of governors) is accountable for. Nor is the extent
to which Ofsted inspections understand or have
a remit to look at and comment on the role of an
executive principal or CEO entirely clear.
Another aspect of the debate relates to the
accountability of chains to local people. The
establishment of academies and trusts has moved
the governance of schools away from a stakeholder
model, based on groups such as parents, the local
authority, the community, and staff having places
on the governing body. In its stead we now have
a corporate sector model. There are still places as
of right for parents but the governing body has
become a board with governors acting as non-
executives and recruited for their expertise and
experience. It is similar to the changes that have
been made to the governance of hospital and
primary care trusts.
Critics argue that this development, which the
establishment of chains is entrenching, undermines
the local democratic accountability of schools.
They say that any concerns on how a school
conducts itself (unless its performance signifcantly
deteriorates) are now outside of the remit of the
local authority and that local elected representatives
are excluded from any oversight of a schooling
system which is an issue of major concern to local
people.
Advocates of chains counter that they work hard to
include parents and local representatives in their
governance arrangements, that they are part of
the same school accountability system as all other
maintained schools, that all schools are now subject
to the duty to co-operate with the local children’s
trust and that the sharpest accountability of all
comes in the form of how parents choose to apply
for schools.
Copyright © 2010 National College 34
One way that might help to square this circle would
be to consider whether the overview and scrutiny
committees of councils (which act in a similar way
to parliamentary select committees) might be
developed to look at the role and work of all schools
in their area, irrespective of who runs them. Many
overview and scrutiny committees, for example,
already receive reports on the establishment and
operation of academies. These committees are also
already used to examine the work of other agencies
such as the police and local health providers.
The intention would not be for them to infuence
the day-to-day running of chains, nor to have an
executive or governance role, but to review the
work of chains, alongside that of other local schools.
7. Are chains of schools doing
enough to share learning
between each other?
Many of the chains are being led by leaders who
have great vision and entrepreneurial energy and
ability. They have a strong belief in what they are
doing and the model they are implementing. The
education system can only but beneft from this
dynamism and commitment.
However, such is the degree of their zeal, that they
are failing to take advantage of sharing and learning
from other chains. The conviction that the particular
teaching and learning model they have developed is
right could inhibit their openness to learn from the
experience of others, particularly since some chains
are beginning to claim intellectual property rights
for their teaching and learning model. It would
be ironic if learning across an education system
were stifed rather than stimulated by the arrival of
chains. There could well be a role for the National
College to stimulate a learning community among
emerging chains.
It will also be important to build up this mutual
understanding because inevitably staff will want
to move between schools in different chains. The
commercial sector understands that collaboration of
this kind can help make an organisation more, not
less, competitive.
Copyright © 2010 National College 35
Section 5: What does this agenda
mean for primary schools?
The context
The last 15 years have seen a succession of
programmes rolling out of Whitehall aimed at
incentivising secondary schools to work together,
draw in external sponsors and develop school-
to-school improvement. Specialist status, 14–19
pathfnders, academies, the leadership incentive
grant, London challenge and national challenge
have all been programmes that have focused
mainly on the secondary sector. Any involvement
of primary schools has tended to come about
indirectly. Even where primary schools have been
written into the script, as they have with sports
school partnerships, this has tended to be as
recipients rather than as contributors.
Crucially, there have been few initiatives that have
promoted leadership of the primary sector by the
primary sector. Some of the education action zones,
Excellence in Cities clusters, behaviour improvement
partnerships and federation pilots have involved
groups of primary schools. The most positive
development of system leadership in the primary
sector has been the creation of 144 NLEs. But the
scale of what has been funded and supported is
small in relation to the total number of primary
schools.
Even with school chains, the primary sector was
not in the vanguard of policy developments. The
government’s proposals (DCSF, 2009b) did not apply
to primary schools, though some of the chains that
will almost certainly seek accreditation include
all-though 3–19 schools. The consultation paper
(DCSF, 2009b) noted that structural solutions such
as trusts and federations are used less frequently
for low-performing primary schools than they are
for secondary schools. It went on to argue that
these options should ‘be more readily considered
when looking at securing long-term improvements
for primary schools’ (DCSF, 2009: para 3.6.2)
since standalone primary academies are not a
proportionate or cost-effective response.
However, as part of its World Class Primary
Programme launched in December 2009 (DCSF,
2009c), the government announced a frm
commitment to an accredited schools group
programme for primary schools and to trialling
the concept in key local authority and City
Challenge areas.
A range of challenges
The relative lack of action thus far on promoting
primary schools to come together is all the more
surprising since they face a set of challenges that
are every bit as demanding, if not more so, than
those faced by the secondary sector. Some of these
challenges overlap with those of secondary schools
but in addition there are other issues that are
peculiar to the primary sector.
Performance
While performance in the secondary sector at Key
Stage 4 is progressing year-on-year, progress in
the primary sector, as measured by the proportion
of pupils achieving level 4 at Key Stage 2, has
plateaued. There is also a large tail of schools
struggling to reach standards achieved by the
majority of schools. In 2009 there were 1,472
primary schools where fewer than 55 per cent
of pupils achieved level 4 at Key Stage 2 in both
English and maths, an increase of over 100 since
2008 (DCSF & BIS, 2009).
In addition, although a relatively small proportion
(3 per cent) of primary schools were assessed
as ‘inadequate’ in 2008/09, in overall terms this
indicates that there could be several hundred such
schools across the country. Just under a third of
primary schools (equating to up to 6,000 schools
if the proportion were applied nationally) were
assessed as ‘satisfactory’ (Ofsted, 2009b).
Copyright © 2010 National College 36
Applications for and appointments
to headship
There is a continuing problem with securing
suffcient applications for headship posts in primary
schools. A recent study (Howson, 2009) reveals that:
primary headteacher vacancies averaged 4.8 ?
applications compared with 15.9 for
secondary sector
the number of applicants deemed suitable ?
to interview for headship posts averages 2.7
per vacancy
over a quarter of primary headships remain ?
unflled after advertisement
40 per cent of adverts by Roman Catholic schools ?
and 30 per cent of adverts by Church of England
schools were readvertisements
The gravity of this situation becomes all the more
apparent in the light of the retirement profle of
primary school leaders (see Figure 3). A 15–20 per
cent increase in the overall recruitment of leaders
is needed between the years leading up to 2012,
which is the peak retirement year.
Figure 3: Age and retirement
profle of primary school leaders
28,000
26,000
24,000
22,000
20,000
18,000
16,000
14,000
12,000
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
1999
Number of leaders age 50+
Number of leaders retiring
No. of leaders
age 50+
No. of leaders
retiring
2005 2009 2012 2016
3,500
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
Peak retirement
Note: The term ‘leaders’ includes headteachers, deputy headteachers and assistant heads
Source: DfES (based on Penstats data and McKinsey analysis)
Copyright © 2010 National College 37
The model of primary headship
The model of having a single headteacher
responsible for the leadership of each individual
primary school is struggling to cope with the current
demands of the post. As Figure 4 shows, many
primary headteachers are spending a considerable
number of hours each week teaching, even in many
medium-sized primary schools. The merit of this is
that it keeps their practitioner skills sharp and in
touch and involved with their pupils. But inevitably
it reduces the time they have for their leadership
role and tasks.
Figure 4: Hours taught by
primary school headteachers,
by size of school
As the National College has argued:
When the National College was asked to provide
advice to the secretary of state on primary
leadership (National College, 2007), it described
how primary headteachers are under increasing
pressure from an ‘unprecedented mix of high levels
of devolved responsibility, sharp accountability
structures, and radical changes in the way schools
interact with other services and their communities’
(National College, 2007:4). It cited the Every
Child Matters agenda and personalisation as two
examples of this. Since then, more challenges have
landed in the in-tray of primary headteachers: the
introduction of extended schools, the review of
the primary curriculum, the implementation of the
review of maths by Sir Peter Williams, the increase
from 12.5 to 15 hours in the early years education
entitlement for three and four year olds along with
the ability for parents to take the entitlement in a
more fexible form, a new statutory duty in relation
to social cohesion – and so on.
In addition to these pressures, there are also the
dual challenges of:
fuctuating pupil numbers – in some parts of the ?
country pupil numbers are going down while in
other parts of the country they are increasing as
the birth rate rises
public spending constraints – the smaller the ?
size of an organisational unit, the harder it is to
manage reductions in resources
In short, as the National College has so aptly put it,
primary headteachers have remodelled the primary
school workforce but have not yet remodelled their
own role.
Very small
Small
Medium
Large
0 50 100%
Headteachers teaching 0 hours per week
Headteachers teaching 1-6 hours per week
Headteachers teaching 6-16 hours per week
Headteachers teaching more than 16 hours per week
Source: National College 2008
Headteachers deal with too many operational
issues and administrative tasks. The small
size of many primary schools makes
distributed leadership diffcult, and the
system places a lot of expectations – and
many individual accountabilities – on the
single headteacher of the individual school.
National College, 2007:4
Copyright © 2010 National College 38
Small and rural schools
There is a particular challenge for very small
schools, which are normally but not exclusively
found in rural areas. A total of 1,400 schools have
fewer than 75 pupils and 4,239 have fewer than
150. Small schools are on a per-pupil basis funded
more generously than other schools and research
undertaken for the National College estimates that
this subsidy amounts to around £700 million per
year (Greany, 2009).
The same research indicates that despite the
additional funding, small schools have fewer
resources to spend on support staff with the result
that headteachers are increasingly stretched by
bureaucratic and managerial activity, and report
a negative effect on their work–life balance. Not
surprisingly, in the light of this headteachers of
small rural schools are fnding it increasingly
diffcult to fulfl their leadership and management
responsibilities and there is real diffculty in flling
headship vacancies when they arise (Todman et al,
2009).
Small schools also provide fewer opportunities for
pupils and staff to learn from peers.
A range of innovative responses
Although the primary sector has not had the same
level of institutional incentives as the secondary
sector to work in partnership or to develop
school-to-school improvement, it has nonetheless
generated a range of interesting responses and
innovative models of leadership and governance in
response to the challenges primary schools face. In
some instances, local authorities have been in the
lead, while in other cases it has been school leaders
and sometimes forward-thinking chairs of governors
that have been the catalyst for change. The models
include the following:
Management partnerships ? involve small
schools sharing a headteacher, who may be
referred to as an executive headteacher. This
approach tends to be used where one school
cannot recruit anyone suitable for a headship
post and so teams up with another local school
to share leadership capacity. Sometimes it is a
permanent arrangement but sometimes it is
temporary, en route to a longer term solution
such as federation. Norfolk has 18 management
partnerships of this type, which are supported by
the local authority through its funding formula.
The model was felt to be ‘a highly effective
response both to struggling rural schools and
to headteacher recruitment diffculties’ and has
helped to build leadership capacity (Todman et
al, 2009:23).
Business support partnerships ? typically take
the form of a group of primary schools coming
together to appoint a school business director or
a secondary school providing a range of business
services for its local feeder primary schools.
Wellacre Technology College in Manchester,
for example, provides business management
services to more than 20 local primaries
(covering fnancial support to 9 schools,
grounds maintenance to 11 and ICT consultancy
to 1), enabling primary headteachers to
delegate aspects of their work and so reduce
their workload. Two primary school business
managers work to a school business director
and the services provided include training for
other support staff in the primary schools and
audit and procurement support for ICT (ASCL,
2009). The scheme is one of 35 that has been
sponsored by the National College.
? Hard federations between two or more
primary schools are sometimes formed
in response to the problems of recruiting a
headteacher and sometimes in response to
the underperformance of a school and it being
placed in special measures or been given a
notice to improve by Ofsted (see Case study 13).
Copyright © 2010 National College 39
First Federation, Devon
Blackpool Primary School in Devon has 320 pupils
and in April 2009 was classifed as good with
outstanding features by Ofsted.
In 2004, a new chair of governors was appointed
whose background as a regional bank manager
with responsibility for a large number of branches
gave him a wider perspective on the education
system. In 2005, the governing body agreed to form
a federation, though at that stage it did not have a
particular partner school in mind.
In spring 2006, the local authority pointed Blackpool
to a school three miles away with 67 pupils
(Chudleigh Knighton) that had had 9 headteachers
in 6 years and had received a notice to improve.
Both schools had voluntary-controlled status and so
discussions with diocesan representatives were held
as part of moving to establish the First Federation in
September 2006.
The headteacher of Blackpool Primary became
executive headteacher, supported by a head of
teaching and learning in each school. This helped
to secure parental support, and heads of teaching
and learning have all the day-to-day contact with
parents.
The federation helped Chudleigh Knighton to
develop higher expectations of pupils, clear tracking
and progress monitoring systems, a stronger
application of assessment for learning and more
effective and consistent standards of teaching. In
partnership with Blackpool Primary, the head of
teaching and learning used classroom observation,
mentoring, coaching, shadowing and visits to other
schools as part of the improvement process. A single
special educational needs co-ordinator worked
across the two schools and applied the same
approach to lesson planning, assessment, classroom
display and the use of interactive whiteboards.
The executive headteacher coached and mentored
the heads of teaching and learning and inspected
the systems and structures and teaching and
learning to ensure progress was being made. New
staff are appointed on a federation contract and
around half of the staff are now on such a contract.
By June 2007, Chudleigh Knighton was assessed
overall by Ofsted as being good, and outstanding in
leadership and management. Inspectors commented:
This rapid improvement has occurred because
of the outstanding leadership and management
resulting from the federation with a nearby
primary school. The executive headteacher and
head of teaching and learning have brought
positive change to every aspect of the school.
The school now has 86 pupils and its contextual
valued-added score has increased from 96.6 to
101.3 since becoming part of the federation.
In November 2008, two further schools approached
the First Federation with a view to joining. One
was Lady Seawards Primary School 16 miles north
of Blackpool Primary, which has 70 pupils. The
school had had a longstanding problem recruiting a
headteacher on a substantive basis.
The other school to join the federation was a
voluntary-controlled school, Salcombe Primary, which
is 30 miles south and with 79 pupils and that had not
long emerged from having a notice to improve.
The new federation, which came into being in April
2009, used the same model of having heads of
teaching and learning under the direction of the
executive head.
The formation of a new federation required the
dissolution and reconstitution of governing body.
In autumn 2009, the federation began conversations
with two further schools that have expressed
an interest in becoming part of the federation.
The federation has also started investigating the
prospect of working in collaboration or forming a
school company with two larger primary schools
outside the federation that have specialist expertise.
This would enable the federation to continue to
work at raising standards across all the schools in
the federation while at the same time offering a
broader range of expertise, advice and intervention
in areas such as school improvement, addressing
the needs of challenging children, speech and
language and curriculum innovation.
Another area that is being explored with one of
Devon’s learning communities is the possibility of
forming a primary school federation of eight to nine
schools and working with the local secondary school
on improved transition arrangements and the Every
Child Matters agenda.
Source: Interview with executive headteacher
Case study 13:
Copyright © 2010 National College 40
? Hard clusters of primary schools bring together
all the primary schools in an area to support
each other on leadership and curriculum
development. This is done through a formal
structural relationship such as a federation or
education company (see Case study 14).
Secondary–primary hard federations ? in
which a secondary school provides leadership,
curriculum and business support to one or
more primary schools is a further model of
collaboration. Banbury Secondary School
and Dashwood Community Primary School
in Oxfordshire, which over the years had
collaborated on a range of issues, are one
recent example of this (see Case study 15).
Gloucester Council divides the county into seven
areas for the purposes of working with its schools.
One of these areas covers Gloucester City. The 39
primary schools in the city work together though
the Gloucester schools’ partnership (GSP). The
partnership grew out of the Gloucester excellence
cluster. When government funding ended in
August 2008, the 15 primary schools in the
excellence cluster decided to continue working
collaboratively and opened up membership more
widely across the city. In September 2008, a group
of 39 schools became the GSP.
An NLE was instrumental in providing the drive
for the initiative. The GSP is governed by an
elected partnership board and funded by a levy
on schools. It has set up an education company as
the vehicle for conducting its work which covers:
supporting intelligent accountability by ?
providing challenge, customised support for
headteachers and opportunities for succession
planning
co-ordinating delivery of extended services ?
and the Every Child Matters agenda
organising and delivering CPD programmes to ?
support high-quality teaching and learning
The GSP is itself reviewing how schools in the city
are organising HR, fnance and other functions. GSP
has a good relationship with the local authority
and makes use of its staff and expertise.
Source: Interview with local authority
offcer, Gloucester City Council
Dashwood Community Primary School had been
placed in special measures at the end of 2007 and
an interim executive board, which included the
principal of Banbury School, was set up to help the
school tackle its problems. The assistance Banbury
School provided with leadership, management and
classroom monitoring was one of the factors that
resulted in federation being agreed as the natural
long-term solution.
There is a single governing body but both
schools remain separate and are inspected by
Ofsted separately. An executive headteacher has
overall accountability for the two schools and is
supported by a headteacher on each site who
runs the schools on a day-to-day basis. Dashwood
Community Primary School came out of special
measures in September 2009.
Banbury is also helping Dashwood School with
fnances, caretaking and grounds maintenance.
However, the value of the federation is not all
one way. For example, Banbury School staff are
keen to draw on the expertise of Dashwood
colleagues in thinking about the best learning
methods to use with younger secondary students
when they join Year 7.
Source: Interview with executive
headteacher and sources on Banbury School
website (www.banbury.oxon.sch.uk)
Gloucester primary
school cluster
Banbury Dashwood
Federation
Case study 14:
Case study 15:
Copyright © 2010 National College 41
? Whole-learning community federations/
partnerships bring together schools across
phases and age-ranges to work together on
curriculum issues and the wider welfare of
children and young people in the area (see Case
study 16). This type of collaboration is most
commonly found in parts of the country where
primary schools feed into one or two secondary
schools and so there is a logical and stronger
basis for the partnership.
? All-through 3–19 schools and academies
is a form of school and governance that has
largely been developed and led by the school
sector itself: signifcantly, the number of such
institutions is growing fast. Those who advocate
3–19 schools argue that it has the following
advantages.
• It avoids the problem of students slipping
back when they move from Year 6 to Year 7.
• It enables schools to operate a more fexible
curriculum where pupils can learn and be
grouped according to their progress rather
than how old they are.
• It provides a stronger basis for engaging with
the local community and other agencies to
address the Every Child Matters agenda.
• It helps to raise aspiration as pupils see and
relate to the achievements of older students.
• It provides a platform for student leadership.
• It provides a much more sustainable
leadership model for the primary phase
of education.
Some of the secondary chains are increasingly
involved in this agenda. For example, the
Haberdashers’ Aske’s Federation has integrated two
primary schools into the federation and has plans
for more. Both were primaries in very challenging
circumstances and are now part of an all-through
schools plan. AET is developing the frst district-wide
3–19 academy school network.
In addition to these more structural models, there
is also a host of more informal ways that primary
schools are using to work together and support
each other.
The North Pennine Learning Partnership is a trust
that encompasses fve schools – a frst school, two
middle schools, a high school and a technology
college – located across 1,000 square miles of
Northumberland and Cumbria. The trust has
brought the following benefts to the schools:
a stronger framework for existing ?
collaboration on, for example, delivering the
Every Child Matters agenda through extended
schools and a sports school partnership
access to external expertise since the trust ?
includes a range of external partners including
two universities, a company specialising in ICT
systems and support, the Institute for Outdoor
Education and the Rugby Football Union
effciencies of scale, including the opportunity ?
to work with the National College on a project
to develop partnership school management
and business support
increased curriculum coherence, including ?
strengthening the link between primary and
secondary strategies and securing seamless
provision from early years to Key Stage 5
support for leadership development by ?
providing the confdence and context to
develop strategic leadership skills, practise
distributed leadership and develop innovative
leadership models to support all schools
within the partnership
sharing expertise and resources in teaching ?
and learning, especially at Key Stages 3 and 4,
at a time of a falling pupil rolls and associated
budget reductions
Source: North Pennine Learning Partnership
(www.trustandfoundationschools.org.uk
and www.nplp.org.uk)
North Pennine
Learning Partnership
Case study 16:
Copyright © 2010 National College 42
Features shared by emerging
primary models and chains
Few if any of the primary school federations or
partnerships could be described as chains in the
sense in which this term has been used in the
earlier part of this thinkpiece. However, they do
have some features in common and are beginning
to deliver some of the benefts that chains of
schools in the secondary sector are producing.
Developing a clear teaching and
learning model
As primary school federations develop, particularly
where they take the form of performance
federations (ie, a stronger school supporting an
underperforming one), they are increasingly
developing and applying a standardised teaching
and learning model.
In some cases, as with Case study 17 below, the
model has been very consciously and deliberately
developed and implemented. In other cases, as
described in Case study 13, a lead school is taking
the systems it has successfully developed and
applied in its own school and transferred them to
another. Sometimes the teaching and learning is
based on a lead school’s own effective practice but
is allied with an external curriculum scheme such as
Read Write Inc
1
.
1
Read Write Inc programmes, developed by Ruth Miskin, are based on the premise that children learn most effectively when
excellent modelling, followed by partner discussion and teaching, are deeply embedded into every lesson.
Learning Federation, Oldham
Mills Hill is a primary school of 600 pupils in
Oldham. It is high achieving: the headteacher is an
NLE and the school has NSS status.
Mill Hill has developed a teaching and learning
model based on Professor Spencer Kagan’s approach
to co-operative learning. Children are placed in
mixed-ability groups of four, which remain in place
for about six weeks. Co-operative teaching and
learning processes are highly structured. The aim is to
maximise each child’s contribution and to develop the
idea that members of the team are co-learners who
are mutually accountable for each other’s success.
In order to introduce the model into Mills Hill, there
was a review of the curriculum, based on legal
requirements but modifed to allow a fexible, skills-
based, cross-curricular approach with purposeful
links between subjects and blocking. Learning
follows children’s interests and is more responsive.
For example, children can pursue a line of enquiry if
they are particularly interested in a science topic.
The model is allied to an intensive use of data. The
assigned teachers in each year group meet the head
of school to determine cohort targets and identify
which pupils are above, at, or below national
expectations. Targets are used in performance
management. All teaching staff belong to one of
three curriculum teams that investigate and address
variations in the achievement of different groups.
There are termly assessments in the core areas of
reading, writing and maths using optional tests
produced by the Qualifcations and Curriculum
Development Authority (QCDA) and Testbase
materials. An external agency marks the tests and
evaluates attainment after the optional tests in the
summer term and a consultant analyses RAISEonline
data to provide feedback.
Every child who is achieving below national
expectations has some sort of intervention and
this information is shared with individual pupils
and parents. The school uses national booster
programmes such as Further Literacy Support
(FLS) or may set up additional reading with a
parent or grandparent. A member of the leadership
team meets assigned teachers each term to
monitor progress.
Case study 17:
Copyright © 2010 National College 43
Termly and weekly assessments inform gap
teaching periods, which are week-long spaces in
curriculum time that enable focused teaching in
core literacy and numeracy skills where a need has
been identifed. Teaching may be individual, group
or whole-class. Year 6 pupils are being trained as
certifcated reading mentors so they can support
individual pupils in nursery and reception.
Mills Hill is now applying this teaching and learning
model in Medlock Valley Community School, which
is some fve miles away and had been recording
scores below the foor targets at Key Stage 2 for
seven years. Despite the school having a brand-new
building, the school was not popular with parents
and suffered from high levels of pupil mobility.
Following consultation with the eight NLEs in the
borough, the local authority decided on a federation
as an alternative to closure, which was the path it
had been considering.
The governors at Medlock Valley supported the
change and the two schools came together in a
hard federation with a single governing body. The
headteacher of Mills Hill became the executive
principal of the Learning Federation with a head of
school on each site. The head of school appointed
to Medlock Valley was formerly the deputy at Mills
Hill and an assistant headteacher at Mills Hill was
promoted to headteacher of school on that site.
All new members of staff have from September
2008 been appointed on a federation contract and
can be deployed across the two sites. Progress
at Medlock has been steady and sustained as
measured by results at Key Stage 2 and the school is
now above the foor targets (Table 1).
Source: Interview with executive principal;
www.nationalcollege.org.uk
Hackney Learning Trust has helped broker the
formation of three federations in the borough.
The trust’s experience is that the federations
have brought stronger strategic leadership, raised
expectations of the standards that pupils can
achieve, a clear pedagogy and high-quality teaching
that plans and uses effectively all the available
curriculum time and is continually tracking and
monitoring progress.
Subject 2007 2008 2009
Percentage of pupils achieving level 4 or higher in English 52 55 69
Percentage of students achieving increase of two levels in English
since Key Stage 1
71 73 77
Percentage of pupils achieving level 4 or higher in maths 48 61 88
Percentage of students achieving increase of two levels in maths
since Key Stage 1
68 82 94
Percentage of pupils achieving level 4 or higher in English and maths 39 48 69
Table 1: Medlock Valley Community School results 2007 2009
Copyright © 2010 National College 44
The trust has concluded that a school has to be
outstanding on pedagogy to be able to impart and
infuence the performance of another school:
Signifcantly, as with the secondary chains, lead
schools in federations are deploying their key staff
and leaders from the home or lead schools across
the schools they are supporting in order to ensure
that their teaching and learning model is understood,
adapted to the particular circumstances of a school
and applied in an informed and appropriate way.
Like secondary school federations, they are also
recruiting new staff on federation contracts, which
not only provides greater fexibility in deploying
staff resources but also helps to apply the teaching
and learning model in a consistent fashion.
Evolving a new leadership model
The primary sector is throwing up a range of
structural solutions in response to the challenges
it faces but characteristic of them all is the
remodelling of how leadership functions within
primary schools. Many of the hard federations have
moved, as described in Case studies 13, 14 and
15, to a school leadership model of an executive
headteacher with overall responsibility for two or
more schools who works with a head of teaching
and learning on each school site, with the latter
running the school on a day-to-day basis (Figure 5).
If it is just good overall it won’t be strong
enough or have enough clarity about its
model to be able to change the culture
and performance of the school with which
it is linked.
Executive director, Hackney Learning Trust
Figure 5: Emerging model of
headship in hard federations
Co-ordination
ICT, admin support, fnancial/business management, premises, procurement
Integration
Executive
headteacher
School A
Head of school or
head of teaching
and learning
School B
Head of school or
head of teaching
and learning
School C
Head of school or
head of teaching
and learning
School D
Head of school or
head of teaching
and learning
Sometimes the model starts with two or more primary schools forming a hard federation with a single governing body, and
that normally includes an executive headteacher. In other cases executive headship may come frst, with this providing the
platform for schools moving to federation.
Copyright © 2010 National College 45
The model has many similarities with the model
of non-school heads developed within the Dutch
primary school system (see Case study 18), and
enjoys a number of advantages. It brings clear
and dedicated leadership capacity to a group of
schools. This ensures the schools have the capability
to think and plan for the medium term as well
as manage school affairs on a day-to-day basis.
It strengthens the operation of leadership teams,
proving a broader base for organising development
and support. For example, the leadership team of
the Learning Federation in Oldham meets jointly
and this has helped it become a real driver of school
improvement across the two schools. Leadership
development is also undertaken jointly and each
half-term one member of the leadership team
spends fve days in the other school to observe and
exchange learning and ideas.
Development of leadership
of primary schools in the
Netherlands
In 1998, the Dutch government introduced an
Education Act that encouraged the 7,000 primary
schools in the Netherlands to merge, and backed
the legislation with a fve-year time-limited
scheme of fnancial incentives. By 2005, 4 out of 5
schools were part of a federation consisting of 2 or
more schools, with the average size of federation
comprising 11 schools.
Within federations, principals may lead a single
school or multiple schools. Where a principal
oversees more than one school, a specifc teacher
may take on the role of location leader to be the
point of contact for parents and staff on a day-
to-day basis. A federation may also employ an
educational professional as a superintendent to
oversee strategy and operational management
within the federation. In total, 20 per cent of a
school’s capital funding and a small proportion of
its staffng budget are devolved to the federation.
The federation takes overall responsibility for school
improvement and professional development.
Advantages associated with the Dutch federation
model include:
principals having more time to lead their ?
schools, particularly where they were previously
combining teaching and leading
staff and leaders benefting from joint planning ?
and wider thinking
schools gaining a stronger sense of direction ?
an increased economy of scale enabling schools ?
to purchase services more effectively and share
the cost of specialist staff
being able to transfer skills and jobs from one ?
school to another
a broader pool of expertise on which to draw ?
to provide curriculum leadership, development
and support
Source: Collins et al, 2005
Case study 18:
Copyright © 2010 National College 46
The value of the new leadership model has been
recognised by Ofsted, particularly in turning around
underperforming schools.
The new model described in Figure 5 also provides
a source of coaching, mentoring and support
for emerging leaders who have opportunities to
develop their leadership skills under the guidance of
an experienced practitioner.
The post of head of teaching and learning provides
a bridge between being a classroom-based
practitioner and leadership. In effect it is providing a
popular new career path for primary school leaders.
For example, in the summer term of 2008 the First
Federation in Devon (featured in Case study 13)
advertised for a new head of teaching and learning
at Chudleigh Knighton. There were 17 applicants
for the post. This compares with an average of four
applications for primary headship posts in Devon
overall. This new leadership model has the potential
to be a large part of the solution to the succession
planning challenge that the primary sector faces.
Strengthening governance
The different forms of partnership structure
are, as with the secondary sector, bringing new
governance models. Schools in a hard federation
have a single governing body. That means that in
total they have fewer governors than the previous
two schools would have had on a combined basis.
This requires federations to think harder about the
specifc role of each governor and the organisation
of the governing body itself. The First Federation in
Devon started off with 16 governors when it was
frst formed, but reduced that to 11 and formed an
executive group of 6 to ensure that the federation
had strong strategic leadership. The number was
expanded to 13 when the federation took on 2
further schools.
Having fewer governors also means that
recruitment to the governing body becomes less a
matter of fnding people to fll vacancies and more
a question of ensuring that applicants have the right
skills and experience for the role on the governing
body that they are being asked to play.
Whole-learning community models and all-though
schools also bring a range and depth of governance
arrangements to the primary sector. In addition,
primary schools that are using shared or multi-
school trusts as the basis for joint work or taking on
other schools are able to draw on the expertise and
resources of external partners, as Case study
16 showed.
Improving professional development
There is good evidence of the effectiveness of
collaborative learning and CPD in such school
networks (Cordingley & Temperley, 2006). The
schools studied as part of this project indicate that
leaders and staff have been quick to exploit the
opportunities for shared professional development
that working in a federation or a multi-school trust
brings. Joint INSET days, shared curriculum planning,
exchanges of schemes of work and lesson plans,
cross-school lesson observation and mentoring as
well as more formal development programmes
have all formed part of the approach.
For example, as part of establishing the Learning
Federation in Oldham, fve extra INSET days were
secured for Medlock Valley staff which were used to
observe and work with Mills Hill staff and so help
to transfer and embed the new system of teaching
and learning. Some CPD is undertaken jointly and
staff from both schools are now working together
on developing the curriculum to refect the changes
resulting from the Rose review.
A small number of schools causing concern
have formed federations or more informal
partnerships with other schools. This has
been successful in many cases in hastening
the recovery of inadequate schools. The key
elements in this recovery are more incisive
leadership and management, bringing
about improvements in the quality of
teaching and learning.
Ofsted, 2008:33
Copyright © 2010 National College 47
Securing better use of resources
Primary schools are for the most part not forming or
joining federations and other structured partnerships
to save money, though in the case of small/rural
schools, federation may well be part of a long-term
solution to maintaining educational and fnancial
viability. However, being part of a larger corporate
group helps deliver better use of resources on
three fronts.
First, federations and trusts provide the basis
for rationalising the organisation of back offce
and other functions. For example, the Learning
Federation in Oldham has a business manager
who works across the two sites. This has enabled
some costs to be taken out at Medlock Valley. The
federation is also able to procure IT licences across
the federation and there is some economy of scale
in terms of reduced charges from the local authority
in respect of service provision and training on child
protection.
Another example is Comberton Education Trust,
which is not only responsible for Comberton Village
College but has won a competition to set up and run
a new primary school. In setting up the school, full
use was made of a range of the Comberton staffng
resources. Comberton, for example, ran the initial
HR and administrative services until the new school
could begin to appoint its own staff. ICT systems and
resources are provided by the trust. As the primary
school grows in size, catering, HR and premises
management could also become shared services.
As Figure 5 indicates, the model for organising
support functions can vary: in some cases functions
are being integrated but co-ordination is another
option. For example, one federation in Devon has
retained three administrative offcers over the
three schools in the federation, but one focuses on
premises, another on fnance and the third on HR
and personnel issues.
Second, federations provide the basis for sharing
and deploying specialist staff, whether that is
special educational needs, language, music,
behaviour management or advanced skills teacher
(AST) support.
Third, there can be savings from introducing new
leadership models, particularly in rural and small
schools. Figure 6 provides an example of how re-
engineering leadership across two or three schools
in Northumberland could yield potential savings.
The sums are relatively modest, though for small
schools they may be signifcant, particularly where
schools are under pressure from falling rolls and
tighter annual budget increases.
Model Savings Additional costs Available for school
improvement
Executive headship
(two frst schools)
One head’s
salary
£53,200
Salary rise (head): £5,505
Class teacher (to cover costs of teaching duties previously
undertaken by headteacher): £24,500
Assistant headteacher: £3,800
£19,935
Executive headship
(three frst schools)
Two heads’
salaries
£106,400
Salary rise (head): £5,505
Class teacher (to cover costs of teaching duties previously
undertaken by headteacher): £28,000
Two assistant headteachers: £7,600
£58,339
Executive headship
(one middle and one
frst school)
One head’s
salary
£53,200
Salary rise (head): £5,505
Class teacher (to cover costs of teaching duties previously
undertaken by headteacher): £24,500
Assistant headteacher: £3,800
£26,000
Figure 6: Example of savings to be gained from introducing new leadership models
Source: Todman et al, 2009
Copyright © 2010 National College 48
Pace of change and inhibitors
of progress
The merits of federations and shared trusts that
are acting in similar ways to chains are becoming
clearly established. However, the rate at which
structural change is occurring is slow. Research for
the National College in 2009 (Chapman et al, 2009)
based on a survey of 50 local authorities found 264
schools in 122 federations, across both primary
and secondary phases. In the same study, 9 out of
10 involved just 2 schools, 4 out of 5 had a joint
headteacher, but just 15 per cent had a joint (ie,
hard federation) governing body. Three-quarters of
these had been formed in 2007 or 2008, suggesting
that the pace of change is picking up but even so,
if the data from these 50 local authorities were
extrapolated for all 152, there may still be only
260–270 federations in total across England.
More signifcantly, the research indicates that
primary-phase schools (including infant, junior and
frst schools) are under-represented in comparison
with secondary schools. This may in part be
explained by the variety of developments in the
primary sector (managed partnerships, shared
trusts, formal cluster arrangements and all-through
3–19 schools) not being included in a survey on
federations. Nevertheless, the number of primary
schools involved in federations relative to the
scale of the challenges and the potential beneft of
structured partnerships is extremely low.
Interviews for this project with local authority
representatives and school leaders indicate that
there are a number of reasons for this:
In some cases there is resistance by parents ?
and governors (and some school leaders), who
fear that the identity of their local school and
the control they have over it will disappear as a
result of federation.
Funding disincentives can emerge in the form of ?
local authority funding formulas that build in an
allowance over and above a standard per-pupil
entitlement to help cover the fxed costs of running
small schools, where ministers have committed
to a presumption against closure. The reasons for
this funding are entirely understandable, given the
many benefts that small rural primaries offer, but
it could shield them from fnding alternative ways
to remain viable.
Funding infexibilities can also come to light due ?
to federation. Schools generally have retained
their separate identity within federations and
trusts in order to maintain their entitlement to
an individual funding allocation. Three or four
schools that amalgamate have to date been
allocated less funding as a single institution than
they receive if they are funded separately and
individually. It has been possible to overcome
the problem of keeping separate budgets
within a federation or trust, but the schools
involved have had to show a clear audit trail that
links spending to a particular school’s budget.
They have not been able to simply merge the
separate budgets into one pooled budget to be
deployed across all the schools in the federation
or trust as the leadership team and governors
think ft. DCSF has recognised this problem and
plans to change the existing regulations so that
federations of schools can be funded as a single
institution (DCSF, 2009c). It is also proposing to
make clear that governing bodies can allocate
funding to provide facilities and services to
pupils at schools other than their own.
Federations, trusts and education companies ?
provide a good menu of options from which
primary schools can choose when deciding how
to organise or hardwire their relationships with
other schools. But there is an issue with the
governance of federations in that the governing
body has to be dissolved and reformed each
time another school joins the federation. If
federations are to become more like chains
and acquire new schools as matter of course,
this could be a factor that holds them back. It
may be that the government’s proposals (DCSF,
2009c) to enable accredited governing bodies
to be involved in the establishment of new
maintained schools and academies could provide
a way to help resolve this issue. The aim of the
proposed new power is to allow innovative and
high-performing schools to create new schools
without the need for governing bodies to set
up a trust or schools’ company. These proposals
Copyright © 2010 National College 49
have at the time of writing not yet received
parliamentary approval.
Around a third of primary schools are either ?
voluntary-controlled or voluntary-aided church
schools, though the proportion is much higher
in some local authorities. Church schools have
severe problems in recruiting headteachers,
but they also face diffculties in moving into a
structured partnership. They cannot at present
be part of a trust because their voluntary status
means they already have their own trust or
foundation. They can join or form a federation
but unless it is a federation of exclusively church
schools (which is not always possible) it will
mean being part of a mixed federation of faith
and non-faith schools. This means that a faith
tradition may in effect have to accept some
dilution of the infuence it exercises over a
governing body and headteacher appointments.
A faith school will also want to be reassured that
the distinct religious character of the school is
going to be retained. The National Society for
Promoting Religious Education (NSPRE) and DCSF
have produced joint guidance on how voluntary
schools can work with trust schools (NSPRE
& DCSF, 2008) but all the solutions proposed
involve complex arrangements.
As with the secondary school system, the ?
accountability regime is focused on individual
institutions and so creates little incentive for
schools to join together to tackle problems.
The primary sector is developing a diverse range ?
of models in response to the challenges it faces.
This is no bad thing, but would be more effective
if there were an overall vision of how primary
schools might be organised and delivered in,
say, 10 years’ time. At present there is no clear
long-term vision and similarly there has been no
articulation of the long-term sustainable model
of school leadership that primary schools should
be moving towards.
Options for the future
While the challenge in the secondary sector is
to steer and channel the growth of chains, the
challenge in the primary sector is different. We need
to create structures and frameworks that provide
primary schools with the critical mass necessary
to develop strategic leadership, create new career
structures, support professional and curriculum
development, address school underperformance
and realise economies of scale.
Primary schools should not be clustered together
for the sake of it. That will not add value. Primary
schools do not all have to be part of chains; the
scope of the evolving organisational structures is, as
we have seen, more diverse than that.
The government is proposing to move schools
towards more formal partnership working by
introducing regulations requiring schools from
September 2011 to consider shared headship and/
or governance arrangements before appointing
a new headteacher (DCSF, 2009c). This is an
interesting move and could well help to change the
way that federations and other forms of partnership
are perceived, but it will take a long time to make
a substantial impact on the primary school system,
given the rate at which headship vacancies occur.
Even then a duty to consider shared headship and/
or governance is unlikely on its own to overcome
resistance to change.
An alternative approach would be for all primary
schools to be part of a group of schools – which one
might call accredited primary school groups (APSGs)
– that adopt and work to chain-like standards.
APSGs might operate under the umbrella of a trust,
a federation, an education company, an all-through
school, a whole-learning community or town-wide
cluster or, were the Conservatives’ policies to be
adopted, through chains of primary academies.
The APSG would provide the basis and scale
for creating dedicated executive and strategic
leadership, growing new leaders, organising support
functions, sharing specialist posts and supporting
school-to-school curriculum and professional
development.
Copyright © 2010 National College 50
Whatever the organisational form, the accreditation
process would promote consistency of operating
standards and educational outcomes. If this were
agreed as a policy objective, there are several steps
that could be taken that would help to turn the
policy into reality:
Articulate a clear vision ? of the future of
primary school organisation and primary school
leadership. The World Class Primary Programme
does provide a much clearer steer towards
greater collaboration. The government could,
however, go further and adopt an approach
similar to the Dutch one, and pass enabling
legislation that provides a framework for
expecting all primary schools to be part of an
APSG within a defned period of, for example,
fve years.
Create a clear accreditation system for APSGs ?
that retains and encompasses the range of
organisational models, provided they met
the sort of criteria associated with effective
chains of schools, ie, APSGs would have to
demonstrate that they had a proven and
effective teaching and learning model, clear
executive leadership, governance and cross-
school support service arrangements and a track
record of using partnership to improve school
performance. Such a system would preserve the
integrity of the chain approach while allowing
fexibility for school organisation to refect local
circumstances. The government has also taken
the frst steps in this direction by introducing
accreditation for groups of primary schools. It is
also intending to learn from the establishment
of formal partnerships between strong schools
and primary schools in the most challenging
circumstances (see below).
Incentivise primary schools to join an APSG. ?
This would not so much be about making new
funding available as maximising the leverage of
existing funding streams:
• The allocation of primary capital could be made
dependent on schools being part of an APSG or
the allocation could be routed via APSGs.
• Funding for professional development and
school improvement could be channelled
though APSGs. The government is proposing
that partnerships of schools will in future
be able to receive funding for school
improvement as a group of schools rather
than individually (DCSF, 2009c). Children’s
trusts are also being encouraged to devolve
additional funding to partnerships to offer and/
or commission their own services on behalf of
the local authority. These measures could act as
an incentive by only being available to schools
that were part of an APSG.
• The receipt of the small schools’ supplement
via a local authority’s funding formula could
be made dependent on schools being part of
an APSG.
? Redesign the National Professional
Qualifcation for Headship, or aspects of the
Leadership Pathways programme that feeds into
it, for the primary sector to refect the head of
teaching and learning/executive headteacher
model and the different roles they encompass.
Use the outcomes of Ofsted inspections ?
so that all primary schools given a notice to
improve or placed in special measures are
automatically incorporated into an APSG. The
government has already ventured a long way
down this path with its plans to establish
primary partnerships in those local authorities
with a high number or proportion of what it
calls hard-to-shift primary schools. A fund of
£10 million has been allocated to support up
to 150 of the highest quality projects, which
are expected to be based on underperforming
schools becoming part of shared governance
arrangements such as federations or majority
trusts. Potentially this approach could be
extended to all primary schools that are
consistently underperforming. The government
is hoping to extend the level of its fnancial
support but is encouraging local authorities to
use their existing school improvement resources
to develop this scheme (DCSF, 2009c).
Change the regulations on funding for ?
federations as proposed by DCSF to enable
APSGs to use budgets fexibly across all the
schools in their group.
Copyright © 2010 National College 51
? Encourage and empower all local authorities
to develop a network of APSGs throughout their
area. Many are already active on this agenda
(see Case study 19) but some headteachers in
the study commissioned by DCSF (Todman et
al, 2009) reported that a frmer steer from the
local authority would be helpful in giving greater
legitimacy to formal collaborative models. The
latest policy statement from the government
(DCSF, 2009c) does give local authorities a
very clear statement about the importance of
their role in ‘driving partnership solutions’ and
‘brokering partnerships’ via federations, shared
trusts, short- or longer term support through
NLEs/NSSs, and new partners or accredited
schools groups to support improvement priorities.
Development of primary school
federations in Devon
Devon has 316 primary schools, many of which are
in rural areas and a signifcant proportion of which
have falling rolls. Some 16 per cent of primary-aged
pupils are educated in 41 per cent of the primary
schools and only 81 schools have more than 210
pupils.
There have been problems recruiting headteachers
of suffcient leadership potential and prior
leadership experience. Many of the small schools
do not have deputies so do not have a route for
developing and bringing through emerging leaders.
Devon County Council has been pursuing a policy of
promoting federations among primary schools since
September 2005. A federation toolkit was produced,
and linked to a joint exercise to promote the toolkit
to governing bodies around the county.
Schools interested in federation have been able to
draw on a small budget (between £500 and £2,000)
from the county’s innovation through collaboration
fund to help explore what federation would mean
for them and their potential partners. Intensive
effort also goes into communicating with parents,
and not just using leafets and meetings. Surgeries,
drop-in sessions and one-to-one meetings are also
arranged.
The frst federation was established in September
2006 and the executive head and chair of governors
of that federation have become powerful advocates
of the approach.
The county council produces a newsletter for
governors on a termly basis and this has been
used over the past three or four years to drip feed
messages about federation. The county council also
works very closely with its diocesan colleagues as
nearly one third of Devon’s primaries are also Church
of England schools.
As of October 2009, there were 9 hard federations
involving around 22 schools. Two other federations
are in the process of being formed. In addition,
some other schools have a management
partnership which means that they share a
headteacher.
The county council is increasingly moving toward
pursuing a more strategic approach towards
federation. Devon’s schools are grouped into 31
learning communities. The council is instigating
area reviews of primary education within these
learning communities. The approach is not based
on proposing a master plan for each area but
presenting governors and headteachers with data
on surplus places, the demographic profle and
projections and asset management. The learning
communities are asked to develop options for
the future linked to the deployment of the
primary capital programme. This is beginning
to result in federation emerging as more of a
mainstream option.
Source: Interviews with local authority offcers
Case study 19:
Copyright © 2010 National College 52
? Create a cadre of school leaders to lead and
champion this agenda, perhaps based on the
existing NLEs in the primary sector:
The National College has been commissioned by
DCSF to take forward a national leadership models
and partnerships programme. Its aim will be to
inspire and enable schools and localities to develop
ft-for-purpose models of leadership and governance
that refect their local context and circumstances
(DCSF, 2009c). This programme could be one way of
helping to identify and create champions of change.
? Work with faith groups and their national
representatives to fnd solutions to the problems
associated with incorporating church schools into
APSGs. The government plans (DCSF, 2009c),
subject to parliamentary approval, confrm that
all governing bodies may become members of
foundations of other maintained schools and this
may help to address one aspect of the problem.
Part of the answer may also lie in developing
ethos committees as pioneered by the First
Federation in Devon (see Case study 20).
Acting to foster and develop APSGs would recognise
the role and contribution that primary schools have
to make to the education system. As importantly, it
would help to grow the next generation of primary
school leaders and provide primary schools with the
capacity to lead change and address the range of
challenges that schools face over the next decade.
APSGs would take the concept and principles of
chains but apply them in a way that is relevant and
appropriate to the primary school context.
Emerging evidence suggests that the
advocacy of headteachers themselves
has been an important factor both in
planning and in sustaining formal
collaborative arrangements. Their
personal enthusiasm and vision are
likely to be crucial in overcoming initial
reservations and misgivings that may be
felt in their communities.
Todman et al, 2009
The First Federation, Devon is developing
the concept of ethos committees as a way of
continuing to recognise the distinctive nature of
the church schools in the federation, given that
there are only 2 foundation governors (plus a
vicar who serves as a governor ex-offcio) out of a
total of 13 that specifcally represent the church’s
interests. The role of the foundation governors is
to provide oversight and be a link between the
schools in the federation and the governing body.
In addition, each of the four schools in the
federation has an ethos committee which includes
a nominated person from the parochial church
council, a parent from a local church, pupils and
the head of teaching and learning. Each of the
two foundation governors on the governing body
is linked to two of the committees. The outcomes
of committee meetings are minuted. The remit is
to look at how well the school is working on its
Christian distinctiveness and it uses the Statutory
Inspection of Anglican Schools report and toolkit as
a means of focusing its work.
Source: Interview with executive
headteacher, First Federation
The role of ethos committees
in federations involving
church schools
Case study 20:
Copyright © 2010 National College 53
Appendix 1: How performance federations
help weak schools to improve
Characteristics of
effective school
improvement
models as
evidenced in
academic studies
How performance federations help deliver the model
Intolerance of system
failure
The stronger school comes in with a culture of high expectations and challenges
the acceptance of poor performance across the board.
A clear sense of
primary mission with
a number of small
goals set
A clear mandate or contract (along with governance arrangements) for the
stronger school to work with the weaker school is agreed. This includes the
problems to be tackled and the improvements to be achieved.
Creation of a critical
mass to get a school
moving
The stronger school, with its high expectations, proven ways of working,
secondment of key staff and access to additional resources, provides the impetus
to get the weaker school moving by saturating the school with its approach.
Early identifcation
and tackling of
problems
The stronger school confronts the weaker school with the problems and any
personnel – be they staff or students – that are blocking progress. The schools
agree what action will be taken, including making changes in the leadership of
the weaker school where necessary.
Consistent application
of standard operating
procedures
The stronger school insists on – and if necessary imports – clear rules and
procedures for uniform, behaviour, pupil attendance, lesson planning and quality
assurance, study leave, course assessment, staff absence etc.
A culture of
monitoring, including
peer monitoring, to
improve teaching
and learning
There is intensive observation and monitoring of lessons, including enabling
teachers from the weaker school to observe colleagues at the stronger school
and vice versa.
Co-construction of
support to meet
fexibly the precise
needs of the
weaker school while
adhering to the
principles of effective
school improvement
The stronger school is responsible for maintaining a systematic school
improvement model, but enables the weaker school to tailor support to address
specifc weaknesses and concerns, for example in teaching a particular subject
or ensuring a relevant curriculum for a discrete group of students. The weaker
school is involved throughout in shaping the work of the support federation.
Extensive training
and retraining
and very careful
recruitment
The results of lesson observations form the basis for a structured staff
development and training programme. This may include shared training with
staff in the stronger school, one-to-one coaching and mentoring or working
with an advanced skills teacher. The stronger school ensures that the right
staff are recruited to fll key skill gaps. These are often at the level of assistant
headteacher or curriculum leader.
Copyright © 2010 National College 54
Rich use of data The stronger school ensures that data systems are in place in the weaker school
to track the progress of each pupil, year group and department and to set
appropriate targets for improvement.
Simultaneous top-
down and bottom-up
leadership
The stronger school provides clear strategic leadership but also builds up the
confdence and skills of middle, senior and aspiring or potential leaders in
the weaker school. The aim is to equip them to take responsibility and be
accountable for quality and standards.
Close attention to the
quality of resources
and the learning
environment
Short-term measures are put in place to improve the learning environment, for
example by redecorating or refurbishing parts of the school and/or reorganising
areas to accommodate different teaching methods. A long-term plan for the
development of the school premises is drawn up.
Simultaneous
engagement at
school and
classroom level
The support federation model provides the strong leadership the weaker
school needs, but also focuses on improving the quality of teaching and learning
in every lesson.
Capacity developed
for self-sustaining
improvement
As the support federation develops, the relationship between the schools
changes to one in which there is mutual learning. What was the weaker school
starts to regain the capacity and confdence to conduct its own improvement
agenda and/or forms a longer-term partnership with the stronger or
another school.
Adonis, A, 2008a, Academies and social mobility.
Speech to the National Academies Conference,
London, 7 February. At www.standards.dfes.gov.
uk/academies/software/Andrew_Adonis_Speech_
feb08.doc?version=1 [accessed 9 January 2010]
Adonis, A, 2008b, Foreword. In Astle & Ryan (eds),
Academies and the future of state education, v xi
ASCL, 2009, Primary objectives by Louise Staunton,
Leader, 42, pp28,29, September
Astle, J & Ryan, C (eds), 2008, Academies and the
future of state education, London, CentreForum.
At www.centreforum.org/assets/pubs/academies-
web.pdf [accessed 9 January 2010]
Audit Commission, 2009, Valuable lessons:
Improving economy and effciency in schools,
Local government national report, London, Audit
Commission. At www.audit-commission.gov.uk/
localgov/nationalstudies/Pages/valuablelessons_
copy.aspx [accessed 9 January 2010]
BBC, 2009, BBC News website [accessed on 6
November 2009],http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/
education/8346615.stm
Chapman, C, Muijs, D, Sammons, P, Armstrong,
P & Collins, A, 2009, The impact of federations on
student outcomes, Nottingham, National College for
Leadership of Schools and Children’s Services
Collins, J, 2009, How the mighty fall: and why some
companies never give in, London, Random House
Business Books
Collins, A, Ireson, J, Stubbs, S, Nash, K & Burnside, P,
2005, Federations: Does every primary school need
a headteacher? Key implications from a study of
federations in The Netherlands, Nottingham, NCSL
Cordingley, P & Temperley, J, 2006, Leading
Continuing Professional Development in School
Networks: Adding value, securing impact,
Networked Research series, Nottingham, NCSL
DCSF, 2008, National Challenge Trusts Guidance,
Nottingham, DCSF. Athttp://publications.dcsf.gov.
uk/default.aspx?PageFunction=productdetails&Pa
geMode=publications&ProductId=NCT+GUIDANCE&
[accessed 9 January 2010]
DCSF, 2009a, Your child, your schools, our future:
building a 21st century schools system,
Norwich, TSO
Bibliography
Copyright © 2010 National College 55
DCSF, 2009b, Consultation on accreditation of school
providers and schools group and on academy
sponsors selection, London, DCSF. At www.dcsf.gov.
uk/consultations/index.cfm?action=consultationDet
ails&external=no&consultationId=1602 [accessed
9 January 2010]
DCSF, 2009c, Your child, your schools, our future,
building a 21st century school\ system: timetable
for action, Nottingham, DCSF
DCSF & BIS, 2009, National curriculum assessments
at Key Stage 2 in England, 2009 (revised),
produced by the Department for Business,
Innovation and Skills on 1 December 2009
according to the arrangements approved by the
UK Statistics Authority
DCSF, 2010, Guidance on becoming an accredited
school provider or an accredited schools group in the
secondary phase: information on the accreditation
system, Nottingham, DCSF
Department of Health, 2007, Principles and rules for
cooperation and competition, London, DoH
DfES, 2005, Replicating effective school practice as
a tool to improve the weakest schools: research
project for academies division, Nottingham, DfES
Greany, T, 2009, Federations: sustaining small
schools. Presentation to DCSF Small Primary Schools
Federation Conference, Birmingham, 23 June
Harris Federation, undated, Prospectus, np, Harris
Federation of South London Schools. At www.bexley.
gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=714&p=0 [accessed 9
January 2010]
Hill, 2008, Achieving more together: adding value
through partnership, Association of Schools and
College Leaders.
Hill & Matthews, 2008, Schools leading schools,
the power and potential of National Leaders of
Education, National College for School Leadership.
Hill, 2009, Powerful Partnerships: a Leading Edge
perspective, Specialist Schools and Academies Trust.
Howson, 2009, 15th Annual Report: The State of the
Labour Market for Senior Staff in Schools in England
and Wales 2008-2009, London, ASCL & NAHT
HM Government, 2009, Apprenticeships, Skills,
Children and Learning Act 2009 [online]. At www.
opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2009/ukpga_20090022_en_1
[accessed 9 January 2010]
Loughborough Partnership (Institute of Youth Sport
and School of Sport and Exercise Sciences), 2008,
Final annual monitoring and evaluation report:
The Partnership Development Manager survey,
Loughborough, Loughborough University
Moynihan, D, 2008, Sponsors. In Astle & Ryan (eds),
Academies and the future of state education, 14–24
NCSL, 2007, Primary leadership: advice to the
Secretary of State, Nottingham, NCSL. At www.
nationalcollege.org.uk/national-college-advice-to-
sos-primary-leadership.pdf [accessed 13 January
2010]
NCSL, undated, Mills Hill School case study.
[online]. At www.nationalcollege.org.uk/index/
leadershiplibrary/leadingschools/improving-
outcomes-for-schools/personalisedlearning/
leading-personalised-learning-case-studies/mills-
hill-school
NSPRE & DCSF, 2008, How voluntary schools can
work with trust schools: National Society/DCSF joint
guidance, Nottingham, DCSF. At www.natsoc.org.uk/
downloads/index.html [accessed 9 January 2010]
Ofsted, 2006, School sport partnerships: a survey of
good practice, London, Ofsted
Ofsted, 2008, The Annual Report of Her Majesty’s
Chief Inspector of Education, Children’s Services and
Skills 2007/08, Norwich, The Stationery Offce
Ofsted, 2009a [revised January 2010], The
framework for school inspection, London, Ofsted.
At www.ofsted.gov.uk/Ofsted-home/Forms-
and-guidance/Browse-all-by/Other/General/
Framework-for-the-inspection-of-maintained-
schools-in-England-from-September-2009
[accessed 9 January 2010]
Ofsted, 2009b, The Annual Report of Her Majesty’s
Chief Inspector of Education, Children’s Services and
Skills 2008/09, Norwich, The Stationery Offce
Pattison, M, 2009, The leadership challenge.
Presentation to the NASUWT Conference on Leading
the 21st Century School, Nottingham, 22 June
Potter, D, 2004, School federations: research for
academies division, Nottingham, DfES
PriceWaterhouseCoopers, 2008, Academies
evaluation: ffth annual report, Nottingham, DCSF
Todman, P, Harris, J, Carter, J & McCamphill, J, 2009,
Better together: exploratory case studies of formal
collaborations between small rural primary schools,
DCSF Research Report RR162, London, DCSF. At
www.dcsf.gov.uk/research/programmeofresearch/
projectinformation.cfm?projectid=15437&resultspag
e=1 [accessed 9 January 2010]
The National College for Leadership
of Schools and Children’s Services is
committed to excellence and dedicated
to inclusiveness. We exist to develop
and inspire great leaders of schools,
early years settings and children’s
services. We share the same ambition
– to make a positive difference to the
lives of children and young people.
Membership of the National College
gives access to unrivalled development
and networking opportunities,
professional support and leadership
resources.
©2010 National College for Leadership
of Schools and Children’s Services –
All rights reserved. No part of this
document may be reproduced without
prior permission from the National
College. To reuse this material,
please contact the Marketing and
Communications Team at the National
College or email publications@
nationalcollege.org.uk.
P
B
5
6
7
Triumph Road
Nottingham NG8 1DH
T 0845 609 0009
F 0115 872 2001
E [email protected]
www.nationalcollege.org.uk
doc_676327635.pdf