CREATING NETWORKS OF MODEL SCHOOLS: INTERNATIONAL EXPERIENCE AND BEST PRACTICE

CREATING NETWORKS OF MODEL SCHOOLS: INTERNATIONAL EXPERIENCE AND BEST PRACTICE Brian J. Caldwell Associate Director iNet (Global) Director Educational Transformations Presentation at the Asia Pacific Forum on Secondary Education hosted by The Asia Society, New Delhi, India, 24-26 March 2008

Concept of Autonomy • Unconstrained school autonomy is rare • There is constrained autonomy in local management, school-based management, self-management • The self-managing school is ‘a school in a system of education to which there has been decentralized a significant amount of authority and responsibility to make decisions related to the allocation of resources within a centrally determined framework of goals, policies, standards and accountabilities’ • Resources are defined broadly to include finance, curriculum, staffing, facilities and maintenance

Trends and impact of autonomy • There is a trend to autonomy (decentralization) but there are parallel trends to centralization • Early research on impact was inconclusive • Recent research for OECD yields the most important findings on autonomy • The report of PISA 2006 includes a model to explain the joint impact of school and system resources, practices, and policies on student performance. Of the 15 factors in the model, the system average on the school autonomy index in budgeting is by far the most powerful

School accountability, autonomy and choice: The OECD Working Paper 13 On average, students perform better if schools have autonomy to decide on staffing and to hire their own teachers, while student achievement is lower when schools have autonomy in areas with large scope for opportunistic behaviour, such as formulating their own budget. But school autonomy in formulating the budget, in establishing teacher salaries, and in determining course content are all significantly more beneficial in systems where external exit exams introduce accountability. (Wößmann, Lüdemann, Schütz and West, 2007, p. 59)

School accountability, autonomy and choice: The OECD Working Paper 14 . . . rather than harming disadvantaged students, accountability, autonomy, and choice are tides that lift all the boats. . . there is not a single case where a policy designed to introduce accountability, autonomy, or choice into schooling benefits high-SES students to the detriment of low-SES students (Schütz, G., Wößmann, L. and West, M.R., 2007, p. 34)

Two important issues 1. How do autonomous or self-managing schools build capacity to achieve expectations? 2. What is the role of system authorities at the national, state, regional or district levels that traditionally provide direction and support?

Re-imagining the self-managing school: The new enterprise logic 1. The student is the most important unit of organization 2. Schools cannot achieve expectations for transformation by acting alone 3. Leadership is distributed across schools in networks as well as within schools 4. Networks involve a range of individuals, agencies, institutions and organizations across public and private sectors in educational and non-educational settings 5. New approaches to resource allocation are required under these conditions 6. Intellectual capital and social capital are as important as other forms of capital

Research on networking • National Foundation for Educational Research (England): ‘there is a lack of research that captures the messy and complex nature of network processes’ • Evidence of impact in the Networking Learning Communities supported by the National College for School Leadership (NCSL) (England) and in the Los Angeles Annenberg Metropolitan Project (USA)

Models of good practice in networking • Networked Learning Communities (England) (2002-2006): 134 networks, 35,000 teachers, 675,000 students • Specialist Schools and Academies Trust (England): 90 % of 3,100 secondary schools each offering at least one curriculum specialization and having a partnership with a business. Specialist outperform non-specialist schools with networking identified as one factor. Three kinds of networks: • Networks of schools with same specialization • Networks of secondary and primary (elementary) schools • International Networking for Educational Transformation (iNet)

Models of good practice in networking 3. International Networking for Educational Transformation (iNet) involves 4,861 schools in 35 countries. • These schools have an interest in transformation, defined as significant, systematic and sustained change that secures success for all students in all settings. • A range of activities includes international study tours, online conferences, and online publications. • The majority of affiliated schools are in England as part of the support they receive from the Specialist Schools and Academies Trust, but the number in the other 34 countries is 1,314 • The largest network in another country is in Australia originating in Victoria but extending to other states • Mauritius has affiliated all schools in iNet.

Models of good practice in networking 4. More formal networks are also evident in England through the creation of federations of up to five schools. These operate in tight or loose arrangements to achieve the purpose of networks, namely, to share knowledge, address issues of common concern, or share resources. • In some instances the arrangement involves a high- performing school federating with a low-performing school in an effort to raise achievement in the latter, with early evidence of success in some instances. • The Specialist Schools and Academies Trust supports partnerships of high- and low-performing schools in the Raising Achievement Transforming Learning (RATL) project.

Models of good practice in networking 5. Networks of 1600 state schools in Victoria, Australia • High level of autonomy with more than 90 % of state’s budget decentralized to schools • Networks focus on capacity to raise levels of student achievement Also, sustained networking in Lanyon network in the Australian Capital Territory with annual cycle involving all staff in participating schools

Extending traditional concepts 1. System leadership: In addition to traditional forms of system leadership, there are now leaders in schools who take responsibility for what occurs in networks or federations 2. Communities of practice: In addition to communities of practice at a single site, there are now communities of practice extending to networks of schools local, national or international

A BROADER FRAMEWORK FOR UNDERSTANDING NETWORKING IN SCHOOLS Transformation is significant, systematic and sustained change that secures success for all students in all settings

INTELLECTUAL AND SOCIAL • Intellectual Capital . . . The knowledge and skill of those who work in or for the school • Social Capital . . The strength of formal and informal partnerships and networks that have the potential to support or be supported by the school

SPIRITUAL AND FINANCIAL • Spiritual Capital . . . The strength of moral purpose and the degree of coherence among values, beliefs and attitudes about life and learning • Financial Capital . . . The monetary resources available to support the school

GOVERNANCE • Governance . . . The process through which a school builds its intellectual, social, spiritual and financial capital and aligns them to achieve its goals

INTERNATIONAL PROJECT TO FRAME THE TRANSFORMATION OF SCHOOLS • International Project to Frame the Transformation of Schools • Australia, China, England, Finland, United States, Wales • Case studies of five secondary schools in each country, with many schools in highly disadvantaged settings • 10 sample indicators for each form of capital and governance – a total of 50 • 30 of 50 confirmed in every school; 10 in the majority of schools, 10 in at least one school • Forthcoming book Why Not the Best Schools

INTELLECTUAL CAPITAL INDICATORS • The staff allocated to or selected by the school are at the forefront of knowledge and skill in required disciplines and pedagogies • The school identifies and implements outstanding practice observed in or reported by other schools • The school has built a substantial, systematic and sustained capacity for acquiring and sharing professional knowledge • Outstanding professional practice is recognised and rewarded • The school supports a comprehensive and coherent plan for the professional development of all staff that reflects its needs and priorities

INTELLECTUAL CAPITAL INDICATORS 1. When necessary, the school outsources to augment the professional talents of its staff 2. The school participates in networks with other schools and individuals, organisations, institutions and agencies, in education and other fields, to share knowledge, solve problems or pool resources 3. The school ensures that adequate funds are set aside in the budget to support the acquisition and dissemination of professional knowledge 4. The school provides opportunities for staff to innovate in their professional practice 5. The school supports a ‘no-blame’ culture which accepts that innovations often fail

SOCIAL CAPITAL INDICATORS 1. There is a high level of alignment between the expectations of parents and other key stakeholders and the mission, vision, goals, policies, plans and programs of the school 2. There is extensive and active engagement of parents and others in the community in the educational program of the school 3. Parents and others in the community serve on the governing body of the school or contribute in other ways to the decision- making process 4. Parents and others in the community are advocates of the school and are prepared to take up its cause in challenging circumstances 5. The school draws cash or in-kind support from individuals, organisations, agencies and institutions in the public and private sectors, in education and other fields, including business and industry, philanthropists and social entrepreneurs

SOCIAL CAPITAL INDICATORS 1. The school accepts that support from the community has a reciprocal obligation for the school to contribute to the building of community 2. The school draws from and contributes to networks to share knowledge, address problems and pool resources 3. Partnerships have been developed and sustained to the extent that each partner gains from the arrangement 4. Resources, both financial and human, have been allocated by the school to building partnerships that provide mutual support 5. The school is co-located with or located near other services in the community and these services are utilised in support of the school

CONCLUSION 1. Networking of schools to share knowledge, address problems of common concern or share resources is one strategy among many in efforts to improve the performance of schools 2. It is an important if not necessary strategy as schools become more autonomous and become less dependent on traditional sources of direction and support 3. Non-public or private schools that are not part of a system should network if they are to build and maintain their intellectual capital 4. Need for further and deeper research on the contribution of networks and networking to lifting the performance of schools

CREATING NETWORKS OF MODEL SCHOOLS: INTERNATIONAL EXPERIENCE AND BEST PRACTICE

by Asia Society Education Programs

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Usage Rights

1 Embed 5

Statistics

CREATING NETWORKS OF MODEL SCHOOLS: INTERNATIONAL EXPERIENCE AND BEST PRACTICE Presentation Transcript