This research examines Networked Learning Communities (NLCs) introduced by a London Local Authority to encourage collaboration among schools. The research aims to identify features of this collaboration, understand how NLCs operate, and analyze gaps between intentions and outcomes. Key findings include that NLCs did not maintain a pupil performance focus or build staff capacity as intended. Collaboration was viewed as a tool for control rather than improvement. Headteachers prioritized expediency over collaboration due to accountability pressures, focusing on short-term success rather than capacity building. The research concludes that incentivized networks fail to achieve deep collaboration and that headteacher identity and expediency hinder the development of collaborative systems.

1. Research Focus:
A critical enquiry into the nature of collaborative
structures for school development focusing on
‘Networked Learning Communities’ in one London
Local Authority
“The new kinaesthetics of collaboration
run against the grain of historical
processes and we will have to learn how
to do it well.”
David Jackson

2. Key question and aims:
• Question:
– To what extent has the introduction of Networked
Learning Communities influenced collaboration among
schools in a London Local Authority?
• Aims:
– Identify the key features of this particular type of
collaboration
– Develop an understanding of the operation of the NLCs
• Explore the intended aims of this collaborative and how these aims were
developed
• Review the actual outcomes of the NLCs (as have been achieved up until
the point of completion of the research – the NLCs are still in place and
ongoing)
• Analyse the processes and practises of the NLCs
– Analyse and evaluate gaps between intentions and
outcomes

3. Motivations for Research
• The ‘intuitive promise’ of collaboration;
– networks, collaborations, clusters, federations, partne
rships
• Government policy / NCSL initiatives;
– NLCs, PSLNs, teaching schools, LA clusters
• Previous research;
– Fullan, Hargreaves, Stoll, West-Burnham, Hopkins
• But does the evidence support the ‘intuitive
promise’ of collaboration for school
improvement?
– Pilot study found… “School leaders are positive about
collaboration, but the collaborative structures studied did not
produce joint work of any depth” (Lane 2008 p. 32)

4. Knowledge Gap
• If collaborative structures are to be
recommended as an approach to school
improvement – there needs to be clarity about
how to maximise their impact
• Others agree…
– “Collective capacity is the hidden resource we fail to
understand and cultivate” (Fullan p.4 “All Systems Go”
2010)
– “It will take time to generate an evidence base of
partnership competence in clusters of schools”
(Hargreaves p. 17 “Creating a Self Improving school
System” 2010)
• There is, to my knowledge, no research that
explores the efficacy of forced or incentivised
networks in education (such as the LA NLCs)

5. Definition:
• A local authority NLC (LA NLC):
– Groups of schools brought together by the
local authority or some other agency and
encouraged or incentivised to work
together in intentional ways to enhance the
quality of professional learning and to
strengthen capacity for continuous school
improvement in the service of enhanced
student learning (Lane 2012 p. 11)

6. School Improvement – the past?
• Existing top down, centrally prescribed school
improvement is no longer effective (if it ever was)
• This approach is limited because...
– Schools are complex and dynamic
– Lacks clarity and coherence
– ‘School level' focus rather than 'learning level’
– Issues of implementation.
• If classroom practice is going to change then teacher
behaviours and practices as well as their beliefs and
understandings

7. Plus – the unintended outcomes:
• Existing school improvement structures can be
detrimental in terms of ...
– Teacher morale
– Narrowing of the curriculum
– Treatment of ethnic minorities and lower socio-
economic classes
– Overall lack of impact
• “The centre cannot devise enough innovation across
the whole range of teacher practice to implement the
required rate of change” Hargreaves (2003)

8. Definition:
• School Improvement:
– A systematic, sustained and morally
structured approach to educational change
that is data driven and relevant to the
school’s context and identified need.
Practice oriented staff development, within
and beyond the school, builds teaching and
learning capacity as a means by which pupil
achievement and attainment can be
enhanced (Lane 2012 p. 81).

9. The changing context:
• Coalition government elected May 2010
• New direction for educational policy – ‘The Case for
Change’ (2010).
– The UK has slipped down the international school
performance table. Learn lessons from other, ‘more
successful’ school systems.
• The document makes a case for:
– Higher levels of school autonomy
– Development of good teaching
– The importance of good leaders
– Combining higher school autonomy with effective
accountability

10. Government policy intention:
• “The Importance of Teaching, The Schools White
Paper” (2010)
– Free teachers from constraint and improve their
professional status and authority
– Raise the standards set by our curriculum and
qualifications to match the best in the world
– Hold schools effectively to account for the results they
achieve
– Ensure that school funding is fair, with more money for the
most disadvantaged
– Support teachers to learn from one another and from
proven best practice

11. Government Policy Intentions (Con’t)
• "We will make sure that they (schools) have
access to appropriate data and information so
that they can identify other schools from
which they might wish to learn, that there is a
strong network of highly effective schools they
can draw on for more intensive support, and
that schools can identify other useful forms of
external support as necessary". (Schools
White Paper: Section 7.6)

12. The case for collaboration:
• Incorporate the ‘moral purpose’ into T&L
– Raising the bar, narrowing the gap and nurturing the
child
• Teachers working smarter together
– Share ideas, enquire into practice, generate new
knowledge – all within the context of the school
– Build the capacity of the individual, the school and
the system, raise standards and promote a broader
range of outcomes, sustainable improvements
• School improvement through ‘harnessing’ the intuitive
power of networking and collaboration

13. ‘Collaborative inevitability?’
• Many authors in the school improvement field present a
collaborative future as a foregone conclusion...
– “The ability to work collaboratively is becoming one of
the core requisites of contemporary school reform.
Therefore, expanding the understanding of
collaboration is important for theory, policy and
practice.” Slater 2005
• Implications are that school leaders have a lot to learn...
– “It will take time to generate an evidence base of
partnership competence in clusters of schools”
Hargreaves 2010
– “Collective capacity is the hidden resource we fail to
understand and cultivate” Fullan 2010
• But do schools really have a collaborative future?

14. Definition:
• Collaboration:
– Any situation in which school staff are
supported to develop robust professional
relationships across boundaries within and
between schools. These relationships enable
them to enquire into practice and build
capacity that facilitates improved learning
outcomes for all staff and higher attainment
for pupils (Lane 2012 p. 51)

15. Learning communities
• Professional Learning Communities (PLCs)
– A single organisation
• Networked Learning Communities (NLCs)
– A group of organisations (similar features to a PLC, but
works across a broader landscape)
• Collaboration, underpinned by clearly defined
purposes and formal supporting structures...
– Building T&L capacity in context
– System improvement
– Teacher moral (ownership and engagement)
– And ultimately student outcomes

16. Learning community – features:
• Focus:
– A LC will have a explicit purpose based around
classroom practice, school improvement or pupil
learning
• Relationships:
– A LC will engender trust, mutual accountability and
agreed power sharing; this in turn fosters
commitment to the shared goals
• Collaboration:
– This should open up opportunities for sharing
within and between schools, spreading innovation
and providing levels of motivation

17. Learning community – features:
• Enquiry:
– This is the fundamental tenant of the networking
process. Developing knowledge, reflecting on learning
and challenging teaching practice
• Leadership:
– Different to traditional concepts of school leadership.
Distributed (Level 5 Leadership – Jim Collins)
• Accountability:
– LC needs to be transparent in its decisions and self
monitoring
• Building capacity and support:
– The purpose of the LC is to build capacity both within
schools and between schools. (DFES 2004 b p. 6)

18. Learning Focus
• Level 1: The Classroom
– A pupil learning focus
• Level 2: Adults
– Challenge and improve existing practice
• Level 3: Leaders
– Distribute leadership, lead with EI, build teams
• Level 4: School
– Flexible and adaptable, responds to context
• Level 5: Network
– Learning through sharing
• Level 6: System
– Learning about practice is a requirement of the system

19. Definition:
• Networked learning:
–An intentional effort to articulate
professional experiences into sharable
knowledge within and between schools
with the intention of improving the
teaching and learning of teachers –
ultimately improving pupil outcomes
(Lane 2012 p. 57)

20. NLCs – Idealised Model
Learning...
PLC •Pupil
PLC PLC •Adult
Moral Practice •Leaders
Purpose
PLC Inquiry PLC •Organisation
•School to
school
PLC PLC

21. LA NLC – Intended outcomes:
Intentions
Raise standards of pupil performance
Effective sharing of resources – financial,
energy, intelligence, support services
Staff capacity building
Improve potential for work / life balance for
heads through high leverage SI activities
Produce new approach to leadership
(‘entrepreneurial’ leadership)
Improve motivation and morale of heads

22. Findings – identified gaps:
Intentions Outcomes
Raise standards of pupil LA NLCs did not maintain a focus on
performance raising standards
Effective sharing of resources – Evidence of sharing financial
financial, energy, intelligence, support resources – but not any wider
services support/sharing/knowledge creation
Staff capacity building No evidence of capacity building
Improve potential for work / life No evidence improved work / life
balance for heads through high balance. In fact most heads saw the
leverage SI activities NLC as ‘bolt on’ to their own SI work
Produce new approach to No evidence of impact on
leadership (‘entrepreneurial’ leadership learning – in fact heads
leadership) talk about the ‘game’ of leadership
Improve motivation and morale of No clear evidence that the
heads motivation and morale of heads has
been improved by NLCs

23. Analysis
• Gap between the intentions and observed
outcomes due to...
– Implementation by LEA (later the LA)...
• Lack of clarity over aims/outcomes/processes
• Lack of trust and credible facilitation of LA - collaboration
viewed as a tool for control
• Selection of NLC members imposed
– ‘Accountability produced pragmatism’
– Lack of capacity to engage (the ‘catch 22’ of
capacity building’)
– Unequal levels of influence between NLC members

24. NLCs – Actual Model
School
School
Performance
School School
Indicators
LEA
Expectations
Resources
/ Finance
School School
School

26. Definition:
• Dysfunctional collaboration:
– A limited and limiting approach to
collaboration that is not based on robust
relationships or capacity building outcomes.
However, participants work together
cooperatively to benefit from centrally held
resources and joint commissioning
initiatives (Lane 2012 p. 159)

27. Knowledge creation / Co-operation through...
capacity building / sharing Outcomes Joint projects /
practice commissioning
Functional Behaviours, Transactions Dysfunctional
collaboration and Processes collaboration
High trust Low trust and
and commitment
Quality of relationships commitment
Common Motivation and Incentives
Purpose Engagement (local schools)
(Voluntary)
Implementation and Not
Effective Facilitation Effective
‘Natural’ Network ‘Harnessed’ Network
Network Theory
Natural Vs Harnessed Networks – Lane 2011

28. Analysis
• Headteacher identity
– “I think one of the reasons that collaboration hasn’t
worked particularly well is that there is too much
judgement in education. This means that you can go
to a meeting and heads would say that they had
done a lot of things and you would find out later
that they hadn’t done them at all. People want to
‘sell a picture of themselves’ that is idealised.”
(Headteacher 1 – primary headteacher)
– “In fact it is all a bit of a game really – this is not
admitted openly by the other heads in the
group, but I would say that it is something that is
understood”. (Headteacher 5 -– primary
headteacher)

29. Expedience
• Consequently, headteachers need to be
‘expedient’ about their decisions and
actions...
– Similar in some ways to ‘situational’ and ‘action
centred’ leadership
– Expedient leadership is success and task
focussed with an emphasis on management
perception (appearing to ‘play the game’)
• “We found a way of being that worked for us, it just
wasn’t what we were supposed to be doing.”
(Headteacher 6 – primary headteacher)

30. Expedient Leadership
Expedient Leader Collaborative Leader
(Driven by accountability / values of self) (Driven by moral purpose / professional values)
Stability agent Change agent
Manages perceptions – shuns Collegiate approach – open to
scrutiny and feedback (appears to collaboration and input
‘play the game’)
Short term focus on success Long term focus on success
through results in tests through wider performance
measures
Plugs gaps Builds capacity
A 'get what you can' mentality A 'share what you have' mentality
Risk averse and sticks to Creative – works with new
traditional approaches approaches
School focused System focused

31. Headteacher Identity – Idealised Model
In line with
personal identity
Filtered through personal and
professional identities
In line with
Headteacher’s professional
decisions and personal
identity
Contextual considerations
•Accountability
•Policy/practice In line with
•Stakeholders professional
•Staffing identity
•Work/life balance

32. Headteacher Identity – Expedient Model
School
Slanted by expedient Focused
(In line with
Filtered through personal and leadership personal identity)
professional identities
School and
System
Headteacher’s Focused
decisions (In line with
professional and
personal identity)
Contextual considerations
•Accountability
•Policy/practice
•Stakeholders System
•Staffing Focused
(In line with
•Work/life balance professional
identity)
Identity and expedient leadership – Lane 2011

33. Conclusions (1 of 2)...
• Incentivised networks...
– While networks do have an intuitive promise, this is
virtually impossible to harness through incentivisation.
There are significantly different in structure and process to
‘natural networks’ – they do not achieve ‘collaborative
depth’ in terms of capacity building and knowledge
generation.
• Headteacher identity...
– The pressures of context linked to accountability
expectations fuel a leadership style which can be described
as ‘expedient’ – a short term, success / task focussed
approach that relies on managing external perceptions

34. Conclusions (2 of 2)…
• Expedient leadership...
– Even though heads can identify the high leverage potential
of collaboration, in many cases they are anchored to the
day to day requirements of their situation by an expedient
leadership style.
• A collaborative future...
– This research has shown no ‘natural progression’ towards a
more networked or collaborative approach by
headteachers
– No real commitment to system leadership. Heads will
maintain an espoused commitment to the notion, but their
actions in most cases will be at odds with a system
approach.

35. Active questions:
• How could the implementation of the harnessed network
be more effective?
– What could be done to overcome the issues brought about by
forced participation?
– How could social capital be developed so that relational trust
was built and relationships were of a high quality?
– What constitutes credible facilitation to the harnessed
network’s participants?
• In what ways could motivation and engagement in the
harnessed networks be enhanced?
– How could a common purpose be developed to focus the
actions of the network?
– What accountability structures could overcome the tendency
towards an expedient approach in order to support participants
to develop a ‘system wide’ view?

36. Active questions (con’t):
• How could behaviours, transactions and
processes of the harnessed network ensure the
involvement of wider number of staff within
schools rather than being limited to
headteachers?
• In what ways could high quality collaborative
outcomes, which focus on practice
development, knowledge creation and pupil
learning, be assured and dysfunctional
collaboration avoided?

37. Original Contribution
Co-operation through...
Knowledge creation / capacity
building / sharing practice
Outcomes Joint projects /
commissioning
Functional Behaviours, Transactions Dysfunctional
collaboration and Processes collaboration
High trust Low trust and
and commitment
Quality of relationships commitment
Common Motivation and Incentives
Purpose Engagement (local schools)
(Voluntary)
Implementation and Not
Effective Facilitation Effective
‘Natural’ Network ‘Harnessed’ Network
Network Theory
Natural Vs Harnessed Networks – Lane 2011

38. Original Contribution
Key factors that restrict collaboration
Intelligent System
Focused
Perceived Head’s
Accountability Identity Filter
School
High stakes Focused
High Collaboration Low
Expedient Leadership – Lane 2011