Gatsby Technical Education Projects
An Evaluation of Birmingham Local Authority’s Collegiate Academies Programme
by
Desmond Rutherford
Final Report
School of Education
The University of Birmingham
August 2008
An Evaluation of Birmingham Local Authority’s Collegiate Academies Programme
Enquiries and further copies of this report and also an electronic copy from:
Mrs Anne Edwards
School of Education
The University of Birmingham
Edgbaston
Birmingham
B15 2TT
Tel: 0121 415 8077
Email:
First published August 2008
ISBN 0704427095
9780704427099
Copyright © Desmond Rutherford
All rights reserved
ContentsAbstract / 1
Executive Summary / 2
Acknowledgments / 5
Glossary / 6
Tables
Part One: Introduction and Overview / 7
Part Two: History, Context and Literature
The Government Agenda
The Birmingham Response
The Research Perspective / 12
Part Three: Research Design / 27
Part Four: Research Question One
What has been learned from the experience of the Group One collegiates that may be helpful to other groups of schools considering some form of collaboration?
Section One: Nine key questions and three underlying themes for collegiates
Theme One: the organisation of the collegiates
“What do we want to get out of the collegiate?”
“What is our optimum size?”
“Do we need a collegiate-based co-ordinator?”
Theme Two: the work of the collegiate-based Advanced Skills Teachers (ASTs)
“Do we need to appoint collegiate-based ASTs?”
“Do we need a sharp focus to the work of the collegiate- based ASTs?”
“Should the collegiate-based ASTs contribute to the wider
school improvement agenda or remain within an original
brief, say for Maths, Science and Technology?”
Theme Three: the sustainability of the collegiates
“As heads, what robust data can be collected and what major initiatives can be developed that will properly evaluate our collegiate?”
“What external sources of funding can be sought to ensure the future of our collegiate?”
“How can we learn from the experience of other collegiates?” / 30
Section Two: Five key issues for collegiates
Issue One: appointing collegiate-based ASTs
Issue Two: funding collegiate-based ASTs
Issue Three: demonstrating success
Issue Four: attributing success
Issue Five: gaining access
Conclusion
Part Five: Research Question Two
What has been learned from the Group Two collegiates about the innovative ways in which they have used the Gatsby funding that was originally designated for the employment of ASTs? / 55
Case Study One - Learning and Teaching: A Practical Framework for Collegiate D Schools
Case Study Two - Developing a Virtual Learning Environment for Collegiate E Schools
Case Study Three - Developing Subject Focus Groups in Collegiate F Schools
Conclusion
Part Six: Research Question Three - Does the Collegiate Academy model work?
/ 64
Part Seven: Research Question Four - What are the three key outcomes from the Gatsby Project that can be disseminated? / 67
Final Conclusions and Reflections / 70
Appendices / 80
Appendix 1 - Case Studies to demonstrate the range and quality of the work of the collegiate-based ASTs during 2005-2006
Departmental Reviews across the Collegiate, AST A
Individual Support and Coaching, AST B
Science for the 21st Century GCSE, AST C
Working Group Assessment for Learning, AST D
Improving Literacy through Break Dancing, AST E
The F1 Project in Design and Technology, AST F
Appendix 2 - The Questionnaire / 84
Appendix 3a - The Questionnaire - Consolidated and Full Responses / 86
Question 1- Does the Collegiate Academy model work? Consolidated responses.
What are your views on whether or not the Collegiate Academy model works?
What are its strengths?
What are its weaknesses?
How has the model evolved since the Collegiate was first established?
Question 2 - What are the three key outcomes from the project that can be disseminated? Consolidated responses.
Collegiate D
Collegiate F
Collegiate A
Collegiate C
Collegiate E
Question 2 - What are the three key outcomes from the project that can be disseminated? Full responses.
Collegiate E
Increased focus by subject leaders and teaching staff on English, Maths and Science at KS3 to identify and apply skills and knowledge so that students attain to the best of their ability
Increased skills, knowledge and competence of subject leaders in undertaking department reviews of their peers in Collegiate D schools
Creating a sustainable collaborative culture
Collegiate F
Introduction and development of TEEP across many of the schools within the collegiate
Providing teachers and other staff with opportunities to attend joint CPD sessions
Raising the attainment of pupils
Collegiate A
Supporting new headteachers
Established a science working group made up of Heads
of Science
Developed a Collegiate AST team to focus on teaching and learning and to use this across Collegiate A
Appendix 3b - The Questionnaire - Full Responses from collegiates
that were received too late to be fully included in the analysis / 110
Collegiate E
Collegiate B
Collegiate C
Appendix 4 - Lessons for future policy and practice / 122
References / 125
Abstract
This report presents the findings from an on-going evaluation of a new model for collaboration among secondary schools - the Birmingham Collegiate Academies - from 2005 to 2008. The methodology is an evaluation based on interviews with headteachers and other key staff, attendance at meetings, and analysis of GCSE and equivalent examination results. The report explores the key issues secondary schools face when considering collaborating to form a school partnership, in particular a Collegiate Academy. Further, the success of the collegiates is discussed in terms of an improvement in their examination results, the number of collegiate-wide initiatives that are well beyond the ability or the ambition of a single school to consider, and the value to heads and other teachers of their working together across the collegiate. School partnerships are increasingly seen by government as a key strategy for school improvement and so the findings from this report may offer some insights to heads and others who are considering some form of collaboration, what to focus on, and how to ensure their success.
Executive Summary
This report evaluates the contribution that the second phase of funding from Gatsby Technical Education Projects has made to the development of the Birmingham Collegiate Academies from 2005 to 2008. The report builds on an earlier evaluation of the first phase of funding from 2002-2005.
The report is based on three years field work which included carrying out 48 interviews with headteachers, collegiate-based co-ordinators, collegiate-based Advanced Skills Teachers and others, attending 19 meetings of collegiate management boards, attending 21 other meetings of, for example, subject leaders and working groups, shadowing two collegiate-based Advanced Skills Teachers for a whole day, analysing the data from a questionnaire to chairs of collegiate management boards, and analysing GCSE and equivalent examinations results from 2002 to 2007.
Part One presents an introduction to the report, Part Two reviews the history, context and the relevant literature, and Part Three outlines the research design.
Part Four discusses what has been learned from the experiences of the first group of three collegiates (established in 2002) that may be helpful to other groups of schools considering some form of collaboration? The Conclusion on pages 49-54 summarises the findings.
Part Five discusses what has been learned from the second group of three collegiates (established in 2005) about the innovative ways in which they have used the Gatsby funding that was originally designated for the employment of Advanced Skills Teachers, and is illustrated by three case studies. The Conclusion on pages 60-63 summarises the findings.
Part Six analyses the responses to the first question on a questionnaire to chairs of collegiate management boards: ‘Does the Collegiate Academy model work?’, on pages 64-66.
Part Seven analyses the responses to the second question on a questionnaire to chairs of collegiate management boards; ‘What are the three key outcomes from the Gatsby Project that can be disseminated?’, on pages 67-69.
The Final Conclusion can be found on pages 70-79. Essentially the research has gathered many examples to demonstrate that schools in a collegiate can collaborate much to the benefit of students and staff. One outcome from this collaboration can be found in the steady improvement in GCSE and equivalent results over a five year period. Unfortunately the original strategy of appointing collegiate-based Advanced Skill Teachers to work across the collegiate has not proved sustainable and collegiates have found innovative ways to make good use of their Gatsby funding. The report ends with some reflections on the original aspirations of Professor Tim Brighouse for the Birmingham Collegiate Academies. I would argue that Brighouse’s central argument that collaboration rather than competition was a better strategy to raise standards in schools is substantiated by the research in this report. However some of his original conditions (e.g., regarding the optimum size of a collegiate and the employment of collegiate-based Advanced Skills Teachers) have not worked out in practice while others have proved too ambitious.
Appendix 1 presents six case studies to demonstrate the range and quality of the work of the collegiate-based ASTs during 2005-2006, on pages 80-83.
Appendix 3a presents the consolidated data (pages 86-93) and then the full data (pages 94-109) from the questionnaire for three of the collegiates.
Appendix 3b presents the full data (pages 110-121) from the three remaining collegiates that were received too late to be fully included in the analysis.
Acknowledgements
My thanks to Gatsby Technical Education Projects for funding this evaluation and to Martin Monk and John Williams, to Dr Cathy Feeney from the Birmingham Catholic Partnership and to Professor Stewart Ranson from the University of Warwick for their support and advice. My thanks, also, to the headteachers, the collegiate-based ASTs and all the other staff in schools - especially Jenny Bartley, Dave Beards, Frances Child, Tony Gray, Lucretia Fields, Ronnie McGovern, Chris Pegg and Chris Taylor - that I interviewed and met at various meetings, and the Collegiate Management Boards for their support in preparing the three case studies that are discussed in Part Five. Finally and most of all I would like to express my thanks and appreciation to Lindsay Jackson from Birmingham Local Authority who has led the development of the Birmingham Collegiate Academies since their inception in 2002. Lindsay and I have published two articles on this evaluation and I am conscious that, in this report, where I refer to ‘I’, often I should refer to ‘we’. However the omissions, inaccuracies and inconsistencies are all my responsibility.
Rutherford D and Jackson L (2006) Setting up school partnerships: some insights from Birmingham’s Collegiate Academies, School Leadership and Management, 26(5), 437-451.
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13632430601007816
Rutherford D and Jackson L (2008) Collegiates as a model for collaboration. A new strategy for school improvement? Management in Education, 22(3), 27-33.
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0892020608093262
Rutherford D. The power and potential of school partnerships: some reflections on what has worked for the Birmingham Collegiate Academies. Accepted for publication in Managing Schools Today.
Glossary
Collegiate A is The Oaks
Collegiate B is Central
Collegiate C is North West
Collegiate D is The Edge
Collegiate E is Lunar
Collegiate F is South
Tables
Table 1: Average Percentages of Five A*-C GCSE and Equivalent Results
2002 to 2007, page 45
Table 2: Comparison of Average Percentages of Five A*-C GCSE and Equivalent Results: with and without English and Mathematics for 2007, page 47
Part One: Introduction and Overview
The aim of this report is to present the findings from an evaluation of a new model for collaboration among secondary schools: the Birmingham Collegiate Academies. The first three collegiate academies were established in September 2002 with funding from the then DfES and the Local Authority and a further three collegiate academies were established in 2005. Very briefly, the purpose was to raise standards through working together and particularly through joint programmes of professional development. The heads of the schools in each collegiate agreed to meet as a collegiate management board to agree overall direction and strategy.
Gatsby funding for the collegiate academies was provided in two phases. In Phase One, from 2002-2005, funding was provided for the first three collegiates (Group One). Phase One of what I will refer to as the Gatsby Project was evaluated by Kuchemann et al (2005) and one of the collegiates was also part of a wider DfES-funded evaluation by Woods et al (2006). In Phase Two, from 2005-2008, funding was continued for the original three collegiates but additional funding was also provided for three further collegiates (Group Two). Gatsby funding was principally intended for the appointment of collegiate-based Advanced Skills Teachers (ASTs) to work across their collegiate in order to raise standards in Maths, Science and Technology. However further funds were provided for incentive schemes for underachieving groups of pupils in these subjects and for training through the Teacher Effectiveness Enhancement Programme (TEEP). As a consequence of the previous in-depth evaluations of the Group One collegiates, the main focus of my evaluation which began in September 2005 was to be the work of the ASTs in the Group Two collegiates.
Interestingly, the Group One collegiates were able to appoint six full-time and one part-time AST but by January 2007 four had resigned and none had been replaced. Moreover none of the Group Two collegiates were able to appoint ASTs. So, for various reasons which I will explore later, the original collegiate-based AST model has not proved sustainable and the funding has been used in other ways. In the case of the Group Two collegiates the funding was not accessed at all in the first year, 2005-2006, as they tried to appoint ASTs.
Thus, originally, my evaluation had two principal research questions:
· Research Question One: What has been learned from the experience of the Group One collegiates that may be helpful to other groups of schools considering some form of collaboration?
· Research Question Two: What has been learned from the Group Two collegiates (and to a lesser extent from the Group One collegiates) from the innovative ways in which they have used the Gatsby funding that was originally designated for the employment of ASTs?
With regard to the first research question, two articles (in collaboration with Lindsay Jackson) have been published: the first in 2006 in what may be termed an academic journal - School Leadership and Management; the second in 2008 in what may be termed a professional journal - Management in Education. The findings in relation to these two research questions are presented in Parts Four and Five of this report respectively.