All of Blame and None of the Credit - One LEA's Involvement in School Improvement

"All of Blame and None of the Credit" - one LEA's involvement in School Improvement.

Caroline Lodge

Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Conference, Cardiff University, September 7-10 2000

Caroline Lodge,
AGEL,

Institute of Education,

University of London,

20 Bedford Way,

London WC1H 0AL

0207 612 6587

"All of Blame and None of the Credit" - one LEA's involvement in School Improvement.

1. Introduction

Little is known about the part the local education authority (LEA) can play in school improvement (SI). SI means here both improved outcomes for pupils and enhanced capacity to sustain and initiate further improvement. This ignorance does not prevent LEAs being blamed for the failure of schools. The title of this paper reflects one CEO's experience (Whatford, 1998). Nor does the ignorance prevent government legislating to direct LEA activity in schools or seeking alternative commercial forms of local education service provision.

This study examines the role of one LEA in effective SI. In SI literature the school is considered the unit or centre of change (Fullan, 1991). Other levels of intervention are increasingly being seen as important. At the micro-level research and policy is increasingly focused on the classroom. At a level beyond the school is the LEA. Fullan reminds us that "the school will never become the centre of change if left to its own devices" (Fullan, 1991:203).

The study focused on three broad areas, indicated by a review of the research and policy contexts:

•the relationship between the LEA and the improving schools

•the role of the chief education officer (CEO)

•the processes and activities which are particularly effective in promoting SI.

A case study of the LEA is preceded by a review of the existing research and of the research methods used to collect and analyse data. The findings are described and discussed, before a concluding section considers their implications[1].

2. Research and Policy Context

SI research must avoid the criticism levelled at school effectiveness research - that "it ignores the social, cultural and political construction and location of schooling" (Angus, 1993:343). This study locates LEAs in relation to research, policy and local contexts. The complex effects of the schools' context, including the activities of the LEA, upon it effectiveness and its improvement efforts are yet to be unravelled (Gray, Hopkins, Reynolds, Wilcox, Farrell, & Jesson, 1999; Lauder, Jamieson, & Wikeley, 1998). SI research emphasises that the school is the centre of change (Fullan, 1991) and has focused on the school culture and processes which promote improvement. It has recognised that there are many layers of effect upon the school. LEAs do not merely deliver government policy, although this is increasingly the intention of government policy. LEAs' practice is informed by government policy, but also by the local context and by their schools. This study looked outwards from the school to consider the effect one LEA had on SI.

A study of LEAs and SI must attempt to conceptualise LEAs within this complex picture. Research suggests that LEAs (or districts) can:

•make a difference to SI

•bring resources not available within the school to assist SI

•help the school maintain its focus

•support schools select processes most appropriate to individual circumstances

•provide some protection from the wider environment to promote experimentation and evaluation and that

•the influence of the individual senior officer can be significant.

Research in north America has been more extensive, larger scale and longer term than in the UK. A Tennessee school effectiveness and improvement study found that there was a correlation between learning-enriched and learning-impoverished schools and their districts, and the behaviour of the individual superintendent in particular (Rosenholtz, 1989). It showed that teachers are influenced by the environment of the district as

both stuck and moving superintendents were near-perfect mirrors for how principals treated teachers, and teachers treated students (p211).

In contrast the longitudinal Louisiana School Effectiveness Study found

a lack of meaningful influence from the district office on school effectiveness. In fact, the only influences we saw were negative and were of little importance to overall school effectiveness (Teddlie & Stringfield, 1993:220).

The district also behaved towards SI attempts with "either benign neglect or interference" (p223).

Two SI projects established that the district can be a key player in implementation and maintenance of SI processes influencing their schools' motivation and capacity for change by providing structures, processes, resources and knowledge and focus (Lofton, Ellett, Hill, & Chauvin, 1998; Stoll & Fink, 1996).

Fullan (1991) reviewed several studies of district administrations and suggested that all levels must work together to sustain school improvement, from classroom, through school, district and beyond. He quoted Sarason's argument that change which tinkered with only part of the system would inevitably fail (Sarason, 1990) and argued for change which connects each level (Fullan & Hargreaves, 1992).

SI research in the UK in has focused almost exclusively on the school as the unit of intervention, treating the LEA as part of the school's context. Studies of LEAs have not focused on SI, but considered one of three themes:

•defining the role of the LEA in education as a whole,

•reporting on specific projects or

•describing LEAs' contributions to helping schools in difficulties.

UK research places more emphasis on data, but otherwise confirms the significance of the district established by north American research. Before 1998 LEAs had more flexibility to choose whether and how to pursue SI. Some LEAs initiated projects such as those in Lewisham, and Hammersmith and Fulham, providing resources, structures and processes to support SI (Myers, 1996). Birmingham's CEO and senior inspector (Brighouse & Woods, 1999) have suggested that LEAs support their schools in three areas: climate, critical friendship and supporting the processes of SI. Gray et al. (1999) summarised the contribution of LEAs as stimulation of change and the specific provision of link advisers and other personnel with expertise and of performance data. However the study also reported that the extent to which the schools had enhanced their strategic capacity to improve as a result of LEA support was unclear.

It is only after the mid-'90s SI that LEAs are seen as having a significant part to play in SI. The increasing tension between the government's intention to drive up standards and maintaining local priorities and aspirations has been noted in three studies (Brighouse, 1996; Cordingley & Harrington, 1996; Riley, Docking, & Rowles, 1999). An on-going study found that schools thought that LEAs should prioritise supporting SI (Riley et al., 1999). The study provides a useful analysis of effective school-LEA relationships (used below) through provision of equitable and efficient services, working in partnership towards common goals and by promoting professional development and networks.

The research reviewed gave partial attention to LEAs or to SI, but a consistency is discernible in the conclusions which emerge. Because none of the research has focused entirely on LEA's role in SI there is a gap which this study contributes to filling.

The issues which emerge present possible tensions with current policy, especially in relation to the role of local democracy, the principle of intervention in inverse proportion to success, mandatory strategies and the expectation of swift results.

policy

Central government policy plays a major role in shaping LEAs' role in SI, especially when backed by legislation. The policy focus for education has gradually shifted over the last two decades from provision to outcomes. The function of LEAs has shifted from maintenance to improvement. The LEA's role has been the subject of political debate since the 1980s, especially by the New Right (Ranson, 1992). The Education Reform Act of 1988 (ERA) significantly altered the powers of the LEAs so that, as in the title of an influential report, they lost an empire and had to find a new role (Audit Commission, 1989). Their strategic responsibilities were increased, focusing on accountability and quality. However, significant powers were lost either to the schools (resources, appointments) or to Whitehall (curriculum).

Since 1988 the debate about the role and function of LEAs and doubts about their future have persisted. The politics of the poll tax, increasing public concerns about standards, efficiency and failure made it seem that LEAs would disappear. Central government finds it expedient to retain a level of accountability between the schools and Whitehall. By the mid-90s, a new climate was emerging, where the role for the LEAs was being promoted in disseminating information, monitoring and evaluating improvements and interventions where particular weaknesses were identified by OFSTED (Riley, 1998). The LEAs were increasingly being held account for the failures of their schools. Barber argues that LEAs survived because some began to create a new vision of themselves and cites Birmingham, Lewisham, Nottinghamshire, Sussex, Shropshire and Newcastle as models of "a school-improving LEA" (Barber, 1996:147). Perhaps these authorities were being opportunist.

The Labour government elected in 1997 maintained the revised view of LEAs, "agnostic" about their future, concerned more with outcomes and less with means (Hannon, 1999). The government's intended role for LEAs has now been legislated for in the School Standards and Framework Act (1998), realised through education development plans (EDPs), a Code of Practice, inspection by OFSTED and naming and shaming. These are strategies which central government has previously used to influence school performance.

The study of texts reveals another aspect of the context in which policy is formed and practice developed. Articulated in the language of public good, texts are the product of struggle and compromise between those who influence policy. Policy makers would like us to believe that practice is the result of top-down implementation of policy, but the tensions and compromises of the text has to be negotiated by practitioners (Bowe, Ball, & Gold, 1992).

DfEE Publications

The government's approach to LEAs is characterised by "direction, license and scrutiny" (Hannon, 1999:260). The White Paper, Excellence in Schools, illustrates this. LEAs are directed to take a specified role in SI. The key strategy is the EDP, the form and acceptance of which is controlled by the Department for Education and Employment (DfEE). The White Paper warns that when LEAs are not successful "we will not hesitate to intervene directly" (Section 3, par. 20) implying a licensing of powers. The endeavours of the LEAs will be scrutinised by OFSTED in a system of inspections and progress on targets will be monitored by the DfEE and OFSTED.

Much is made in the White Paper of "the right balance of pressure and support", a phrase borrowed from Fullan (1991). Fullan was clear that these aspects should be integrated in supporting SI endeavours, but government intends a separation. The principle of support in inverse proportion to success is a distortion of the recommendation from the research.

Audit Commission Reports

The Audit Commission is an independently operating public body, established to regulate and audit local authorities. It has issued three reports in the last decade on the role for LEAs in the context of changing government policy. The 1989 report identified six aspects to the role of LEAs following the ERA: leader, partner, planner, provider of information, regulator of quality and banker (Audit Commission, 1989).

Changing Partners (1998), a discussion document, proposed a four-strand redefinition of LEAs' role: articulating a vision supported by strategy, vehicle for improvement, ensuring equity and managing trade-offs. The methodological difficulties of providing "tangible evidence of a causal relationship between LEA activity and outcomes at individual schools", tracing the consequences of LEA programmes in particular schools, departments and ultimately particular teachers (Audit Commission, 1998:41 par. 81) are only noted.

The third report (1999) entitled Held in Trust is not clear what or who is being held by whom and why. It reports responses to the previous paper, and focuses on how LEAs can "respond most effectively to the agenda they now face" (Audit Commission, 1999:3). There is no comment on the LEAs' exclusion from this agenda. It summarises their statutory role: making a difference through leadership and direction, targeting support and interventions, and in passing again notes the difficulty of disentangling the impact of LEA intervention from other factors (par. 29).

There are three problems with the Audit Commission's position. First it ignores the possibility of a pluralist approach to the government's drive to raise standards. Second, it is anti-democratic. Third, the voluntary partnership with central government is replaced by a directive relationship which is contrary to the research finding that LEAs should help schools to find strategies which fit their unique circumstances.

This section has considered the influence of research and policy, and of text production on the practice of LEAs in SI revealing gaps, lack of substantial or recent evidence, lack of clarity and confusion. These can be categorised under three headings, and form the focus of the case study:

relationships - how should effective relationships between the schools and the LEA be conceptualised? Is the relationship implied by legislation likely to promote SI?

the CEO - our age has an "obsession with leadership" in politics, in schools (Reynolds, 1998), and perhaps in LEAs. What are the limits and possibilities of the individual CEO?

processes - what are the features of the LEA processes and activities which are particularly effective in making and sustaining improvements?

3. The Research

The study is closely linked with an EU-funded project, Capacity for Change and Adaptation of Schools in the case of Effective School Improvement (ESI) involving eight countries[2]. The project considered several different layers of influence on the school's improvement activities, from those within the school, including the classroom, the school's organisation and climate, the parents, the local community, the LEA and the national policy agenda.

The case study approach was chosen because it takes account of the context, is appropriate when boundaries of the subject are not clearly evident and when multiple sources of evidence are used (Yin, 1989).

For the ESI project I was assigned five improving schools nominated by officers of the LEA, and gathered data in these schools in the summer of 1999, on my own or with team members. The value of multiple sources of evidence is that they can confirm or modify the perceptions gained from other sources. Data were collected from

•documentation - examination and test results over time, school development plans or summaries, Governors Annual Reports, school brochures, SI project evaluation reports and OFSTED inspection reports;

•interviews - with the headteacher, staff, parents, pupils and governors;

•direct observation - these were very brief and recorded on a schedule soon after the visit.

Data was initially analysed for the individual school accounts required for the ESI project. The layer relating to the LEA was then extracted and further independently reviewed in the light of the research questions identified earlier. An understanding of the role of the LEA in the SI activities of these five schools was built up in stages which sometimes overlapped:

•analysing the data to describe the SI endeavours in each school and the relationship between the school's activities and the LEA,

•considering the common ground and the differences in the accounts of the five schools,

•using the evidence from these five accounts to consider the research questions and identify further issues,

•reviewing limitations and gaps in the data.

The data have important limitations. They are retrospective and all from the schools' perspectives. The voice of those within the LEA is absent, except in terms of the stated goals and processes of the SI programme. Nor has any independent voice been used, such as the OFSTED inspection of the LEA, to provide another view. The research context together with the constraints of being a mortal researcher account for this focus on the schools' perceptions. It is still valid as a contribution to the discussion about the role of the LEA.

Credibility lies in the processes of the research and in making transparent the way in which conclusions have been justified. Quotations and references have been provided to support these accounts. The discussion of research questions has been presented separately from these accounts[3], which allows for the analysis to be critiqued. Limitations to the credibility of the case study relate to the data sources, that is, the understandings of the participants and the information they provided in interviews, the documentation and the researchers' observations. It remains important not to claim more for the evidence than can be substantiated. The separation of the schools' accounts and the discussion enables the argument to be presented in a coherent way and for a proper degree of tentativeness in offering conclusions. One method to establish validity of this study, prevented by lack of time, would have been to seek comments and reactions from the participants. This would have provided confirmation and possible elaboration of meanings and interpretations of the data and may also have prompted further reflection and contributions to the analysis and findings. This can now only take place beyond the study.