Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference, University of Glamorgan, 14-17 September 2005

NLC Symposium,

DRAFT PAPER- please do not quote without authors’ permission

Shotgun Weddings, Arranged Marriages or Love Matches? An Investigation of Networked Learning Communities and Higher Education Partnerships in England

Anne CampbellLiverpool Hope University

Iris KeatingManchester Metropolitan University

AbstractThis paper discusses a project, commissioned by the National College for School Leadership’s (NCSL) Networked Learning Group (NLG), which investigated the variety of partnerships, links and collaborations between Networked Learning Communities (NLCs) and Higher Education Institutions (HEIs).

The paper draws on data gained through interview and interrogation of databases, questionnaire surveys and on fieldwork, which has generated a substantive number of case studies. It also uses material from the NSCL/NLG’s Spring Enquiry (2004). It would appear that no more than a third at most of the NLCs are in effective partnerships with HEIs. Nonetheless some excellent practice has been generated and many examples are to be found in the final report, Campbell et al (2005)

A range of different partnerships exists between NLCs and HEIs varying in strength and quality and mutual commitment. Partnerships take many forms and the paper explores the variety of modes of collaboration, with origins which might be geographical, historical or serendipitous or be born of personal interaction.

The paper looks at the notion of structures which might facilitate linkage and examines attitudes and perceptions on both sides which appear to have been influential. The issue of sustainability, when NLG funding ends is discussed and in that context, the paper finally returns to one of the more popular models of collaboration- the action research model, which is argued as a successful way of returning to teachers some autonomy over their professional development much of which has been lost in recent years.

1

Shotgun Weddings, Arranged Marriages or Love Matches? An Investigation of Networked Learning Communities and Higher Education Partnerships in England Networked Learning Communities (NLCs) first appeared in England in 2002 as part of the government funded initiatives of the National College of School Leadership (NCSL). This paper reflects on research of the first two cohorts of NLCs, circa 135 NLCs. NLCs consisted of groups of schools which bid for funding to develop learning and teaching strategies suitable for the context of 21st Century schools. Many of the successful bids addressed recent developments in learning and teaching styles such as ‘accelerated learning’, Smith (1999) or consideration of Gardner’s (1983) ‘multiple intelligences’ or Goleman’s (1995) promotion of ‘emotional intelligence’. There was a major focus on the use of Information and Communications Technology, (ICT), to support and promote learning.

The emphasis was on teachers’ engaged in inquiry-based learning and practitioner research and this initiative strongly promoted teachers’ learning from each other in professional learning communities and networks such as those described by Frost et al (2000), McLaughlin (2004) and Bolam et al (2005). There were direct links to Australian developments, Sachs and Groundwater-Smith (1996) and work in developing and researching ‘communities of practice’ and ‘situated learning’, Lave and Wenger (1991).

The research project sought to investigate the variety of partnerships that existed between Networked Learning Communities (NLCs) and Higher Education Institutions (HEIs). The project was predicated on the understanding that there was a range of collaborations between NLCs and HEIs and that these partnerships would vary in both strength and quality and mutual commitment. Some may legitimately be styled ‘partnerships’; others are more usefully described as ‘ links’ or ‘connections’.

The aims of the project were threefold:

to identify the range of NLC/HEI partnerships; we were interested to discover the nature of innovative, creative and novel partnerships that have emerged, and continue to develop, between these two bodies.

to explore how best practice in these partnerships could be shared more widely; we wished to provide a legacy that would inform and guide future developments in this and allied fields.

to work in tandem with the NLC team

2

Methodology

Methodological approaches used in the investigation were eclectic, flexible and drew on quantitative and qualitative approaches in order to maximise opportunities for data collection and evaluation

The project used existing data held by the NCSL and new data gathered from the stakeholders. Team members worked within the BERA Ethical Guidelines (www.bera.ac.uk), and fully observed all the legal requirements for data protection.

Originally the following methods of data collection were identified as being appropriate:

an interrogation of the NCSL database to discover the existing and planned relationships between HEIs and NLCs

the classification and analysis of those links and relationships a questionnaire to explore the nature of the identified relationships the identification of a small sample (six) of different relationships for

face-to –face or telephone interviews

In reality the project developed a much wider brief than that outlined above. As the initial data from the database was analysed a number of discrepancies were identified and several interesting potential pathways appeared which pointed to the need for further investigation. The richness of data that could be gathered merited further ‘mining’. The result was a deeper investigation. N total13 mini case studies,1 major case study and about 30 micro studies have been made, an informational framework devised and a ‘Think Piece’ produced. The detail of these investigations is to be found in the final report, Campbell et al (2005).

A consequence of re-shaping the brief is, we believe, a much better picture of the collaborative landscape. Some links remain unexplored due to lack of response or inaccurate information about contacts and change of personnel. .

Research began in summer of 2004. Initially, there were two thrusts to the enquiry: a quantitative investigation into how many NLCs had indeed formed productive links, or positive partnerships with one or more higher education institutions; a qualitative study of the nature of such links and of the factors which might be said to influence the formation of links or stronger partnerships. This paper concentrates on the latter, qualitative, investigation and offers conclusions and reflections as to the nature of successful partnerships. We attempt to identify some of the reasons why links were not forged.

3

Thinking About Linking: Modes of Collaboration

Each NLC/HI link is unique. Connections investigated in this project have their own personalities and purposes and any attempt to impose a rigid conceptual framework would be artificial. There is, however, a notional matrix of collaboration. One might begin with an attempt to quantify using a simple two-dimensional graph. A horizontal line might represent a continuum showing the degree of HEI involvement and a vertical line would signify possible models of collaboration. Unfortunately the varying forms of collaboration overlap to such an extent that the matrix swiftly becomes multi-dimensional and incapable of realistic presentation. Therefore, it is simpler to begin by restricting any account of collaboration to the two dimensions: the continuum and the models.

The continuum might be said to start (or finish) with the highest level of HEI engagement. In this context, two preliminary questions might be asked. The first concerns who initiated the bid and/or who initiated the collaboration. The second relates to how the finance is apportioned or controlled. Apportionment and control are far from the same thing. Examples can be found where higher education, having initiated the bid, subsequently takes control of the money, but then apportions it in ways that are beneficially generous to the members of the NLC. In another example, the NLC might control the finance but allocate up to 50% of the available money on purchase terms to an HEI which then works to an agreed agenda. These two examples would see movement along the continuum, but still with an emphasis on a high level of HEI involvement. That emphasis would be rare. As one proceeds towards the lower end of a continuum of involvement, then the NLC generates a range of activities in some or all of which higher education is involved to greater or lesser degree. This involvement could be, for example, as in-service provider, critical friend, conference organiser, evaluator or mentor or several of these. Towards the furthest end of the continuum, HEI involvement becomes increasingly peripheral. An NLC might have a specific need, such as an evaluation, or a project to mentor, or some accreditation need or, to be truly minimalist, the hiring of a single guest speaker on a single occasion. Even the examples are subject to degrees of variation: accreditation can be a substantial enterprise or something for the relatively few teachers who want it; mentoring could be for one teacher who is basing research study on some feature of the NLC’s work or it could be for substantial numbers of teachers on a BPRS or Masters programme. Issues of trust and power in relationships have relevance here. Everton and Galton (2004) discuss issues of power in their review of the changing roles of university tutors and cite Carr and Kemmis (1983) who saw one virtue of collaborative networks of teachers working together as enabling the power relationship between schools and universities to be readdressed so that rather than merely supplying the knowledge base, the university tutor has to develop mentoring and counselling skills to support individual teachers’ planning and reflection.

4

As a complication, another way to look at modes of NLC/HEI links is to take a geographical perspective. Most cases are straightforward: the link is with a near or obvious partner, and it is unsurprising to find that this model predominates. There are, however, interesting examples to be found of ‘distance’ or ‘outreach’ models HEIs have shown themselves perfectly willing to collaborate in such cases and where an NLC requires expertise which is not locally available, then there is nothing to stop it working successfully with a distant partner. It is also the case that the distant partner might take the initiative. In that way, ‘distant’ tends to become better described as ‘outreach’. A third geographical variant is the ‘distributed’ or ‘dispersed’ model, where there are several HEI partners. The former term implies a measure of strategic determination while the latter suggests that the links have owed much to serendipity or casual circumstance. Whatever the origins, the characteristic of this model is quantity: there are a number of HEI links, forged for a variety of reasons. There are also to be found intended and actual international links. Thus will be seen the multi-dimensional nature of quantitative involvement.

It is the qualitative nature of collaboration that is perhaps the more interesting. A useful starting hypothesis could be to argue that three models emerge:

the action research or practitioner enquiry model the customised CPD model the special purposes model

Again, alas, there are degrees of overlap which militate against any simple presentation. For example, the special purpose could be the use of an HEI to provide mentoring for a group action research project – a project valuable and valued in itself but nonetheless seen as peripheral to the multi-faceted work of the NLC. However, as a generalisation, the three models serve as useful descriptors.

Other good examples of a ‘special purpose’ would be an evaluation of the whole or a part of an NLC’s work or the running of a school based Masters degree or modules of such, generated by the work of the NLC. Where these are the only collaborations or represent the most substantial and significant part of an HEI’s involvement, with possible occasional and small scale spin-offs, it is arguably fair to designate such activity as ‘special purpose’.

In other cases, however, some of the above examples are to be found within a much larger portfolio of in-service or continuing professional development activity. In such cases, an HEI might provide some actual teaching or training or might broker these things; or might organise conferences, prepare teachers for conferences, give demonstration lessons, offer workshop activities, find guest speakers and much more.

HEIs are not alone in the provision of such services. Indeed they appear to be in the minority. LEAs are equally available, private consultants are often used and many NLCs make provision from within their own ranks. If all else fails, the NCSL has assisted. Where HEIs appear to come into their own

5

more is when the model to emerge is the action research model and from evidence from the Spring Enquiry, (2004: 4), it would appear that perhaps 64% of NLCs have some action research activity. That is not to say that there are not LEAs or private consultants or, indeed NCSL facilitators more than capable of advising or supervising action research; there certainly are. However, it is higher education which has both the capability and the capacity to assist with action research. This is discussed and illustrated in Day and Hadfield’s (2004) article on ‘the power of action research’ in their collaboration within the Primary Schools Learning Network in Milton Keynes which was aso one of the project’s case studies. The collaboration aimed to give ownership for development back to teachers and they identified the ‘creative tension’ in the alliance between teachers, administrators and academics mediated by skills and abilities based on moral responsibility, critical friendship and trust.

We learn from the four years of the Best Practice Research Scholarships programme (2000-2004) that over 70% of the mentoring came from higher education, Furlong et al (2003). Prior to that a number of universities had set up, or joined, action research networks as described in McLaughlin et al (2005). Thus there may be found within higher education not only capacity, but experience and tradition. There is also a degree of hunger. As all universities, not just the older ones, strive to increase research activity, then the willingness to engage with schools for research purposes has grown accordingly. Indeed the qualitative nature of much of such research and its direct involvement with schools has made practitioner enquiry a focus for many newer universities. Meanwhile, in both old and new, a body of researchers has developed, prepared to champion the merits of teacher research, that is to say teachers doing research into their own practice, not simply using the evidence of research done on them and their classrooms, important though that is. Arguably the more teachers research their own practice, the more evidence they provide for other teachers. Indeed the evidence from this project suggests that about 60% of teachers in networks draw upon research or research literature. For a convincing argument of how teachers and research can interact effectively see Saunders’ editorial (2004) in the double special edition of Teacher Development celebrating teacher researchers. It may seem a contentious statement, but it is arguable, at least, that it is in this model of action research where NLCs have insufficiently exploited higher education.

General Factors Influencing Collaboration

It would appear that only a minority of NLCs have engaged in collaborative activity with HEIs. One explanation may lie in misperceptions, by both parties, of what HEIs can contribute, and equally what they can’t. These misperceptions are attributable to a number of general factors.

It is rare to find a school, certainly one within an NLC, which is not in some form of Initial Teacher Training (ITT) partnership with at least one HEI. To that extent, therefore, a link is already established. Moreover, relationships are generally good, as Ofsted would attest, and since most new teachers take up their first post within a radius of 20 or 30 miles of where they trained, most

6

schools are populated by several teachers loyal to their training institutions. For their part, headteachers recognise that participation in ITT gives them at minimum a valuable resource for recruitment and good opportunities for talent spotting, and at best a rewarding all-round professional development experience. Within higher education, wherever the training provision is well regarded, reflected in TTA OFSTED judgements, then a good reputation enhances credibility. Yet it would appear that ITT has played only a very small part in building links between NLCs and higher education. This relative insignificance owes much to the structures and purposes of higher education, as will be discussed later. However, the bottom line position is that in establishing a link NLCs interface much more with the CPD and research arms of higher education.

Evidence from the case studies carried out in this project indicate the frequency with which a link has been forged as a result of personal contact or personal initiative. This can be as random as an LEA adviser’s studying for a higher degree, or good experience on an in-service course or a chance meeting at a conference. The NCSL/NLG’s own perceived requirement, though arguably misread, that an NLC’s application should specify a higher education link had mixed impact. It alienated some, but prompted others into ‘shotgun marriages’, and the sometimes resultant ‘quickie divorce’. Others took longer ‘arranged marriages’ based on a considered review of benefits and others were lucky enough to strike up ‘love matches’. What is probable is that a sizeable majority, approximately 70% of NLCs ultimately honoured this requirement more in the breach than the observance. In the light of what is said above it is interesting that many, whether breachers or observers, appear to have simply plumped in their original bid nominations for either an ITT partner, or a personal contact. Although the ITT connection, as explained, played little part in subsequent developments, the theme of “personality” remained dominant. Successful partnerships evolved as the case studies of the project reveal. People clicked and things happened. The two parties trusted and respected each other.

To a small extent, too, as was implied earlier, geography had a role to play. Higher education was drawn upon because a university or college was conveniently situated or quite simply “because it’s there”. In a major case study undertaken by Durrant (2005) for this project, the Canterbury Christ Church University College (CCCUC) was the focus. CCCUC has an outpost in Tunbridge Wells and as a result a flourishing link evolved in that part of Kent, a seeming example of accidentalism. Yet in other cases the chosen university was not the most convenient option, while one or two NLCs at least, despite the relative proximity of several HEIs could not find a suitable partner or severed early links. Clearly there are more fundamental pre-conditions for success. The likeliest explanations may well lie in the areas of mutual perceptions and structures.

Structures owe something to aspects of the history of teacher education. The core purpose of most faculties, departments, schools or colleges of education has generally been the initial training of teachers. Older universities had also developed a research tradition, while some of the former public sector

7

polytechnic or college institutions had built up an in-service portfolio. This is not to say that the older universities neglected in-service, but they often separated it structurally, sometimes designating those who worked in that way, or who worked with the public sector, an institute, to distinguish it from the ‘department’. But history, fascinating though it is to some, is not really the key current issue. The key current issue is money, or more exactly, funding, the lifeblood of university providers. Within the various funding regimes it was, and still usually is, the money from ITT which kept the vessel afloat. Where in-service programmes had been built up HEFCE funding was available but teachers’ circumstances and release costs meant that in-service became increasingly a part-time activity. When the TTA took over the funding from HEFCE, further changes largely eradicated any short course provision. The advent of new qualifications, eg, NPQH and new programmes, eg, those of NCSL put further pressure on sustaining teachers’ traditional routes to promotion, namely, further qualifications. Consequently as ‘in-service’ became ‘CPD’, HEIs have tended to have been squeezed out of the market unless they have been able to maintain viable post-graduate programmes or have made fundamental structural changes, setting up purpose-orientated units. The case studies illustrated this very well, particular examples include Canterbury, St Martin’s and Wolverhampton. Everton and Galton (2004) would argue that teacher networks should be funded by the government, similar to the Teacher Training Agency’s (TTA) School-based Research Consortia, which was evaluated by Kushner et al ( 2001) and advocated an LEA, schools university research partnership. Everton and Galton argue that funding to allow groups of teacher researchers to work together with higher education

‘would seem to offer the greatest opportunity both for achieving effective teacher research and for getting the relationship between teacher researcher and university tutor right’

(2004: 261)

At the same time, pressure has built, through the Research Assessment Exercise for more research activity with a concomitant need to publish and to generate income. Once again a structural solution has often been employed in an attempt to meet the criteria for research activity to win high assessments and thus to gain research income. Proven active researchers might now be grouped into, eg Graduate Schools or Research Centres or Institutes, frequently separate from the mainstream teaching activity.

So what do structural and funding issues mean for NLC links? Some tentative ‘relevant factors’ might be advanced:

HEIs are cash-strapped and are experiencing staffing pressures. The university staff whom schools deal with in ITT are not necessarily

those most likely to engage with CPD. The contraction of higher education CPD provision means that there

are fewer full-time tutors with a CPD background to work with NLCs.

8

Unless internal structures are already in place, HEIs cannot easily tailor provision to requirements.

HEIs see accreditation as a means of enhancing recruitment. NLCs appear to offer HEIs a new field for research activity.

However, it is the area of mutual perceptions which most possibly influences success or failure in the forging of links. When NLCs report that HEIs, in meetings or conferences, appear to have their own agenda, that is probably true, and probably relates to the above factors, but it is not necessarily unworthy. It is apparent from the case studies and from returns to NCSL and NLG enquiries, from meetings, conferences, writings and anecdotes that HEIs have much to offer NLCs. It is equally clear that the nature of the offer is highly individual and that no semblance of a template exists. However, it is possible to speculate on two issues which lie underneath much of the above.

The first issue is what is sometimes referred to as the “new CPD”. This is hard to define but definition can be attempted by reference to Campbell (2003) and her definition of the “old CPD”. In the old CPD:

in-service development was “done to” teachers often by government fiat and prescription frequently where “one size fits all” residual choice was preserved by a menu of courses (higher education,

LEA, private) a connection was established to performance management

There is no suggestion that all the above were necessarily bad, but clearly the time has lately come for a change, returning to teachers some control of the professional development agenda and restoring “ownership”, Campbell (2003).

The “new CPD” therefore re-introduces a larger element of personal choice within the context of school self-determination. One phrase seems to capture the spirit of the new times: “Where you are is where it’s at” – where you are as a person, where you are in your classroom, where you are in your school and where you are in conversation with other colleagues elsewhere with a shared professional interest a phrase coined by two BPRS teacher researchers, Blakely and Smith, (2005). For a discussion of the life and demise of the BPRS programme see Campbell and Keating (2004) and Furlong et al (2003). The now sadly lapsed Best Practice Research Scholarships were a form of action research that well captured the spirit of the above: a grant to a teacher to work on an individual teaching and learning project often in association with a colleague or colleagues, contextualised within classroom and school, and ultimately disseminated. Ironically, or maybe logically, most projects were mentored by tutors in higher educationThe “new CPD”, therefore, has a role for HEIs but it makes demands on HEIs which are fresh for some and structurally hard for others: flexibility, responsiveness and a willingness to work to others’ agendas.

9

The second issue concerns attitudes, or perceived attitudes. Probably the commonest professional development activity to which HEIs contribute is assistance with action research. It is a long and well-developed tradition, Stenhouse (1983) and Somekh (1994), but an increasing shift in emphasis to teachers’ researching their own practice has been controversial. Teachers’ researching their own practice is arguably as close to professional development meeting the “where you are is where you’re at” criterion as can be achieved but the research community is divided. Such research has doughty champions, Elliott (1991), Dadds (1995), Saunders (2004) and Campbell (2003) and its legitimacy has increasingly gained ground, yet criticism remains to the effect that it is not “proper research”, ie not work which would be recognised as research not just inside but, more importantly, outside the field of education. Undoubtedly, several BPRS projects would have been more appropriately labelled curriculum development or curriculum evaluation. Perhaps, too, the term ‘practitioner enquiry’ raises fewer hackles. Other terms can be used such as classroom research, educational enquiry and more. It is not the purpose of this enquiry into links between NLCs and higher education to pass semantic judgement on this issue. However, it is the case that attitudes sometimes struck by higher education’s educational research community are communicated to teachers in schools and can come across as patronising and to quote one case study “purist and precious”. Another source of irritation to NLCs can be that of research training. There are a couple of matters which touch raw nerves. One is when an HEI can only offer accredited, pre-existing courses rather than something more tailor-made. This matches concerns about flexibility. The second issue is when what is provided is too advanced and esoteric, failing to take account of classroom teachers’ present needs and contexts: namely, research training for a future PhD not a present enquiry.

In summary, therefore, it would appear that higher education offers most when it is either through tradition and experience or through being structurally organised able to be responsive to a NLC agenda and when the leading protagonists possess the necessary personal skills to facilitate an NLC’s activities and can win trust. It would appear that at least 40 HEIs successfully met the criteria. This is not to say that the other 90 did not. Assuredly some did not, but many perhaps did not have the chance, partly because NLCs themselves felt self-sufficient, an arguably complacent attitude if that was the case, or failed to appreciate the constraints under which HEIs currently work.

Yet higher education may well be needed when NLCs’ funding comes to an end. Any discussion of ‘sustainability’ is almost by definition speculative but there are one or two interesting albeit contradictory trains of thought. The most obvious is that because higher education’s services are almost wholly purchased, then when NCSL funding stops, then it is the HEIs which are most likely to be squeezed. It is here that the strengths of relationships are likeliest to be tested. However, several NLCs use other funding available to them to contribute to their activities and much of that funding will continue. Also, new styles of funding will probably come on stream. There seems to be some optimism that practitioner research will generate funding mainly from the TTA’s Postgraduate Professional Development source (PPD). Because that

10

money relates to award-bearing courses, then the issue of accreditation returns to the agenda. At least one NLC can see its higher education partners contributing to certain types of action research projects in return for a near-certain, albeit limited, flow into post-graduate courses. In this way numbers and funding allocated via the PPD exercise are underwritten. HEIs who have well-established organisational structures to provide customised CPD have been able to rely on income for some time now, and for them NLCs were another opportunity – valuable and valued but neither crucial nor unique. Where NLCs continue by funding themselves, they are likely to continue to purchase a measure of service. Much the same is true in respect of ‘special purposes’.

Arguably, it is the action research model which is the more unpredictable. Action research is not particular to NLCs, but it appears to have been one area to which HEIs can lay claim to being the likeliest source of support and, indeed, expertise. Day and Hadfield (2004) give an example of an effective action research model in an NLC. Research is what higher education ‘does’ and if teacher research is to flourish and expand and be regarded as legitimate then higher education can help more than most to legitimate it. Consequently, there needs to be more understanding of what the issues are. Reference has already been made to critics of teacher research who maintain that the only legitimate research is quantitative research that arrives at clear cut, measurable outcomes and conclusions. Some feel that small scale, classroom-based research by teachers is not research at all and that there are regularly to be found flaws in data collection and analyses. Another view is that the desire to find evidence to support classroom practice leads to ‘toolkits’ for teachers. Similarly, for many novice teacher/researchers, there might be a strong pull to believe that research is a straightforward process and that there should not be any struggle with conflicting evidence and different contradictory issues.

There may well be some force in these criticisms, but that strenghtens to the argument that higher education needs to become involved. Research into the complex processes of teaching and learning is not always neat and tidy; it is frequently messy and inconclusive. The issues of complex classrooms result in complex research questions. Higher education, in those institutions where there is a commitment to teacher research - and the need for that commitment must be stressed – can make a suitable, indeed desirable, partner. Meanwhile those HEIs organised and structured to respond flexibly to schools‘ needs, will continue to do so.

What should the various key players do to bring about more effective collaboration?

An HEI wishing to work with NLCs might firstly consider whether it is organised structurally to respond suitably. It should be prepared to respond flexibly, if necessary, through customisation and off-site working.It should make explicit its own research agenda, seeking to enlist NLCs as allies and

11

co-researchers and explain and evidence its capability and capacity in the areas of action research and evaluation.Clarity about the benefits and procedures for accreditation is necessary as is a demonstration of a practical and philosophical commitment to the development of teacher research. An HEI should explain, clearly, the financial parameters within which institutions must work and consider the extent it could work ‘barter’ into its Initial Teacher Training (ITT) partnerships.and investigate secondments which facilitate an exchange of teacher-tutor expertise. It should avoid, at all costs, a patronising stance.

NLCs interested in linking with higher education should ascertain in which areas of educational expertise, neighbouring HEIs have an established reputation. In addition to considering which aspects of their work might benefit from external contributions, it could be particularly worthwhile to consider, in particular, whether higher education might be a suitable partner in respect of:

Action research Evaluation Critical friendship

NlCs should make explicit their needs and requirements, requesting and expecting a flexible response and recognise that higher education will almost certainly need to work within financial parameters. They should also satisfy themselves that higher education possesses the capacity and capability to meet the NLCs’ requirements and recognise that higher education may wish to marry the requirements of an NLC to its own research activity and welcome this phenomenon as assisting with dissemination.

NLCs should request any potential HEI partner to outline its views on the value and importance of practitioner research and investigate fully the potential benefits of accreditation and customised qualifications Individual NLCs should review their ITT partnerships with a view to including the relevant arrangements into commercial considerations.

A word of warning… NLCs are cautioned to appraise carefully the use of terms such as ‘action research’ and ‘practitioner research’ when they are working without the benefit of any external partner experienced in research activity. When they are working alone, they should be very cautious in their claims about ‘findings’ and the style in which they disseminate.

The National College of School Leadership’s Networked Learning Group, if it wishes to promote collaboration between NLCs and HEIs, should seek to avoid the appearance of prescription. By publicising good practice through its newsletters it could also offer to broker partnerships. Beneficial initiatives might be a national conference on the topic of NLC/HEI links, which would ‘inter alia’ also showcase good practice; the consideration of devising and producing a DVD or video describing the landscape of current collaboration; the publication of a journal with articles contributed by successful partnerships

12

and describing relevant research projects. The production of a code of practice in respect of collaboration would be a useful tool for potential partners in schools’ learning communities and higher education. Catelli et al (2000:233) ask the key questions: Who benefits from the action research conducted? The school? The university? The teacher? The teacher- educator? Is action research in the context of a school-university partnership really worth the time and effort?’

Our answer to these would have to be all participants should benefit but the teacher and schools should have priority. Durrant, (2005:57) in her conclusions for the major case study for the report from this project, states the value in collaboration:

‘Higher education facilitation has assisted strategic planning and provided inputs, programmes and frameworks for network activity (Alcock, 2003; Frost and Durrant, 2003), helping teachers to link practice and contemporary theory… They benefit not only from practical support but from critical friendship, expertise in research, curriculum and pedagogy and skills in facilitation and support for collaborative working… It might be said that rather than supporting the Networked Learning Community, Higher Education partners need to be part of the learning community as they discover new ways of working together’.

Address for correspondenceAnne CampbellEducation DeaneryLiverpool Hope UniversityHope ParkLiverpool L16 9JDcampbea@hope.ac.uk

References

Alcock, K. (2003) NQTs : Developing Professionally in their Inuction Year, Paper presented at In-service Professional Development Association Conference, Birmingham October 2003

Blakely,A. and Smith, B. ‘Where you are is where it’s at’: the impact of a Best Practice Research Scholarship (BPRS) upon the professional development of two primary teachers, in A. Campbell (ed) Journal of Practitioner Research, 1, (1) Liverpool Hope University College

13

Bolam, R., McMahon, M., Stoll, L., Thomas, S. and Wallace, M. (2005) Creating and Sustaining Effective Professional Learning Communities, Research Report 637: DfES

Campbell, A and Jacques, K. ( 2003)’ Best Practice Researched: teachers’ perceptions of the impact of doing research in their classrooms and schools, International Journal of Teacher Development, V 7 (1)

Campbell, A. (2003) Teachers’ Research and Professional Development in England: some questions, issues and concerns, International Journal of In-Service Education, 29 (3)

Campbell, A. and Keating, I. (2004) A story of success and failure: practitionerresearch and development in the Best Practice Research Scholarship programme in England, Paper presented at AERA, San Diego, California, USA, April 2004

Campbell. A., Keating, I., Cockett, K., Kane, I. McConnell, A. and Baxter, C. (2005) Networked Learning Communities and Higher Education Links Project Final Report, Networked Learning Group, National College for School Leadership

Carr, W. and Kemmis, S. (1983) Becoming Critica : knowing through action research, Geelong: Deakin University Press

Catelli, L. A., Padovano, K. and Costello, J. (2000) Action Research in the context of a School-University Partnership: its value, problems issues and benefits, Educational Action Research: an international journal, 8, ( 2) pp225-242

Dadds, M. (1995) Passionate Enquiry and School Development: A Story About Teacher Action Research, London: Falmer Press

Day, C. and Hadfield, M. (2004) Learning through Networks: trust, partnerships, and the power of action research, Educational Action Research: an international journal, 12 (4) pp 575-586

Durrant, J. (2005) The Major Case Study: Moving from Structures to Cultures: Developing partnerships between schools, a Higher Education Institution and the Local Education Authority to support leadership of learning in a Networked Learning Community in Campbell, A. Keating, I. Cockett, K. Kane, I., McConnell, A. and Baxter, C. Networked Learning Communities and Higher Education Links Project Final Report, NLG/NCSL:June 2005

Elliott, J. (1991) Action Research for Educational Change, Milton Keynes: Open University Press

14

Everton, T and Galton, M. (2004) Supervisor, Collaborator or Critical Friend?; the changing roles of university tutors in teacher research, Teacher Development: an international journal of teachers’ professional development, 8 (2 & 3) pp241-262

Frost, D. and Durrant, J. (2003) Teacher Led Development Work: guidance and support, London: David Fulton Publishers

Frost, D., Durrant, J., Head, M. and Holden, G. (2000) Teacher-Led School Improvement, London: Routlege Falmer

Furlong, J., Salisbury, J. and Coombs, L. (2003) Evaluation of BPRS, London: DfES

Gardner, H. (1983) Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences, New York: Basic Books

Goleman, D. (1995) Emotional Intelligence, New York: Bantam Books

Kushner, S., Simon, H., Jones, K. and Yee, W.C. (2001) Evaluation of the TTA School-Based Research Consortia Initiative, London: Teacher Training Agency

Lave, J and Wenger, E (1991) Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

McLaughlin, C. (2004) Partners in Research: what’s in it for you? Teacher Development: an international journal of teachers’ professional development, 8 (2 & 3) pp 127- 136

McLaughlin, C., Black-Hawkins, K and McIntyre, D. (2005) Researching Teachers, Researching Schools, Researching Networks: A Review of the Literature, University of Cambridge, Faculty of Education, Networked Learning Communities, NCSL

Networked Learning Group (NLG) (2004) The Spring Inquiry 2004, NLG:NCSL

Sachs, J. and Groundwater- Smith, S. (1996) Celebrating teacher professional knowledge: School reform and teachers’ professional judgement, Paper presented to Re-engineering Education for Change, UNESCO and Asia Pacific Centre for Educational Innovation Development, Bangkok

Saunders, L. Editorial: doing Things Differently, Teacher Development: an international journal of teachers’ professional development, 8 (2 & 3) pp 117-126

15

Smith, A. and Call, N. (1999) the alps approach: accelerated learning in the primary school, Stafford: Network Educational Press

Somekh, B (1994) Inhabiting each others’ castles: towards knowledge and mutual growth through collaboration, Educational Action Research, 2 (3) pp257-381

Stenhouse, L. (1975) An Introduction to Curriculum Research and Development, London: Heinemann

16