Partnerships between teaching schools

and universities: research report

Professor Toby Greany and Dr Chris Brown London Centre for Leadership in Learning UCL Institute of Education March 2015

Contents

Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................ 1

1. About this study.................................................................................................................................. 6

2. The context for school-university partnerships in England ................................................................ 7

2.1 A self-improving system?: the policy context ............................................................................. 7

2.2 Teaching schools .......................................................................................................................... 8

2.3 How the Teaching Schools are developing provision on Initial and Continuing Professional Development and Research and Development ......................................................................... 10

2.4 The changing nature of school-university partnerships ............................................................ 12

3: What we know about school university partnerships from the literature ...................................... 13

3.1 Overview .................................................................................................................................... 13

3.2 School-university partnerships for Initial Teacher Education ................................................... 14

3.3 School-university partnerships in relation to Continuing Professional Development .............. 18

3.4 School-university partnerships in relation to Research and Development ............................... 19

4: Findings ............................................................................................................................................ 20

4.1 Background and development of the alliances ......................................................................... 20

The context of the participating schools ................................................................................... 20

Reasons for joining or establishing a Teaching School Alliance ................................................ 21

Teaching School structures and governance ............................................................................. 22

Progress and initial impact as a current or prospective Teaching School Alliance ................... 22

Issues with the Teaching School model ..................................................................................... 23

4.2 How the Teaching Schools are developing provision on Initial and Continuing Professional Development and Research and Development ......................................................................... 25

Initial Teacher Education and School Direct .............................................................................. 25

Continuing Professional Development ...................................................................................... 26

Research and Development ....................................................................................................... 28

4.3 Teaching School partnerships with universities: motivations, progress and issues .................. 29

5. Conclusion ................................................................................................................................... 33

Recommendations:............................................................................................................................... 34

1

Executive Summary

Partnerships between Teaching Schools/lead schools and universities in England are in a state of flux,

with historical relationships being reshaped to respond to the needs of a self-improving school-led

system. This process is being accelerated by the rapid expansion of School Direct, a policy-driven

model which aims to give schools a stronger role in Initial Teacher Education (ITE).

The literature on school-university partnerships highlights the challenges involved in making such

partnerships successful. Differences in language, culture and organisational priorities can be

compounded by logistical difficulties, meaning that it can be hard to demonstrate impact.

The learning from successful partnerships suggests that key features include: school and university

staff having an equal voice, with practitioner priorities and knowledge explicitly valued; the creation

of a ‘third space’ which is separate from the culture of either institution and allows for more creative

ways of working; strategic leaders who recognise and prioritise external working of this nature as

well as distributed and shared leadership across the boundaries between the partners; and shared

aims and approaches, for example through a focus on solving locally defined problems utilising an

enquiry approach.

2

The four existing and emerging alliances in this study were at different stages of development, but

were characterised by high levels of commitment to the notion of school to school support and a

self-improving school system. They were facing similar challenges in their development to those

identified in other studies of Teaching Schools (Gu et al, 2014; Glover et al, 2014). These included:

the intense pressures that development places on the lead school and the concern that this could

lead to a drop in standards and even the loss of Teaching School status; and the challenge of how to

build capacity and engagement across an alliance of schools, so that the lead and strategic partner

schools are not carrying so much of the load.

The existing and emerging alliances in this study were undertaking a range of innovative work in

relation to ITE, Continuous Professional Development (CPD) and Research and Development (R&D).

The work on ITE was significant, although most energy appeared to have gone into dealing with the

bureaucracy and teething problems associated with the initiative, with less time spent as yet on

developing genuinely innovative learning experiences for trainee teachers. The shifts associated

with CPD were often more significant at this stage, with schools balancing a mix of more traditional

income-generating programmes with new approaches to Joint Practice Development (JPD) for staff.

These JPD models aimed to provide time and structured approaches to peer learning with explicit

opportunities to learn from research. The picture on R&D was mixed: it was increasingly highly

valued by the schools, with some innovative approaches in place, but the lack of capacity and

funding for this presented genuine challenges.

The diagram below shows the key factors that the leading schools in this study are looking for in a

university partner. The quality and credibility of the university staff are key considerations, along

with the reputation and prestige of the institution itself. Whether the university is committed to

partnership working and its ability to offer expertise, wider networks and a critical friend role are

also important.

These factors are balanced against the inertia that comes from having historical links and

relationships. On the plus side these relationships can reflect high levels of trust and collaboration,

but in some cases there was a sense of dissatisfaction with the quality of the historical university

partner tempered by a view that the logistical challenges and emotional effort required to sever the

link would be too much to take on. In several cases historical relationships were giving ‘first mover’

advantage to universities as schools developed their thinking on School Direct: ie lead schools

tended to initiate discussions and work on new School Direct provision with institutions they already

knew.

All this is balanced by the need to secure value for money. School leaders must balance the hard

financial aspect of this with an assessment of the quality of provision on offer.

3

Figure 1: Key factors for lead schools in assessing school-university partnerships and possible future

scenarios for such partnerships in England.

It appears that lead schools might go in either of two directions as this picture unfolds.

i. One option is that they decide to go it alone, deciding that there is very little that universities can

offer that they cannot do themselves, particularly given the tight financial settlement. For example,

they might become an accredited provider (SCITT) in their own right. This ambition was expressed by

some of the interviewees, although others were highly critical of School Direct and a model of ITE that

does not involve universities.

ii. The other is they look to form much deeper partnerships with universities characterised by long-term

shared working and mutual learning in order to support the career development of all staff across an

alliance.

Foundations for

partnership… but

can create

inertia

Key requirements

for effective HE

partner

Expertise, wider networks

& critical friend

Commitment to

partnership working

Reputation of university

Quality and credibility

of HE staff

Personal relationships

Historical links

Future

scenarios?

Value for Money

4

Partnerships that adopt the latter option would appear to reflect the principles of the ‘third space’

(Moje et al, 2004) and ‘design-led’ working (Bryk, Gomez, and Grunow, 2011; Coburn, Penuel and

Geil, 2013) identified in previous research on effective school-university partnerships. The potential

ITE provision that could be developed through such partnerships could reflect the ‘collaboration’

models identified by Menter et al (2010) from international practice, for example the ‘clinical

practice’ model being pioneered by the University of Melbourne.

How schools respond to this dilemma will depend significantly on how universities choose to work in

the coming months and years. This study did not include an assessment of different university

perspectives on these issues or how they are responding, although it is clear that differential

responses are emerging nationally, ranging from withdrawal from the market through to significant

investment in school-led models. The internal IOE workshop held as part of the study did indicate an

intense awareness of the issues discussed and also highlighted some of the practical ways that the

IOE is responding, for example through its dedicated School Partnerships team (which provides a

single point of contact for schools) and its Specialist and Principal Partner Awards structure and IOE

R&D network (both of which aim to foster more sustained forms of partnership working).

The future policy agenda will also play an important role in how things develop. The Carter Review

of ITE (2015) has advocated clearer structures for the ITE curriculum, but the larger issue is whether

and how quickly the School Direct model is expanded. On CPD and R&D, both political parties

appear to recognise the need for a strengthened professional development framework for teachers,

but the proposed Royal College of Teaching will need time and support to become established and

achieve impact.

A number of recommendations for policy makers arguably emerge from this study, not least the

need to provide a more coherent and consistent framework for school-university partnerships.

Recommendations for schools and universities that want to foster successful school-university

partnerships in a self-improving system are as follows:

- Be clear on what you need and what you can offer

School leaders must be clear about where external expertise and capacity can add value to their work

and about what they value most in a university partner. The temptation may be for schools to ‘go it

alone’ in a school-led system, but the research on effective professional development for teachers is

clear that effective programmes draw on external expertise (Coe, Cordingley, Greany and Higgins,

2015). Teaching Schools should expect their university partner to be able to demonstrate how they

can align their support for ITE, CPD and R&D so that the different elements complement each other

and meet the needs of all staff across an alliance over the course of their career. Equally, universities

must recognise the benefits of work with practitioners and the skills and capacities required to do this

well: consider creating dedicated partnership teams that can help align the expertise on offer across

the institution.

5

- Empower leaders to create a ‘third space’:

Once a partnership is established, create time and space for staff from each institution to work

together to achieve agreed objectives. Senior leaders must devote time to ensure that overarching

partnership goals are clear and that the necessary resources are in place: leaving leaders on the

ground to find creative ways to realise this vision.

- Accept that effective partnership will take time to develop, but avoid inertia:

Successful partnerships might start small and build over time as trust and a shared vision develop.

Prioritise finding the right partner and invest time and effort in making the partnership work. Use

contracts and key performance indicators when necessary, but try to find opportunities for more

open-ended collaboration as well, for example through broader Partnership Agreements. The

challenge here is to recognise when trust has slipped into cosy inertia: be prepared to review

partnership impact on a regular basis and to renegotiate where existing partnerships aren’t

delivering.

- Focus on impact, but be prepared for unexpected outcomes:

Review progress regularly and focus on impact whilst acknowledging that some benefits might be

hard to measure. Assume that the work you do together could always be better. Focus on learning

from effective innovations elsewhere.

6

About this study

Schools and universities have worked in partnership across education systems around the world for

many decades. Consequently there is a wealth of evidence describing the nature and impact of such

partnerships and there can be “a sense of déjà vu, of paths being previously trod, of ground being

made and then lost again” when reviewing that literature (Greany, Gu, Handscomb and Varley,

2014). Nevertheless, the relationships between schools and universities in England are changing so

rapidly and so fundamentally that it seems timely to review them and to understand how such

partnerships are developing, what the barriers and enablers to progress might be and how such

practice might develop in future to achieve a positive impact.

This study has explored the ways in which four existing and applicant Teaching Schools in London

and the south-east of England are working with universities across three areas of their remit: Initial

Teacher Education (ITE) and School Direct, Continuous Professional Development (CPD) and

Research and Development (R&D). The remit of Teaching Schools is wider than the three areas

focussed on here, for example encompassing school to school support and succession planning, but

universities are not generally involved in these areas so they were not included within the scope of

the study. Equally, the study does not encompass wider school-university partnerships relating to

initiatives such as Widening Participation or STEM.

Teaching Schools and their alliances are a significant new phenomenon in the English school

landscape and this report sheds light on some of the wider issues related to their development.

The project addressed the following questions:

- How are four teaching schools and their alliances working in partnership with universities?

- What are the anticipated benefits and what is the evidence of impact so far?

- What are the conditions required to enable these partnerships to develop? What are we

learning about the enablers and challenges for collaboration?

- How might the R&D work of these alliances move forward and what should schools and universities

contribute to ensure success?

- What are the implications for the partners involved in the study as well as school-university

partnerships more widely?

The key elements of the methodology were as follows:

a literature review

an analysis of key documentation from each alliance/prospective alliance

semi-structured interviews with 4-6 senior leaders, governors and wider staff from each of the lead

schools and their strategic partner schools

a workshop with 15 staff involved in school partnerships from across the IOE

a workshop with senior leaders from the four alliances to review the emerging findings.

7

The research was commissioned by the IOE School Partnerships team and has been co-funded by the

IOE (through the Higher Education Innovation Fund) and the four lead schools involved: NELTA

(North East London Teaching Alliance)/Beal High School, Redbridge; Tendring Technology College,

Essex; Rosendale Primary School, Lambeth; WANDLE Teaching School Alliance/Chesterton Primary

School, Wandsworth. Two of the four lead schools were already designated as Teaching Schools at

the time of the research, while the other two had undertaken significant ground work and had

submitted applications (one of which was subsequently successful).

2. The context for school-university partnerships in England

2.1. A self-improving system?: the policy context

The pace of change in the English education system since 2010 has been rapid and the implications

are only beginning to become clear. While many of the changes were underway before the Coalition

government came to power, the pace and scale of change has increased significantly since then

(Hadfield and Chapman, 2009; Earley and Higham, 2012; Greany 2014, 2015a and 2015b). The

education system in England is now increasingly: autonomous, in particular with the increase in

academies (Gilbert et al., 2013; House of Commons Education Select Committee, 2015); diverse, for

example with the introduction of free schools, Studio Schools and University Technical Colleges

(Dunford et al., 2013); and, arguably, fragmented (Earley and Higham, 2012). Simultaneously, there

is an expectation for the system to become ‘self-improving’ (DfE, 2010; Hargreaves, 2010, 2012;

Greany, 2014), with autonomous schools supporting each others’ progress and development and,

through such collaboration, ‘unleashing greatness’ (Gilbert et al., 2013).

Most of the infrastructure that had been put in place by the Labour government to support schools

and school improvement (for example, several national agencies/quangos and much of the school

improvement and support role of Local Authorities) has been dismantled. In a similar vein, many

regulations and mechanisms for securing minimum standards have been reduced or repealed (for

example the requirements for teachers to have Qualified Teacher Status in academies and for Head

teachers to have the National Professional Qualification for Headship). A new slimmed down National

Curriculum came into force for maintained schools from September 2014. Ministers have made clear

that they do not see it as the role of government to intervene and ‘tell teachers how to teach’ (Gove,

2013a), so it is schools and school leaders that must determine what they think is most appropriate in

the key areas of professional practice.

However, a recent Department for Education consultation on the teaching profession (DfE, 2014)

appears to recognise that the Coalition’s laissez faire approach to professional development in the

self-improving system has not yet had the desired effect. It states that “Feedback from the

profession has consistently indicated that too many of the development opportunities on offer are

of variable quality” (p4). “Too often ‘CPD’ is viewed narrowly as attending courses or listening to

stale talks accompanied by endless slides… Teacher development is not always adequately focussed

on the specific needs of pupils, nor is it always sustained and practice-based.” (p10).

8

These comments on the quality of CPD in England broadly chime with the findings from the OECD

TALIS 2013 survey (Micklewright et al, 2014), which states that teachers here report higher than

average participation in courses and workshops (75%) and in-service training in outside organisations

(22%), but lower than average participation in more in-depth activities, such as research or formal

qualifications – and less time spent overall.

The DfE consultation signals the government’s intention to support the creation of an independent

College of Teaching as well as to offer a new fund for professional development offered by the

Teaching Schools network. It also proposes a new ‘What works clearing house’ style online platform

for knowledge sharing and new non-mandatory standards for teachers’ professional development.

Where the Government clearly does see itself having a continuing role in the self-improving system is

in setting the accountability standards and mechanisms that hold schools to account. Changes to the

assessment regime have focussed on raising the bar and meeting the standards expected by the

highest performing school systems, with new GCSEs, more stringent requirements for vocational

qualifications, reduced teacher assessment, and Ofqual’s approach to comparable outcomes in

assessment to prevent grade inflation. Similarly, the bar has been raised for schools, through a new

Ofsted framework, rising expectations on floor standards, and new accountability mechanisms such

as ‘Progress 8’ for secondary schools.

2.2 Teaching schools

Teaching Schools were initially pioneered through the London Challenge (Berwick and Matthews,

2013) but it was the Coalition’s 2010 white paper The Importance of Teaching (DfE, 2010) that gave

them national impetus:

We will develop a national network of new Teaching Schools to lead and develop sustainable

approaches to teacher development across the country… These will be outstanding schools (with a

track record of supporting other schools), which will take a leading responsibility for providing and

quality assuring initial teacher training in their area. We will also fund them to offer professional

development for teachers and leaders. Other schools will choose whether or not to take advantage of

these programmes, so teaching schools will primarily be accountable to their peers. We intend there to

be a national network of such schools and our priority is that they should be of the highest quality –

truly amongst the best schools in the country.

By June 2014, 587 Teaching Schools had been designated by the National College for Teaching and

Leadership against a demanding set of criteria that include a requirement for the lead school to be

Ofsted Outstanding and to be able to demonstrate a track record of school to school provision and

support. Each Teaching School is expected to identify and work with a set of strategic partners and

to build a wider alliance of schools that can both contribute to, and benefit from, their work. At least

one of these strategic partners must be a university partner; partly reflecting the origins of the

model which was loosely inspired by the example of university teaching hospitals (Matthews and

Berwick, 2013). Teaching School alliances are required to address six core roles (the ‘Big 6’):

9

Playing a greater role in recruiting and training new entrants to the profession

(Initial Teacher Education - ITE);

Leading peer-to-peer professional and leadership development (Continuing Professional

Development);

Identifying and developing leadership potential (succession planning and talent

management);

Providing support for other schools;

Designating and brokering support from Specialist Leaders of Education; and Engaging in

research and development activity (R&D).

Building alliances and capacity to address the Big 6 areas has required tremendous energy and

altruistic leadership from the participating schools: or ‘sheer hard work’ (Gu et al, 2014) in the words

of one leader. The interim evaluation by Gu et al for the DfE (Gu et al 2014), which is based on case

study visits to 18 alliances in the summer of 2013, reflects considerable progress overall. It also

indicates the sheer diversity of organisational forms and approaches emerging as Teaching Schools

take advantage of what is a relatively loose policy framework to respond to their local contexts and

needs. Gu et al note the strong moral purpose that drives the alliance leaders to make a difference

for all children, as well as the strongly inter-personal and network-based nature of development:

The building of person-to-person and school-to-school relationships permeates the everyday

leadership work of teaching schools and their alliances. The benefit of such relationships is that they

provide both the conditions and the necessary social basis for communities of learning, and through

these, for joint practice development to take root within the alliance. Hargreaves (2012) calls this kind

of inter-organisational property ‘collaborative capital’ which in turn ‘enhances the collective capacity

on which a self-improving system depends’ (2012: 23).

In relation to school-university partnerships, Gu et al note that almost all alliances have

partnerships with more than one university. These relationships hinge on ITE, where the

evaluation team signals a need for further research to understand the respective contributions

of schools and universities. They also note that the negotiation of funding and respective roles

between schools and universities in relation to School Direct can be challenging. Beyond ITE, the

evaluators cite a number of ways in which universities are contributing, for example through

Masters programmes and supporting R&D.

Despite the broadly positive developments observed by Gu et al, the evaluation also flags a series of

challenges in relation to each area studied. These range from the unreasonable and unsustainable

workload required to establish the alliances, in particular from senior leaders, to a lack of robust

peer challenge between partner schools:

Teaching schools appear to have been doing the softer working around support and development, but

not been able to hold each other to account (or other schools in the alliance) if performance and

progress starts to slip in a school.

10

2.3 The work of Teaching Schools in relation to Initial and Continuing Professional Development and Research and Development

The role of Teaching Schools in relation to ITE has evolved significantly since the 2010 white paper, most

significantly through the introduction and expansion of the School Direct model. School Direct gives

successful schools responsibility for working with an accredited provider of teacher training to recruit trainees

and shape their training experience. Although funding and accreditation in the School Direct model still sit

with the accredited provider (either a university or School Centred provider – SCITT), the locus of decision

making over teacher training shifts significantly towards the schools involved, thereby changing the nature of

the school-university partnership.

The ITE Implementation Plan (DfE, 2011) stated that “From a minimum of 500 places in 2012/13 we

will aim to increase the number of “school direct” places quickly in future years, in line with demand

from schools”. By 2014-15 15,400 School Direct places were allocated to schools, with universities

involved in the delivery of 7 out of 10 of these places (DfE, 2014).

Teaching Schools are required to play a proactive role in School Direct, helping to aggregate what

would otherwise be very fragmentary provision by working on behalf of all the schools in their

alliances. Whilst policy makers have undoubtedly pressurised Teaching Schools to engage with

School Direct (Initial Teacher Education has been made the only mandatory aspect of their

designation), there is also arguably an element of self-interest for the schools themselves since it

enables them to recruit and train the teachers they want. As Michael Gove MP, the former

Secretary of State, put it:

The School Direct programme…enables our best schools to hand-pick the most exceptional candidates.

(Michael Gove MP, speech to the London Academy of Excellence, 3rd February 2014)

Certainly, School Direct has faced a number of logistical challenges in its first two years, mainly due to the

rapid pace of its expansion (Morris, 2013). Nevertheless, the interim evaluation report by Gu et al for the DfE,

published in March 2014, states that:

School Direct is a major motivator for almost all the Teaching School alliances in this evaluation.

Feedback from our initial visits suggested that alliances had few difficulties filling primary places,

although there were challenges recruiting in priority subjects for secondary places.

Gu et al (2014) hint that most Teaching Schools have so far opted for a fairly traditional PGCE-type model for

their School Direct provision as a result of the tight timescales involved and their lack of capacity and

expertise to develop more innovative models. The question is whether they will stick with this approach over

time. Interestingly, 4 of the 18 Teaching Schools visited by Gu et al had established themselves as a SCITT,

possibly indicating a desire to move away from university-linked provision, although the following quotation

from the report equally signals a desire from many to retain strong university links:

Concern was expressed by several alliances that the School Direct model may become too narrow in

its approach to ITT... (one Vice-principal states that) “My fear is that when school people no longer

have knowledge of university PGCE course content, there will be a master/apprentice model of

training”.. . (while another Teaching School Head sees) School Direct as a joint venture between the

TSA and their HEI partners.

11

Turning to their CPD remit, Teaching Schools appear to be very active in developing this. A report on Teaching

School business models for the National College for Teaching and Leadership noted that this was their main

mechanism for generating income and thereby making themselves sustainable as core funding reduces

(Glover et al, 2014). Many Teaching Schools are licensed to offer commercial programmes such as the

Improving Teacher Programme and Outstanding Teacher Programme, but most also offer programmes they

have developed themselves and many are also commissioned to offer provision by their local authority or

though national schemes funded by the Department for Education. Some Teaching Schools are also involved

in offering the National College licensed leadership development programmes, although these licenses will

cease from 2016.

The alliances visited by Gu et al (2014) see the opportunity to create more seamless and effective pathways

from ITE through into teachers’ ongoing professional careers as a huge opportunity for improving the quality

of teaching and learning. The schools leading this effort also see real benefits for their own staff in designing

and leading CPD and leadership development provision, since this encourages them to reflect on and improve

their own practice.

As the findings from this research indicate, there is strong interest in how to move from traditional models of

CPD characterised by one-off courses and events, to more sustained and impactful development from and

with peers and embedded in real work contexts; widely referred to as Joint Practice Development (Sebba et

al, 2012).

Finally, in relation to Research and Development and evidence-informed practice, it is clear that

some interesting practice is beginning to emerge across the Teaching Schools network (Bubb, 2013).

Examples include:

The Mead Teaching School Alliance in Wiltshire, which uses a knowledge mobilisation framework

(Spiral) and has trained up Specialist Leaders of Education from across the Alliance to support R&D in

Innovation Hubs, and

Swiss Cottage Teaching School, which gives teachers one hour a week for R&D, runs a Research

Journal Club and has appointed a Director of R&D.

The interim evaluation of Teaching Schools (Gu et al 2014) states that some alliances see the R&D

role as underpinning everything they do and have developed rich relationships with their university

partners, but that others have not prioritised R&D, finding it daunting and/or feeling that it is under-

funded. The National College has supported some alliances to build capacity in this area, for

example through funding almost one hundred to undertake projects under three overarching

themes that were agreed with the first cohort of Teaching Schools and with support from

universities and experts (Stoll, 2015; Nelson, Taylor and Spence Thomas, 2015; and Maxwell and

Greany, 2015). Another 180 alliances are participating in the Test and Learn Close the Gap research

and a further 20 have been funded to develop their research skills with support from a university.

Meanwhile, a number of universities, such as UCL IOE, Sheffield Hallam and Canterbury Christ

Church, are developing networks and support for teaching schools in this area. Several Teaching

Schools are also involved in Education Endowment Foundation-funded projects.

12

2.4 The changing nature of school - university partnerships

The desired role of universities in this policy

picture is unclear. On the one hand,

ministers have been clear that they want to

shift the balance of power from universities

to schools in the area of ITE through the

expansion of School Direct. In doing this they

have been clear that they see universities as

ideologically-driven and overly theoretical in

their approach, which links to the former

Secretary of State’s (Michael Gove MP) views

on what he calls ‘bad academia’: an

ideologically driven conspiracy by the

educational establishment to resist change

and improvement (‘the blob’ – Gove, 2013b).

On the other hand, ministers do sometimes

turn to ‘good academia’ for solutions: for

example in the abortive attempt to engage

universities in determining the shape and

assessment model for reformed A’levels.

This policy context and lack of clear

commitment to the long-term role of

universities contributes to a sense of fragility

around school-university partnership working

in England today. It is compounded by the

wider challenges facing Higher Education as

universities adapt to the introduction of

tuition fees, the removal of the student

number cap, the concentration of research

funding and the rapid globalisation of higher

education enabled by new technologies and

the grow of private sector provision.

All these factors mean that most Higher

Education Institutions (HEIs) are reassessing

their role in Initial Teacher Education.

As School Direct numbers have increased,

traditional allocations to universities have

reduced, making it hard for HEIs to plan

ahead. Equally, School Direct income levels will

vary depending on negotiations between

providers and schools, again impacting on the

ability of HEIs to plan ahead with confidence.

Inevitably, different institutions are responding in

different ways: some institutions might choose to

focus on their international research profile and

consider withdrawing from ITE, while others might

be more likely to focus on retaining and increasing

their student numbers through School Direct.

The impact of these changes is by no means

always negative. There are many examples of

universities becoming more active in their work

with schools in recent years. These include

prestigious universities such as Birmingham,

Cambridge, Nottingham and UCL that are

supporting mainstream academies, University

Technical Colleges or University Training Schools.

Meanwhile, Sheffield Hallam University is opening

a new, enlarged Institute of Education reflecting a

long-term commitment to working with schools.

On the less positive side, Anglia Ruskin, Bath, and

the Open University have decided to withdraw

from offering Initial Teacher Education altogether

(million+, 2013).

Posuere. Sed mollis ipsum id libero. Quisque vitae justo. Nulla vitae mauris. Phasellus

convallis ligula in nulla.1. However Vodio ac

sapien dignissim posuere. Sed mollis ipsum id libero.

13

3: What we know about school university partnerships from the literature

3.1 Overview

There is a wealth of research and literature from around the world which explores the nature of

school-university partnerships and the conditions required for their success. Much of this literature

is summarised in a recent review undertaken for the National Co-ordinating Centre for Public

Engagement (NCCPE) and Research Councils UK (RCUK) by Greany, Gu, Handscomb and Varley

(2014) as part of a project exploring the wider state of school-university partnerships across the UK.

That review highlights the high hopes held for school-university partnerships at different points in

time and in different parts of the world, but also the fact that successive evaluations have found

those hopes remain unfulfilled in many cases due to a ‘litany of barriers’ (Smedley, 2001). The root

of the challenge seems to lie in the deep cultural differences between the two sectors, although

these differences are compounded by other factors, not least the sheer logistical challenges of

partnering one university with multiple schools. Perhaps as a result of these barriers there is, as yet,

relatively little hard evidence of improved outcomes from school-university partnerships, although

wider benefits are frequently cited.

Despite this somewhat depressing finding there are many positive examples of schools and

universities working successfully together, both in the literature and in current UK practice (a

number of these are identified through the wider NCCPE/RCUK project). Equally, successful school-

university partnerships are seen as one of the prime factors underpinning the success of Finland’s

education system.

Where partnerships are more successful, the review identifies the following factors from the

literature:

Power and control: all voices to be heard. Successful partnerships reject a hierarchical approach

in which the university dominates and practitioner knowledge is devalued. Instead, the recent

work on design-led partnerships in US (Byrke et al, 2011) builds on previous examples to

exemplify ways in which school and university staff can have an equal voice, with practitioner

priorities and knowledge explicitly valued.

Mind the gap – cultural differences. Successful partnerships often appear to succeed by creating

a ‘third space’ which is separate from the culture of either institution and allows for more creative

ways of working. This cultural dialogue is powered by trust (which relates to the points above and

below regarding power, control and leadership), but trust can easily be fractured if key personnel

move on or priorities change.

The importance of leadership. Partnerships and networks are not naturally self-organising. They

require strategic leaders who recognise and prioritise external working of this nature as well as

distributed and shared leadership across the boundaries between the partners. Opinion leaders –

who may or may not be in formal roles – play a pivotal role in shaping and galvanising successful

14

partnerships that overcome the cultural and practical barriers faced. Also important are the

‘blended professionals’ who work across institutional boundaries.

Strategic relevance and fit. Partnerships work well when there is joined-up coherence and

strategic fit. Successful partnerships are often design led and focussed on solving locally defined

problems through an enquiry approach: bringing together academic research, practitioner

knowledge and priorities, and commercial expertise in a sustained programme of activity. Many

partnerships – particularly those focussed on widening participation - also have an extended

membership from the wider community, including parents. Even where not focussed on solving

local problems, positive outcomes are more likely when they are conceived and achieved as part

of the partnering process itself.

Material resources: making it happen. Partnerships pose a challenge and have transaction costs -

the time, energy and resources necessary to keep the partnership alive and well. Therefore

funding is a crucial contributor to partnership success, but partnerships also need to develop

strategies to persist in austere times.

3.2 School-university partnerships for Initial Teacher Education

Turning to evidence on school-university partnerships focussed on Initial Teacher Education (ITE),

the recent RSA/BERA review highlighted the importance of teachers engaging in and with research,

including through the content and design of their initial teacher training experience. The challenge is

how to achieve the right balance between school and university contributions so that new teachers

have the best possible chances to develop and mature into expert and research-informed

practitioners.

The shift towards more school-driven models in England reflects a dissatisfaction with existing

university-led models. A recent review by the University Of Glasgow (Menter et al, 2010) found that

“despite the high value attached to collaboration, most school-university teacher education

partnerships remain HEI-led” and that “a strong policy emphasis on partnership working does not of

itself establish parity of involvement in the development of practice across institutional boundaries”.

Part of the issue with such models is that they can disempower schools, making it too easy for them

to pass responsibility for teacher training to the universities if that is where the funding and

accountability rests. Menter et al cite a number of studies in England which indicate that most

schools have seen teacher education as marginal, for example rarely referencing it in their

development plans.

Where research has focussed on the role and attitudes of partnership schools in ITE:

The findings indicate little support from teacher mentors for relinquishing links with higher

education institutions or extending the training role of schools. Teacher mentors valued the

contribution made by universities to administrative arrangements, quality and standards, and

the availability of expertise in relation to research (Menter et al, 2010).

15

Chris Husbands (2012) highlights the differing cultures and priorities between schools and

universities and from this identifies three key issues which in turn inform three overarching priorities

and ways forward, as shown in Table 2.

Issues

Issues in more depth Priorities Ways forward

ITE: marginal

to schools

1. Not seen as core

function

2. Student/novice teachers

relatively few in number

so needs not prioritised

3. Not resourced or

funded for a role in

teacher education

Make student

development

important for

schools

A coherent clear vision

shared by academics

and teachers

A clear progression

model and common

language

ITE largely

seen as a

source of

teacher

supply

1. Principals think in terms

of ‘supply’ not quality

2. ‘Supply’ is the

responsibility of others

3. Concern arises where

supply fails

Design a core

curriculum for

partnership

Students in schools in

such numbers and for

such time that they are

not marginal

Common framework

across school and

university

ITE seen as

‘divorced’

from the

‘real world’

of teaching

1. Relevance’ of types of

knowledge

2. The divorce of the

‘practicum’ from other

elements of the teacher

education curriculum

Build common

assessment

frameworks

Engage key people in

schools (probably not

principals)

Formal roles for

identified excellent

teachers in teacher

education

Table 1: Husbands’ (2012) overview of issues and priorities for teacher education and school-

university partnerships

Menter et al’s review helpfully maps international examples of school-university ITE partnerships, as

shown in Table 2.

16

Separate roles Focus on pedagogic relationships Collaboration

Distinct roles,

centralised

Teacher

education in

Singapore

involves a

partnership

between the

Ministry of

Education, the

National Institute

of Education (the

sole provider of

ITE) and schools.

The NIE and

schools have

clearly defined

roles in a move

towards school-

based provision

from 1999.

Schools liaise with

one Supervision

Coordinator, who

has responsibly

for all trainees

across several

schools in a

particular locality.

NIE supervision

focuses on quality

assurance across

schools and does

not provide

subject specific

mentoring.

The grading of

candidates is

Reflection on

practice

The University of

Utrecht,

Netherlands, offers

a model of teacher

education that

emphasises the

integration of

theory and

practice

(Korthagen, 2001).

Three principles

underpin the

model of Realistic

Teacher Education

i.e. professional

learning is more

effective when: (a)

directed by the

needs of the

learner; (b) rooted

in their

experiences; and,

(c) involves critical

reflection on

experience.

Whilst

emphasising the

role of reflection in

integrating theory

and practice, the

work of the

Utrecht group has

been criticised by

Hagger and

McIntyre

(2006:153) for

Inquiry-oriented

Practical school

experience

forms a

significant

component of

initial teacher

education in

Finland.

Universities

operate

teaching schools

(Normal

schools), which

enable a close

alignment of

university and

school

experience.

Ostinelli (2009)

reports that

attainment by

Finnish students

is related to the

centrality of

education

studies and a

research-based

approach in

Finnish teacher

education.

Research by

Maaranen and

Krokfors (2008)

maintains that

formal

positioning of

teaching as a

Local collaboration

Professional

Development

Schools (PDS) in the

US promote strong

collaborative

partnerships at a

local level but are

limited as a model

for system-wide

change.

PDS have three

core purposes:

supporting pupil

achievement;

improvement of

pre-service teacher

education and

professional

development for all

educators; and the

promotion of

practice-based

enquiry.

PDS can involve the

co-design of

teacher education

curricula and

increase the direct

involvement of

HEIs in school

reform efforts

(Mitchell and

Castenelli, 2000;

Molseed, 2000;

Morris et al, 2003).

Large -scale

collaboration

School-university

partnerships in

Australia have a

long trajectory,

influenced by the

work of Carr and

Kemmis (1988), and

in the 1990s the

Innovative Links and

National

Professional

Development

Program, involving

14 Australian

universities working

with over 100

schools (Grundy et

al, 2003). The

notion of the

'scholarly teacher'

informs research

pathways within

pre-service teacher

education

programmes

(Diezmann, 2005),

the formation of

teacher research

networks aimed at

improving teacher

competencies and

enhancing pupil

outcomes (Peters,

2002; Deppeler,

2006) and the

development of

inquiry-oriented ITE

17

jointly decided.

The school

principal chairs a

Practicum

Assessment

Panel. Trainees

are allocated to

schools by the

Ministry of

Education.

School

placements are

not coordinated

by the NIE.

Increased

responsibility for

ITE among

schools has raised

some issues

regarding the

training and

support for

teacher-mentors

(Wong and

Chuan, 2002).

under-emphasising

the professional

knowledge and

expertise of

teacher mentors.

In this respect,

expertise in the

initial teacher

education

partnership is seen

to rest with the

universities.

research-

informed

profession helps

to integrate

theoretical and

practical

components of

teacher

education.

A distinctive

feature is the

formation of

'instructional

teams' of mentees,

school-based

mentors and

university tutors.

Some PDS models -

such as that

established by the

University of

Colorado - have

created 'master

teacher' roles with

no class teaching,

to take a lead role

in school-based

teacher education

(Utley et al, 2003).

programmes (Ponte

et al, 2004).

Mentoring newly

qualified, returning

and pre-service

teachers and those

needing

professional

support is a feature

of the draft

Standards for

accomplished and

lead teachers in

Australia.

Table 2. Partnership in Teacher Education: international examples (Menter et al, 2010)

Husbands’ framework (Table 1) and the international examples drawn on by Menter et al (Table 2)

point towards some of the most exciting developments in school-university partnerships for ITE

where the focus is increasingly on ‘research informed clinical practice’ (Burn and Mutton, 2014).

These models ‘seek to integrate practical engagement in schools with research-based knowledge in

carefully planned and sequenced ways’ (Cordingley, 2014). The University of Melbourne has been

one of the pioneers for this model since 2008, with the following features (University of Melbourne,

undated):

partnership schools share a commitment to clinical teaching

expert clinical teachers in partnership schools are employed to link clinical thinking and clinical

practice with the university program

candidates undertake regular, frequent placements which facilitate a developmental continuum

the design and review of the program is undertaken collaboratively with partnership schools

18

assessment integrates university and school experience, and assessors are drawn from both

university and school sites

Clearly, School Direct offers the potential for such clinical practice models to be developed, although

this is by no means a given. Success will require strong and equal partnerships between Teaching

Schools and universities - the subject of this research.

3.3: School-university partnerships in relation to Continuing Professional Development

A recent review of evidence on effective professional development for teachers by Coe, Cordingley,

Greany and Higgins (2015) finds that the existing evidence is consistent in showing that carefully

designed Continuing Professional Development and Learning (CDPL) with a strong focus on pupil

outcomes, has a significant positive impact on student achievement. The features of effective CPDL

differ to some extent by subject and according to the nature of what is being learned. One clear

finding is that how professional learning is structured and facilitated matters at least as much as the

content of that learning.

One clear finding from the review by Coe et al is the need for external input to CPDL, sometimes

complemented by internal specialists. These external experts introduce new knowledge and skills in

ways that probe existing orthodoxies. They make explicit links between professional learning and

pupil learning through discussion of pupil progression and analysis of assessment data. And they

balance support and challenge, often acting as coaches and mentors as well as models for effective

practice. They are generally ‘experts’ in more than one area: they have specialist content knowledge

and in-depth knowledge of effective professional learning processes and evaluation. They tend to

share common values and beliefs with participants, but can also challenge these. They encourage

teachers to take on a degree of leadership of their own CPDL and treat them as peers and co-

learners. The evidence does not suggest that these external experts must necessarily come from

universities, but it is an important challenge for school leaders in a self-improving system to consider

where and how they are drawing on external expertise as part of their CPDL provision.

In a similar vein, Stoll et al., (2012) argue that effective professional development connects work-

based learning to external expertise such as that held by HEIs. But, as Sebba et al., (2012b) argue,

traditional approaches to CPD are largely based on the ineffective transfer of knowledge or ‘best

practices’ from an expert to their audience. Therefore, the challenge is how to move to a model of

Joint Practice Development (JPD) – a term defined by Fielding et al (2005) as the process of learning

new ways of working through mutual engagement that opens up and shares practices with others.

According to Sebba et al, JPD is a process by which schools and other organisations can learn from

one another, with their research capturing the learning from early R&D projects by five Teaching

Schools in this area. They note that JPD has three key characteristics. It:

involves interaction and mutual development related to practice

recognises that each partner in the interaction has something to offer and, as such, is based on the

assumption of mutually beneficial learning

19

is research-informed, often involving collaborative enquiry

They also suggest that in addition to any mutual learning that takes place in JPD (which may involve

some transfer or exchange of knowledge) will be the development of practice.

Sebba et al., (2012b) argue that in the most successful JPD projects, the leaders of the group enabled

participants to engage with research evidence and discussions in order to identify priorities and

development. Correspondingly, as is also noted below, schools will need to seek support for

accessing research and for developing the skills to engage in action research in the classroom and

across schools. As Sebba et al., note, HEIs often have resources and skills for locating research

evidence and supporting research in schools and can therefore play a key role as strategic partners

in JPD in teaching school alliances.

3.4: School-university partnerships in relation to Research and Development

Despite the common critique that England invests far less in educational research than in health

research, considerable sums have been spent in this area over the past decades. In the face of

criticisms from Hargreaves and others (1996) that too much education research in England is low

quality with little impact, attempts have been made to develop a more strategic approach and to focus

on knowledge mobilisation (eg through the National Education Research Forum and the Teaching and

Learning Research Programme). Evidence of impact from this work has been limited (see Gough in

Levin et al, 2013; Greany, 2015c) and the most recent thrust has been towards more large scale trials

funded by the Education Endowment Foundation (Goldacre, 2013).

Meanwhile, schools have a long tradition of using action research and enquiry to address areas of

practice, sometimes with support and facilitation from HEIs.

In 2012 Campbell and Levin (2012: 3) noted that: “educators may lack time, resources, skills, and

individual and institutional supports for meaningfully engaging with research…” In addition, they

suggested that, if research is to be used to improve educational practice and pupil outcomes,

‘capacity’ will be required, specifically that:

Work in England should focus on two areas: 1. Developing stronger networks among and

between educators, researchers and intermediary organizations; 2. Developing capacity

within schools to find, understand, share and act on research. This capacity may be improved

through training to improve skills, or through institutional changes which create the time or

resources for schools to undertake these activities. (ibid)

It should also be noted, however, that the existence of capacity in itself will not necessarily lead to

increased instances of research use. This is illustrated by Levin et al., (2011) who sought to

investigate how research is encountered and used to shape policy and practice in Canadian

secondary schools (employing a collaborative approach involving superintendents, principals and

others with designated leadership roles in eleven school districts across the country). Levin et al.’s

20

approach was to trial three interventions (implemented throughout the 2008/2009 school year in

nine districts). Specifically, the interventions were designed to: i) implement a system to share

research articles; ii) set up study groups around research issues and; iii) ensure districts were

conducting research. An evaluation of these interventions suggests that (Levin et al, 2011):

even in districts with capacity, actual frequency of research use often remains modest, therefore

research capacity is not necessarily synonymous with use;

better ways are needed to increase daily use of research and embed that use in organizational

systems and processes;

knowledge mobilization activity still appears to depend heavily on volunteerism or on a few interested

people rather than being embedded in daily practices;

educators’ beliefs are shaped more by experience and colleagues than by empirical evidence; and

interventions to increase research use had modest success. Interventions were most successful

where: 1) designated intermediaries/ facilitators were involved; and 2) research used was connected

to existing priority issues.

It would seem then that the Teaching School approach seeks to tackle the issues raised by Levin et

al. (2011) and Campbell and Levin (2012) by providing schools with both a mandate to engage in

research and support for doing so. Nevertheless, it is clear that Campbell and Levin (who were

writing about the English context), believe that partnership working between HEIs and schools in

relation to evidence use is underdeveloped and that further effort and initiatives are required in this

area.

4: Findings

The findings from the research are set out in three sections:

The first provides background on the lead schools, their motivation for forming an alliance and the

development of those alliances

The second briefly outlines the ways in which the four alliances are developing their provision on ITE,

CPD and R&D

The third focusses on the partnerships the alliances have with universities and the ways in which they

are developing.

4.1 Background and development of the alliances

The context of the participating schools

The four participating schools and alliances faced a range of socio-economic contexts: two were in

inner London boroughs characterised by high levels of deprivation and high levels of ethnic diversity

(Wandsworth and Lambeth), one was in an outer London borough (Redbridge) with pockets of

deprivation and high levels of ethnic diversity and one in an area of Essex (Frinton on Sea) with

relatively high levels of deprivation and low levels of ethnic diversity.

21

It was striking how confident the lead schools were about their ability to provide a rich learning

environment for children and to shape their own destinies. The leaders and their staff typically

described their schools as:

Innovative… hard working, passionate.

Creative, aspirational, supportive.

Diverse… forward thinking.

Very open to ideas… we do things lots of schools wouldn’t even have thought of, I imagine.

In terms of their own schools’ priorities for improvement, the lead schools were generally focussed

on improving the quality of teaching and learning and improving academic attainment:

Our primary focus is always the quality of teaching and learning.. so we do a lot around

feedback, we do a lot around peer to peer learning, we do a lot around meta-cognition.

Building on their existing strengths, the leaders tended to see Teaching School status as a way of

continuing to stretch and develop themselves in order to move from good to great:

Outstanding doesn’t mean you are perfect, it just means that you have got to a level of

achievement that is good… but in order to stay there and to maintain it, you need to be

involved in these sorts of things.

The need for this school is now moving it from that Outstanding to being a great school so

that it is not just about the results, it is about the experiences that the students get here day

to day and I think that is the exciting bit.

Reasons for joining or establishing a Teaching School Alliance

The lead schools and their strategic partner schools tended to see the establishment of the Teaching

School Alliance as a natural progression, building on a long history of collaboration with other

schools, often as part of a tight-knit local authority community that was at risk of disintegration:

What I have always liked about [LA] is that the people on the ground are quite new and fresh

and there is a sort of nice turnover and really strong expertise and I didn’t want to see that

completely disappear. There was quite a bit I wanted to see disappear but not that core

group and so we set up the Alliance… All of the schools around us were struggling, they were

in special measures, the results had gone through the floor, and I just thought it was really

important that… [this school] became a Teaching School and sort of shone a little bit as an

institution that, against all the odds, did some really good stuff.

22

Establishing the alliance was often a moral imperative for the leaders involved, and a chance to seize

an important agenda and sustain capacity at a time when other forms of support were dwindling:

I think the quality of education should be good across the piece …I think that we, as school

leaders, should seize the system leadership opportunities that are currently available and to

really be responsible for moving the sort of education agenda forward.

Forming an alliance was also seen to have very practical benefits in every case, primarily by enabling

schools to share learning and expertise and to develop more effective models for professional

learning:

I think we chose to join it because we recognised the support that would be in place and the

fact that this is the way that training was going through the Teaching Schools. And we

wanted to be a part of that…. I think we saw the kind of power of coming together as a group

to offer training. It is almost better to do that in a collegiate and share our ideas than being

by yourself in isolation.

Teaching School structures and governance

The Teaching School leaders were keen to emphasise that, although their school had been

designated, they were working to ensure that the governance and work of the alliance was shared

across the partnership. This shared ownership was essential to enable brokerage of people and

capacity between schools through the governance structure:

We wouldn’t want to be a lead school which says, ‘this is how we want everything done.’

Every school has a representative somewhere in the governance structure.

This facilitative approach was beginning to develop a wider culture of collaborative culture, as one

leader from a strategic partner school noted:

I think what has been good about the Teaching School Alliance is that it is allowing us to build

a lot more commonality, common culture approach. You know it is a slow business but …

people really seemed to come together and are all happy to work together, which enables you

to do things collaboratively and cross phase because we are also involved with the special

schools and the PRUs. So all those people are involved to various degrees. You never had that

umbrella in a training school (a previous designation for schools)… So I think it is a stronger

model and certainly there has been much more cross-school collaboration which I find really

interesting and exciting.

Progress and initial impact as a current or prospective Teaching School Alliance

Several of the schools were wrestling with the issue of how to manage growth. On the one hand,

several mentioned the challenges of engaging primary schools in the alliance:

23

What has been fascinating I think is the reluctance, I think, of the primary schools… I think

that is predominantly to do with the strength of the Local Authority that it is still very very

strong here and they have this massive offer… the primaries, I think they’re more reluctant to

home into a particular Alliance. I think they are much keener to sort of dip in and out.

I think it frightened some of the primary schools that we hoped were going to be part of it. I

think they just - I didn’t sell it well enough, you know I didn’t kind of take them with me… they

have sort of dropped out of it. And they are small schools, you know, but we said, ‘Just do

something and send a couple of people along’, but they all got a bit kind of panicky.

At the same time, it was proving difficult for all of the alliances to manage and grow their capacity as

the scale of the alliance grew. The picture tended to be of a core group of highly committed schools

who were working together to shape and deliver most of the alliance’s work, with a larger group of

schools that were less closely involved:

One of the things that we have been talking about as our core group is to build the capacity,

because too much is… sitting with me and perhaps (another leader) and we certainly need to

build capacity.

Benefits, the real benefits. Last year we worked with [local] Primary and I put half my school

in there…They all loved it, they all learnt a lot… All of the five people I put in there all went on

and got Deputy Headships/phase leaders. That is just wonderful because it means that our

staff are developing... I think it is a benefit for the educational world, but I don’t think it is a

benefit for me. It is a headache because I have got five, six, seven new teachers at the

moment and we are starting all over again.

All of the lead schools could point to emerging evidence of impact from their work.

It has tightened up, on those six areas, it has just tightened up our thinking on how we

operate in those six areas, making it much more focussed.

In the last year we have done the Level 5/6 project where we have had secondary colleagues,

English, Maths, Science working with primary colleagues. And just with the ten schools we

worked with last year all increased Level 5s by at least 15%, some more than that and all sort

of put their foot onto the Level 6 league table…. So that has been really positive.

Issues with the Teaching School model

In addition to the capacity issues mentioned above, a number of other issues with the Teaching

School model emerged during the course of the research.

24

One issue, which has been signalled as a concern throughout the Teaching School initiative, is

around how to ensure that the work of the Teaching School does not impact negatively on the work

of the lead school.

At the heart of it, we are all very concerned about our own schools and keeping those schools

going and keeping them right, but we are also very passionate about the Teaching School

otherwise we wouldn’t be doing it and so you sort of want to jump in and make it all happen

but at the same time you are, you know, a bit reserved. I think the way forward really is for

me to separate them out and put a Head in [school] and I would then lead the Teaching

School and whatever happened at [school] I don’t think should reflect then, I think they

become two separate entities, that is where it should get to.

Linked to this was an issue with the perceived fragility of the approach: if the lead school is de-

designated then the whole structure could collapse. This was seen to be preventing Teaching

School headteachers from investing in the approach as much as they might like to:

It is an extremely fragile structure. And it has made me and others, I suppose, quite nervous

because.. what we are seeing is Ofsted knocking out most of these 2007/9 outstanding

schools... And so in doing that it means that you lose the Teaching School status… so there is

quite a hesitance on my part to create something that is so big, that drains anything from the

school.

The challenges… the uncertainty you know, investing huge amounts of energy into setting up

teacher training, not to know whether you are going to be doing it this time next year or two

years from now, seems a crazy model.

25

4.2 How the Teaching Schools are developing provision on Initial and Continuing Professional Development and Research and Development

Initial Teacher Education and School Direct

All four of the lead schools were involved in ITE, usually dating back many years. For example, one

was a former Training School designated by the Training and Development Agency and responsible

for managing partnerships and placements for trainee teachers (the Training School model was

closed and effectively merged into the Teaching School model from 2010).

There was a strong sense that the ‘traditional’ PGCE model (ie Post-Graduate Certificate in Education

- led by universities and with schools taking trainee teachers on for placements) is being profoundly

disrupted as the School Direct model develops, although this process still has a long way to go before

it could be described as genuinely school-led.

The experience of School Direct to date was mixed: with most commenting on the logistical

challenges as the scheme got going but also beginning to see the benefits of being able to select,

train and then recruit teachers who understand the school’s context and ways of working:

I think that it is really good, us recruiting trainees together because we are able to - we know

our local context, so we are looking for people who will fit in with our schools. And we have

built a trust within the group.

Most of the schools were beginning to think through ways of innovating the design of the trainee

experience through School Direct, with a strong view that providing practical hands on experiences

would be helpful:

We like the thought of [training] being on site. I see it as give them the theory, get them to

watch it, get them to do it. And so that they actually within one day have seen something,

learnt why it is useful and tried it out by the end of the day and reflected on it and making

that quite a big part of their training.

The model that we are kind of moving towards is to have… a team of five professional tutors

(who will) go out and do visits to our trainees when they are in the placement schools, so it is

in addition to the visits that the university tutors will do, it is an extra layer of support that we

are putting in.

Despite the value placed on work-based learning, there was also a view among some that the

academic learning in ITE remains important and that the PGCE qualification gives prestige:

We think that having the PGCE aspect of it is still quite important as a qualification and just

getting the QTS (Qualified Teacher Status) is quite limited.

However, one school was reticent about investing resources in a model that might not survive:

26

The Initial Teacher Training we started very very small, we have got four primary this year,

next year we will do ten. We are still not convinced or sure, I think ideally we would like to set

up and deliver the whole thing ourselves but we are not geared up for that. I think we are still

a bit concerned about investing a load into it to potentially be in the position where we might

lose the Teaching School.

Finally, there remained a strong current of concern around the design, funding and, sometimes,

quality of the School Direct model, in particular the salaried route (which provides part-funding for

the trainee to be paid as a non-supernumerary teacher):

I don’t like School Direct, I don’t like it at all. I think it is wrong to put a teacher into a

classroom not as a supernumerary but as an actually identified classroom teacher with so

little training.

We haven’t gone down the (School Direct) salaried route, except in primary, because schools

won’t fund it basically. They say the shortfall is too great and they are not paying it. And I

agree with that because I think the only way you can make it pay is by making that person

teach a lot more than I think they should be teaching. And I don’t think that is right, I think

you are throwing people in as sort of cheap teachers and half the time nobody is going to be

with them or looking after them and I just don’t like it, so I’m strongly against the salaried

route. Primary is slightly different because they can work that better in the primary because

of the way they organise teaching of classes.

Continuing Professional Development

The lead schools all highlighted ways in which they were innovating in their approach to CPD as a

result of working in an alliance, in fact this was the most common theme to come from the

interviews. Most were offering a mix of more formal courses (that they had developed themselves

or that they brought in from external providers) and more school-based programmes:

We are about to launch a leadership programme because we have launched our own

Improving Teachers and Advanced Leaders and we are going to be looking at preparation for

Headship and we will bring some in from some of the best programmes that exist elsewhere

and we will think about accreditation and we are working with [a university] but we will be

devising our own programme.

Getting the quality right when bringing in an external provider or facilitator for CPD courses was

critical:

CPD I think is something that I lead on. I’m quite passionate about getting the right things in

and I spend a lot of time going off to see something before I put it in. And I believe more in

the trainer than the provider and if I find the right trainer they can sell me anything.

27

Some of the alliances were taking a capacity building approach, for example by offering coaching and

mentoring support for leaders, rather than traditional content-focussed courses:

[A colleague] and I work with six primary schools on the closing the gap project. So they came

to the Alliance and said to [the Teaching School Head], we need help… I think they came

expecting a kind of toolkit of how to do it but what we said was, ‘Well actually it is about your

leadership, so what we are going to do is work on your leadership’. And that has been really

interesting how some of them have really turned things around without us telling them what

to do really.

David Hargreaves argued that Teaching Schools should focus on Joint Practice Development as a

powerful model of improvement-focussed professional learning and a way of building trust and

reciprocity between schools. One alliance in particular was developing this as their main model for

professional development across the core group of schools. Each of the schools has invited all staff

to join an Action Research Group on a theme of their choice, with the facilitators for these groups

trained together and given access to research resources. Interestingly, this model bleeds into the

R&D work of some alliances, since it is explicitly designed to feed existing research into the

professional learning cycle:

We felt that CPD often comes at the end of the day when staff are tired… so we have

timetabled it as part of our school timetable. So every member of staff is a member of an

Action Research Group and it is a period on their timetable in the day when they go to a

specific room in a group.

We have had training for the facilitators where we have done that as a group, so we have

been joined by other schools and [CPD leader] initially provided some of the research articles

and the think pieces that we used in the first two or three sessions.

The Deloitte report on Teaching School business models (Glover et al, 2014) found that CPD was

often the strongest income generator for Teaching Schools, but that this might be at odds with the

desire to move away from traditional courses to develop more Joint Practice Development-type

models. This appeared to be a tension for the schools in the study, with the key being to make

money on some provision which can then be used to support other loss-making programmes:

Well I have very much argued that if we want to build the Alliance and build our culture and

our collaboration that it is not just about saying, ‘Oh here is a whole series of courses which

you have to pay to come to’. That would probably make more money in a sense and we do

run courses and money does come in and obviously it has to come in because it has got to be

self sustaining… [But] what we are hoping is that some of the other courses, sort of pump

money in a bit.

28

Research and Development

All four of the lead schools could reference work they were doing under the Research and

Development strand, although the scale and natures of these initiatives varied widely. For example,

one school was leading an Education Endowment Foundation-funded project on meta-cognition,

meaning that staff were not only researching their own practice but were also gearing up to offer

training nationally on this. At the other end of the spectrum, the schools were drawing on existing

research and using this to underpin their provision more than they would have done in the past.

We got the grant from the EEF... and the staff have been incredible. The amount of

commitment that they have to it, the work that they have done on it so you walk into any

classroom now and kids can talk to you about how they feel about their learning.

I would say in terms of teacher research, I think the fact that they are, certainly at our school,

they are reading think pieces and case studies and we have made opportunity to do that…

but I think there is some way we could go with that.

All this was seen to be having an impact:

I think Research and Development is having a massive impact certainly on the culture of

[school] and… across the Alliance has got to be really powerful.

But the funding for R&D was seen a problematic. The main challenge was how to create time and

space for teachers to engage, which requires money for backfill, given that R&D is not seen as

income generating in the same way as CPD. One school was cross-subsidising R&D work by using

some of the capacity generated by School Direct activity. One school paid staff extra to do R&D

related work in their spare time and holidays, since this was easier than finding high quality teachers

to provide backfill, but another refused to do this as they felt it was an unreasonable demand on

staff. Despite these challenges, one of the lead schools had come to see R&D as an essential

underpinning for the work of the alliance that should not be driven by funding:

So when we started the R&D, you know when it first came up with the Teaching School... R&D

was, well you can apply for a grant to do a research project and you would set that up and off

it would go… (Now) we think that the Research and Development is not something you apply

to get a grant for, it is something that you should be tapping into before you do anything

else.. And I think that a lot of the projects that we are now doing, the Research and

Development is certainly at the heart of that funding or no funding.

29

4.3 Teaching School partnerships with universities: motivations, progress and issues

Teacher training was commonly the focal point for school-university relationships, although the

schools did give many other examples of joint working on CPD and R&D.

When asked which universities they worked with and why, the lead schools and their partners

tended to see historical links and personal relationships as key. Where schools had worked with a

university taking PGCE placements in the past, trainee teachers had often then been taken on to

work at the schools where they were placed, thereby strengthening the organisational links with the

university at which they had trained. Equally, staff from the schools had sometimes gone to work at

the university as PGCE tutors, again strengthening the organisational ties. These historical ties were

important in two ways:

they created a sense of inertia, in that it could be hard for a school to extricate itself from existing

arrangements, partly because it would upset these personal relationships but also because of the

logistical and time implications of ending one set of relationships and starting a new one. This inertia

had to be balanced with the quality issues outlined below: put bluntly, how bad would a university

provider need to be before a school would switch allegiance to a new provider?

they gave a competitive advantage when it came to School Direct. Several of the schools had initiated

School Direct provision with their existing university providers because it was the natural place to turn

given the relationships that existed.

I do think that probably at the heart of it all is to do with personal relationships... one of my

feelings is that once you have developed that relationship with somebody then that becomes

very central and provides quite a lot... so you develop, networks develop out of personal

relationships and the strongest ones do that. I don’t - I don’t necessarily want to chop and

change the relationship... we do have a relationship with [HEI] in that sense because two of

our former teachers here now work for them.

This focus on historical and personal relationships was balanced by a dominant focus on quality,

credibility and reputation. The first two of these – quality and credibility - appeared to be

inextricably linked, with the quality of staff at the university by far the most important factor. In

order to be judged as high quality such staff needed to ‘know what they are doing’ in terms of

understanding excellent teaching and providing real expertise, but also be reliable and accessible.

Feedback from school staff appeared to be a common way that leaders judged these quality and

credibility issues, along with the overall quality of the trainee teachers they supplied.

I’m a huge believer in credibility, straightforward. The quality, it is absolutely, you know

places get names for the people that are on the end of the phone and you know I know with

(university) a name gets mentioned and I am just not even going to bother picking the phone

30

up. Now if you haven’t got the right staff in an organisation you are never going to get the

name, you are never going to get the quality.

Well I think one of the things that staff were excited about was when I said that (university)

were involved in the Action Research groups... somewhere with a reputation having an

involvement in it gave it credibility… they like the fact that the mentoring course is certified by

(university)… so I think for credibility when you are selling things to staff and why it is

important and for their own CVs as well to be able to say that they have done something and I

think that is important.

The third element – reputation - was linked to quality and credibility, but was also about a wider

sense of prestige: is this an organisation that the school would want to be seen working with, will it

boost the school’s prestige?:

They are very prestigious organisations and we want to work with the best.

For most aspects of teacher training you want to be able to choose the best.

There were two further factors that the school leaders considered that were of a slightly different

order to the quality, credibility and reputation ones, perhaps because they were a reflection on their

existing partnerships rather than something that could easily be judged in a new partner. These

were:

a commitment to partnership working, and

expertise, wider networks and a critical friend.

Commitment to partnership working was partly about the university staff taking time to get to know

the school and being responsive to its particular ethos and needs, with a commitment to co-creating

solutions. In a larger sense partnership working was also about the two institutions being committed

to working towards shared goals in a long-term relationship, which was seen as essential for building

trust. The particular focus for this shared vision was expressed by one leader as a mutual interest in

professional learning and helping people ‘move on’.

So what I am looking for in particular is… this idea of shared vision, but also the co-designing

aspect of it. What we don’t want, I think for our school or what our schools in the Alliance

don’t want, is someone just to go in, be the expert and say, this is what you ought to be doing.

What we want is that co-designing the projects that we are going to be involved in. So

working much more closely together.

We want to work with people who are reflective because there are quite a few things that we

- we have quite a few approaches here that are not kind of standard, if you like...so we want

to work with people who have got that sort of flexibility and would be willing to come in and

have an understanding of how we work and can do things to work around that... We also

want to make a long term relationship. I don’t believe that you can do any high quality CPD

by having somebody come in once and bang, there you go that is it, that is the end of it.

31

For me what it hinges on is the capacity and the willingness of both to work together, because

you don’t want to feel it is just being done to you and I think those days are kind of gone in a

way for teachers. What we want to do is say, look you know, we can bring this and you can

bring that, if we put it together we have a much more powerful way of working together

because if we work together we will develop and you will develop and something new

emerges out of it, so I think that is, for me, the core principle really.

The expertise, wider networks and critical friend point reflected the strengths of universities in terms

of their understanding of research and the research process, and a sense that the university could

link the school into wider networks and ways of working that could be helpful. Linked to this was a

recognition that schools are hugely busy places where it can be hard to think clearly, so it is helpful

to have someone who asks hard questions and forces you to stand back.

Well I think in terms of the research you know, it is really invaluable to have the opportunity to

work with a university because you know that is your area of expertise and you know you are

standing back in a sense from the hurly burly of a school.. for someone to be able to ask you

those questions, even though it might be uncomfortable, is invaluable and it really does help.

I have had an awareness for some time that schools shouldn’t be working in isolation, schools

should be involved with the other organisations out there that are doing all this kind of great

research and looking at building networks… So I have been very interested in trying to find out

how you develop that relationship.

The final issue that the schools considered was value for money. This was very much a live – and

sometimes fraught - issue as schools developed their thinking and partnerships for School Direct.

Assessing value for money meant balancing a hard headed economic assessment of which institution

offers the best ‘deal’ and what the school could afford with a much more intangible assessment of

the quality and partnership considerations described above. Interestingly though, the issue of

money could also affect how the schools perceived the partnership commitment of a university: if it

seemed that the university was charging for everything it did, rather than getting on and making the

partnership work, then perhaps the university was not really partnership orientated?

The School Direct students who are training with us, they are like at the end of their first year

and so what they are getting through our model is way stronger than what the university is

offering. But the university is still tying up 90% of that funding and so we are doing nearly all

of it for free. I think we get £2000 or something per student from the £9000, they are still

delivering the PGCE aspect of it. Obviously that is down to us, we can change but we are not

kitted up to take on the responsibility, but in reality we are doing a lot more of the work.

I love working with (university), I love going down there, I love being in that environment, but

it is frustrating that it is still, ‘These are ours, unless you pay us you are not going to get

access to that’.

32

Linked to this value for money discussion was sometimes a sense of slightly resentful view that

unless the school is accredited as a SCITT, it is required to work with a university or other accredited

provider.

We need [university] because we are not a provider, so we have to have a university, therefore

they have quite a say in what has to happen in order for them to quality assure it. So we feel

quite tied in there.

This requirement for working with an accredited provider, coupled with the tensions around how to

split the limited funding available for School Direct trainees equitably, was leading one leader to re-

evaluate the value that universities could bring:

I’m trying to think what we couldn’t deliver, because we are a large school we have got all the

subject areas obviously covered… But I would be a bit scared of losing the link, now why

would I? Why would I say that? I don’t know why I would say that. Because it is not even -

I’m trying to think of all these things - it is not even like the experts are there to be the tutors

and to do the observations because lots of us observe lessons, we know exactly what

outstanding means and things like that, so it is not even that. Oh dear this is awful isn’t it? It

sounds as if I am really anti university, what do they do?

But for others the changing landscape was leading to a different assessment of how school-

university partnerships might evolve. Several leaders spoke about a desire to develop more

integrated ways of working between schools and universities:

There is a more blended or integrative approach so that we become almost part of each

other’s teams. So like, you know, I mean it is nice for us to work together as an Alliance but it

would also be nice for us to be able to go and say work with the PGCE students who are just at

(university), you know how can we contribute to that? How can we learn from that? So a

much more joint.. partnership… (I’d like it if) money is not our driving thing there, that it is

about building our capacity to work together.

So I can see that that partnership is becoming more and more important and with the

universities who have the expertise in this area we have had lots of conversations about it as a

group and that we didn’t want to offer something that was just rubber stamped by a

university; that we wanted to offer quality provision and for it to be a proper partnership.

I think the next thing that we could really benefit from here is research being done within the

school and we being part of that.

One leader expressed a powerful vision for staff in his school’s alliance to be able to see one

university as their lifelong learning partner, helpful to secure high quality professional development

opportunities as they progressed through their careers:

I just think the sort of separation, the level of where the universities have always been

perceived and where the schools are has always been too great. .. when I started teaching in

33

1995… I was enrolled on some courses at (university) and it was enormously exciting because I

was given the library badge.. the course was insignificant, it was nothing, because I can’t even

remember it. But what it meant was that for those three years I was linked to this university

where I could go in and I could go to the bookshop and I could go to the library and I just had

this access to it… And I think what is happening now is that that gap is closing very very

quickly, certainly for.. this Alliance and you know, we are doing things like through our CPD we

are offering 30 credits through (university) towards Masters and so that is where I would

want it to go. I would want it to feel that for teachers that they have this lifelong learning

link. They have got this institution that is part of their, you know not just professional

development for 12 months, it is a permanent part of their professional development while

they are within… the Alliance.. I am sure that fundamentally there are all sorts of implications

but you get the idea, it feels quite special.

5. Conclusion

The findings from this study indicate that partnerships between Teaching Schools and universities in

England are in a state of flux, with historical relationships being reshaped to meet the needs of a

self-improving school-led system, in particular in relation to School Direct.

As the diagram in Fig 1 shows, leading schools are looking for quality, credibility and reputation as

key requirements from a university partner, coupled with a commitment to partnership working and

the ability to offer expertise, wider networks and a critical friend role. These factors are balanced

against the inertia that comes from having historical relationships: if these work ‘well enough’ it may

not be worth the time and emotion effort required to sever them. In fact, historical relationships

appear to be giving competitive ‘first mover’ advantage to some universities, because lead schools

tend to initiate discussions and work on new School Direct provision with institutions they already

know. However, all this is balanced by the need to secure value for money. School leaders must

balance the hard financial aspect of this with an assessment of the quality of provision on offer.

It appears that lead schools might go in either of two directions as this picture unfolds.

i) One option is that they decide to go it alone: deciding that there is very little that that universities

can offer that they cannot do themselves, particularly given the tight financial settlement, they

might become an accredited provider (SCITT) in their right.

ii) The other is they look to form much deeper partnerships with universities characterised by long-

term shared working and mutual learning in order to support the career development of all staff

across an alliance.

The latter option appears to reflect the principles of the ‘third space’ (Moje et al, 2004) and ‘design-

led’ working (Bryk, Gomez, and Grunow, 2011; Coburn, Penuel and Geil, 2013) identified in previous

research and referred to in Section 2.

34

How schools respond to this dilemma will depend significantly on how universities choose to work in

the coming months and years. This study did not include an assessment of different university

perspectives on these issues or how they are responding, although it is clear that differential

responses are emerging nationally, as outlined above. The internal IOE workshop held as part of the

study did indicate an intense awareness of the issues discussed and also highlighted some of the

practical ways that the IOE is responding, for example through its dedicated School Partnerships

team (providing a single point of contact for schools) and its Specialist and Principal Partner Awards

structure and IOE R&D network (both of which aim to enable deeper and more sustained forms of

partnership working with schools).

The future policy agenda will also play in an important role in how things develop. The Carter

Review of ITE has argued for a more coherent curriculum for ITE, but the key question is how policy

will move beyond the forthcoming election - either towards an even more school-led system or a

more balanced approach that reflects the respective strengths of schools and universities.

Figure 1: Key factors for lead schools in assessing school-university partnerships and possible future

scenarios for such partnerships in England

Recommendations: A number of possible recommendations for policy makers arguably emerge from this study, not least

the need to provide a more coherent and consistent framework for school-university partnerships.

Foundations for

partnership… but

can create

inertia

Key requirements

for effective HE

partner

Expertise, wider networks

& critical friend

Commitment to

partnership working

Reputation of university

Quality and credibility

of HE staff

Personal relationships

Historical links

Future

scenarios?

Value for Money

35

Recommendations for schools and universities that want to foster successful school-university

partnerships in a self-improving system are as follows:

- Be clear on what you need and what you can offer

School leaders must be clear about where external expertise and capacity can add value to their work

and about what they value most in a university partner. The temptation may be for schools to ‘go it

alone’ in a school-led system, but the research on effective professional development for teachers is

clear that effective programmes draw on external expertise (Coe, Cordingley, Greany and Higgins,

forthcoming). Teaching Schools should expect their university partner to be able to demonstrate how

they can align their support for ITE, CPD and R&D so that the different elements complement each

other and meet the needs of all staff across an alliance over the course of their career. Equally,

universities must recognise the benefits of work with practitioners and the skills and capacities

required to do this well: consider creating dedicated partnership teams that can help align the

expertise on offer across the institution.

- Empower leaders to create a ‘third space’:

Once a partnership is established, create time and space for staff from each institution to work

together to achieve agreed objectives. Senior leaders must devote time to ensure that overarching

partnership goals are clear and that the necessary resources are in place: leaving leaders on the

ground to find creative ways to realise this vision.

- Accept that effective partnership will take time to develop, but avoid inertia:

Successful partnerships might start small and build over time as trust and a shared vision develop.

Prioritise finding the right partner and invest time and effort in making the partnership work. Use

contracts and key performance indicators when necessary, but try to find opportunities for more

open-ended collaboration as well, for example through broader Partnership Agreements. The

challenge here is to recognise when trust has slipped into cosy inertia: be prepared to review

partnership impact on a regular basis and to renegotiate where existing partnerships aren’t

delivering.

- Focus on impact, but be prepared for unexpected outcomes:

Review progress regularly and focus on impact whilst acknowledging that some benefits might be

hard to measure. Assume that the work you do together could always be better. Focus on learning

from effective innovations elsewhere.

The existing and emerging alliances that were the focus of this research are working to establish new models

for ITE, CPD and R&D that are clearly more school-led than in the past. Some of these models have significant

potential, in particular where the schools are working in partnership and drawing on evidence to think

through approaches that can secure quality and impact over time. The role of universities and of school-

university partnerships in this picture continues to evolve – there is some evidence that they could become

more meaningful and effective as a result of the rebalancing of power and resources towards schools in a

school-led system. Whether or not this happens may depend as much as anything on the beliefs and

preferences of school leaders, which will be influenced by their experience of partnership working and

universities to date. What seems clear is that universities will need to think proactively about how they can

build and sustain high quality partnerships with schools, irrespective of whether they want to retain a more

traditional HE offer or develop a more school-focussed approach.

36

References

Bubb, S. (2013) Teaching schools national research and development network: conference report. NCTL, November.

Burn and Mutton, 2013, Review of ‘research-informed clinical practice’ in Initial Teacher Education, Research and teacher education: the RSA-BERA enquiry Bryk, A. B.; Gomez, L. M. and Grunow, A (2011) ‘Getting Ideas into Action: Building Networked Improvement Communities’ in Hallinan, M (ed.) in Frontiers in Sociology of Education. Springer Publishing.

Campbell, C. and Levin, B. (2012) ‘Developing Knowledge Mobilisation to Challenge Educational Disadvantage

and Inform Effective Practices in England. Discussion Paper: Executive Summary’. Presented to the Evidence

in Action Seminar, The Royal Society, London, 26 November 2012.

Carter, A, (2015) Carter Review of Initial Teacher Training, Department for Education

City University London (2010) Developing the progression of Islington students into further and higher

education – through local partnerships: a report to HEFCE by City University London, available at:

http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/10006/, accessed on 18 October 2014.

Coburn, C. Penuel, W. and Geil, K (2013) Research-Practice Partnerships. A strategy for leveraging research for educational improvement in school districts. White paper prepared for the William T. Grant Foundation. Coe, R., Cordingley, P., Greany, T., and Higgins,S. (2015) Effective Continuing Professional Development and Learning (CPDL) - thematic analysis of the findings from Phase 1 , Teacher Development Trust

Cordingley, P. (2014) ‘The contribution of research to teachers’ professional learning and development’, Research and Teacher Education: the BERA-RSA Inquiry

Department for Education (2010) The importance of teaching: The schools white paper 2010,

http://www.education.gov.uk/schools/toolsandinitiatives/schoolswhitepaper/b0068570/the-importance-of-

teaching accessed on 13 August 2014.

Department for Education (2011) Training our next generation of outstanding teachers: implementation plan

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/training-our-next-generation-of-outstanding-teachers-

implementation-plan accessed 22nd October 2013

Department for Education (2014) A world-class teaching profession

Dunford, J., Hill, R., Parish, N., Sandals, L., (2013), Establishing and leading new types of school: challenges and opportunities for leaders and leadership, National College for School Leadership

Earley, P. and Higham, R. (2012) Review of the School Leadership Landscape, (Nottingham, NCSL).

Education Select Committee (2015) Academies and free schools: fourth report of session 2014-15

37

Fielding, M., Bragg, S., Craig, J., Cunningham, I., Eraut, M., Gillinson, S., Horne, M., Robinson, C. and Thorp, J.

(2005) Factors Influencing the Transfer of Good Practice, (Nottingham, DfES).

Gilbert, C., Husbands, C., Wigdortz, B. and Francis, B. (2013) Unleashing Greatness: Getting the best from an

academised system, (London, Pearson).

Glover, T. Hannan, S. Warburton, K. (2014) Sustainable Business Models for Teaching Schools, Nottingham,

National College for Teaching and Leadership

Goldacre, B. (2013) Building evidence into education, available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/building-evidence-into-education, accessed on 27 January 2014.

Gove, M., (2013a) Speech to Policy Exchange, http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/modevents/item/michael-gove-keynote-speech-on-the-importance-of-teaching accessed 22.11.13

Gove, M., (2013b): http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2298146/I-refuse-surrender-Marxist-teachers-hell-bent-destroying-schools-Education-Secretary-berates-new-enemies-promise-opposing-plans.html article in The Mail

Greany, T., (2014) Are we nearly there yet?: progress, issues and possible next steps for a self-improving school system, IOE Press Greany, T., (2015a) The self-improving system in England: a review of evidence and thinking, ASCL Greany, T., (2015b) Self-improving school systems: A review of evidence and reflections on progress in England, Centre for Strategic Education Seminar Series Paper 241 Greany, T., (2015c) ‘How can evidence inform teaching and decision making across 21,000 autonomous schools?: learning from the journey in England’ in Brown, C. (Ed) (2015) Leading evidence use in schools, IOE Press

Greany, T., Gu, Q., Handscomb, G., Varley, M., (2014) School-University Partnerships: Fulfilling the Potential -

Summary Report, Research Councils UK and National Co-ordinating Centre for Public Engagement

Gu, Q., Rea, S., Hill, R., Smethem L., Dunford, J., (2014) Teaching Schools Evaluation: Emerging Issues from the

Early Development of Case Study Teaching School Alliances – DfE Research report

Hadfield, M. and Chapman, C. (2009) Leading school-based networks, (Abingdon, Routledge).

Hargreaves, D. (1996) The Teaching Training Agency Annual Lecture 1996: Teaching as a research based

profession: possibilities and prospects, available at:

http://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/cms/Portals/0/PDF%20reviews%20and%20summaries/TTA%20Hargreaves%20lecture.p

df, accessed on 14 January 2013.

Hargreaves, D. (2010) Creating a self-improving school system, (Nottingham, National College for School

Leadership).

38

Hargreaves, D. (2012) A self-improving school system: towards maturity, (Nottingham, National College for

School Leadership), available at:

http://www.education.gov.uk/nationalcollege/docinfo?id=177472&filename=a-self-improving-school-system-

towards-maturity.pdf, accessed on 24 December, 2012.

House of Commons Education Committee (2013) School Partnerships and Cooperation: Fourth Report of Session 2013–14, Volume I. House of Commons Education Committee (2015) Academies and free schools: Fourth report of session 2014-15, HC-258

Husbands, C., (2012) ‘School-university partnerships in teacher education: effective practices and

relationships’, OISE presentation

Levin, B., Cooper, A., Arjomand, S. and Thompson, K. (2011) Research Use and Its Impact in Secondary Schools:

Exploring Knowledge Mobilization in Education, Executive Summary, available at: http://www.cea-

ace.ca/publication/research-use-and-its-impact-secondary-schools-exploring-knowledge-mobilization-

education, accessed on 22 December, 2012.

Matthews, P., and Berwick, G., (2013) Teaching schools: first among equals? Nottingham, National College for Teaching and Leadership

Maxwell, B., and Greany, T., with Aspinwall, K., Handscomb, G., Seleznyov, S., and Simkins T., (2015) Approaches to research & development for great pedagogy and great professional development in teaching school alliances: teaching schools R&D network national themes project 2012-2014, National College for Teaching and Leadership

Menter, M. Hulme, M. Elliot D. and Lewin, J. (2010) Literature review on teacher education in the 21st Century.

Scottish Government.

Micklewright, J., Jerrim, J., Vignoles, A., Allen, R., Ilie, S., Jenkins, E., Bellarbre, F., Hein, C., (2014) Teachers in

England’s Secondary Schools: Evidence from TALIS 2013 Research report, Institute of Education, London,

Department for Education

million+ (2013) Response to the announcement of School Direct allocations http://www.millionplus.ac.uk/press-releases/latest-press-releases/million-criticises-ideological-approach-to-teacher-education/ (accessed 22/11/13)

Mincu, M. (2014) ‘Inquiry paper 6: teacher quality and school improvement – what is the role of research?’ In The role of research in teacher education: reviewing the evidence, Interim report of the BERA-RSA inquiry Moje, E., Ciechanowski, K., Kramer, K., Ellis, L., Carillo, R. and Collazo, T. (2004) Working towards Third Space in Content Area Literacy: An Examination of Everyday Funds of Knowledge and Discourse. Reading Research Quarterly 39 (1): 38-70.

Morris, E. (2013) ‘Michael Gove has washed his hands of planning for the future’. The Guardian

39

Nelson, R., Spence-Thomas K., and Taylor, C., (2015) What makes great pedagogy and great professional development: final report: teaching schools R&D network national themes project 2012-14, National College for Teaching and Leadership

Sebba, J., Kent, P. and Tregenza, J. (2012a) Helping schools to use evidence on Joint Practice Development to

improve their practice, (Nottingham, National College for School Leadership).

Sebba, J., Tregenza, J. and Kent, P. (2012b) Powerful professional learning: a school leader’s guide to joint

practice development (Nottingham, National College for School Leadership).

Smedley, L. (2001) Impediments to partnership: A literature review of school-university links. Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice, 7:2, 189-209. Stoll, L., (2015) Three greats for a self-improving school system: pedagogy, professional development and leadership: executive summary: teaching schools R&D network national themes project 2012-2014, National College for Teaching and Leadership

Stoll, L., Harris, A. and Handscombe, G. (2012) Great Professional Development that leads to great pedagogy:

nine claims from research (Nottingham, National College for School Leadership).

Thomas, L., Ashley, M., Diamond, J., Grime, K., Farrelly, N., Murtagh, L., Richards, A and Woolhouse, C. (2010)

From projects to whole school/college-higher education institution partnerships : identifying the critical success

factors under-pinning effective strategic partnerships: report submitted to the Higher Education Funding

Council for England (HEFCE) as part of the HEI-School/ College/Academy Links Grant Programme, March 2010,

available at: http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/10007/, accessed on 18 October 2013.

Universities UK (2009) Higher education engagement with schools and colleges: partnership development,

available at: http://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/highereducation/Pages/EngagementSchoolsColleges.aspx,

accessed on 18 October 2013.

University of Melbourne (2014) Clinical Teaching. http://education.unimelb.edu.au/about_us/clinical_teaching [accessed 7 May 2014]

Woods, R., Kendall, S. and Barrett, D. (2010) Bringing the tapestry together: building systemic partnership in

and beyond Bedfordshire : report to the HEFCE by the University of Bedfordshire, available at:

http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/10004/, accessed on 18 October 2013.