Sustaining school partnerships: The context of cross-sectoral collaboration between
schools in a separate education system in Northern Ireland
Word count: 11,147 including references
Abstract
This study explores the current understanding of cross-sectoral collaboration between schools in a
divided society. The paper provides the context surrounding inter-school collaboration in Northern
Ireland then presents findings based on a qualitative study of five post-primary partnerships made
up of schools from the various sectors in Northern Ireland (maintained/Catholic,
controlled/Protestant and integrated sectors). Participants in the study are teachers and school
leaders. Evidence from this study reveals a number of things: despite a separate education system
made up of different sectors, schools on an inter-sectoral basis are willing to collaborate and those
represented in this study appeared disposed to sustain partnership activities; schools recognised
that collaboration and partnership while beset with a number of logistical challenges, is also
beneficial for pupils and institutions. In all cases there remained evidence of sustainable
collaborative practice; although some of this was more developed in some partnerships than in
others. In effect this paper concludes by recognising that schools do require some level of funding to
sustain partnership working but that sustainability should not be couched entirely around these
terms; rather, sustainability is about creating the right conditions to allow schools to develop
effective and strong partnerships. This paper outlines these conditions in the latter stages of the
paper.
Keywords: shared Education, school partnerships, sustainability, collaborative effectiveness
1
Introduction
Mass education has played a key role in nation-building, with schools often providing one of the key
mechanisms for acculturating citizens (Bowen, 1981; Heater, 2003). Debates in education in the
latter half of the last century in Europe often centred on equality of opportunity and access: initially
the primary focus of this was on social class, but as the century progressed the challenge posed by
ethnic diversity loomed larger. Traditional ethnic cleavages in Europe had largely been mitigated by
the alteration of borders after the First World War. There were some exceptions to this, such as
relations between regional communities and central government in Spain, or between Flemings and
Walloons in Belgium, or between Protestant and Catholics in Northern Ireland. New tensions
emerged in many countries as a consequence of increased diversity following economic migration
from the 1950s onwards, either within Europe or from former colonial territories to metropolitan
centres (Gallagher, 2004a). Other fault-lines were to re-open after the collapse of the Soviet Union
and Communist governments in East/Central Europe (Dunn and Fraser, 1996).
The responses within education to these tensions have normally involved a combination of two
elements related to structure and curriculum. The structural dimension concerns the operation of
common schools for all pupils or separate schools for pupils from different communities. Britain
decided to go down the route of common schools after an official enquiry into the education of
minority ethnic children (Swann Report, 1985), while France had always cast schools as places where
common Republican virtues were acquired (Limage, 2000). In contrast, the Netherlands had a long
established constitutional tradition of funding separate schools to serve distinct educational
philosophies (Lijphart, 1975), while Belgium had undergone a process of increasing federalisation,
including the development of entirely separate and unconnected school systems for its language
communities (Fitzmaurice, 1983, 1996).
2
The curriculum dimension refers to the extent to which the curriculum promotes a unitary image of
society or reflects diversity. In practice many polities operated school curriculums with overt
assimilationist goals, especially as they related to newly arrived migrant communities, although in
many places this shifted towards greater recognition of diversity and the development of
multicultural curriculums, as in, for example, Britain (Mullard, 1985). In places such as Germany a
largely unitary curriculum in mainstream school was supplemented by special classes for the
children of migrant communities, predicated on the assumption that their position in the country
was transitory and they needed to be able to return to their host country at some point
(Luchtenberg, 2004).
A separate education system in Northern Ireland
Northern Ireland operates an education system which for the most part sees Protestants and
Catholics attending separate schools. The parallel systems have come about for several reasons.
Historically, prior to the partition of Ireland into Northern Ireland and eventually the Republic of
Ireland, Church authorities wanted to run their own schools, despite an official preference to have a
unitary education system attended by pupils from all religious backgrounds. By the end of the 19 th
century a confessional system was in place in which schools were owned and managed by the
Protestant and Catholic churches. After partition, the 1923 Education Bill proposed that churches
could transfer their ownership of schools to local educational authorities, mirroring the English
system. In transferring ownership schools would be known as county schools and would be fully
funded by the state. A Church that wanted to maintain control of its schools could opt for voluntary
status but would only receive limited financial support from the state. There was an expectation that
schools managed by the Protestant churches would transfer. There was less expectation that the
Catholic church would transfer its schools to the Unionist state and so a third category of school was
proposed known as the four and two, whereby a third of the places of the school’s governing board
3
would be allocated to public representatives. This in effect allowed the church to maintain control of
the school and have a higher rate of public funding in exchange for an element of public governance.
Initially all churches resisted the proposals and opted to continue to run their own schools. However
after negotiation, the Protestant Churches achieved a number of legislative concessions and agreed
to transfer their schools: the concessions included compulsory religious education (defined as simple
bible teaching) on the curriculum, local committee control over teacher appointments, and Church
representation on school boards as of right (Akenson, 1973; Buckland, 1979; Farren, 1995). At this
point the parallel systems of separate schools crystallised. While Protestant schools were now
controlled by the local managing authorities, the churches maintained a strong influence over them.
The Catholic Church on the other hand would not relinquish control but continued to be maintained
in part by state funding. In 1947 an Education Act was passed to establish free secondary education.
Over the next decade this required the construction of new secondary schools, which were
designated as county schools, and hence under the control of the local authorities. A parallel set of
Catholic secondary schools was also built during this period and these were termed ‘voluntary
maintained’ schools, thus further entrenching a separate school system.
Other types of schools began to emerge from the 1960s, including the first Irish speaking schools.
There are now 29 Irish medium schools and 10 Irish medium units attached to mainstream schools
and one Irish medium secondary school. Integrated schools emerged in 1981 and educate Catholic
and Protestant children together. There are currently 42 integrated primaries and 20 integrated
secondary schools and they educate approximately 7% of the pupil population.
Today there are in effect four school sectors in Northern Ireland, controlled and maintained schools
and integrated and voluntary schools. Together, both controlled and maintained account for the vast
majority of schools. Controlled schools, which can be primary, secondary or grammar schools
(academically selective), are managed by boards of Governors and the education and library boards
4
are the employing authorities. These schools are fully funded by the state. Controlled schools, while
open to all faiths and none, are mostly populated by pupils from the Protestant community.
Maintained schools are also fully funded by the state but owned by the Catholic Church and
managed by the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools. Catholic schools offer an explicit faith
based education but are also open to all. The vast majority of pupils in attendance are Catholic.
Voluntary schools are owned by trustees, are mostly academic grammar schools and are directly
funded by the Department of Education. Some of the voluntary grammar schools fall within the
Catholic sector and have almost exclusively Catholic pupils; most other voluntary schools have a
relationship with one or other of the Protestant Churches and the majority of the pupils are
Protestant, although overall about 10 per cent of their pupils are Catholic. Integrated schools
educate together children from both Protestant and Catholic traditions, as well as those of other
faiths and none. There are two types of integrated school. Grant-maintained integrated schools
receive funds directly from the Department of Education for Northern Ireland (DENI) and are
managed by a Board of Governors. In these schools a greater number of parents sit on the Board of
Governors. Controlled integrated school receive their budget directly from an Education and Library
Board. A controlled integrated school is managed in the same way as a normal controlled school and
typically has transformed from a being a controlled school to a controlled integrated school.
The role of schools in promoting reconciliation and tolerance in Northern Ireland
Political violence in Northern Ireland between 1968 and 1994 exacerbated ethnic separation.
Throughout this period many looked to the schools as spaces to promote reconciliation and
tolerance. In the last three decades four main strategies can be identified: curriculum initiatives to
produce common programmes and textbooks to be used across all schools; contact programmes, to
provide opportunities for young people to meet across the sectarian divide; the development of new
religiously integrated schools in which pupils and teachers from all communities could attend
5
together; and the provision of equal funding to Catholic schools as part of a wider commitment to
equal opportunity.
Although a highly contested issue still, there is evidence that attending separate schools in a divided
society can have negative social consequences in that it can encourage, to some extent, divisions in
the wider society (Gallagher, 1997; McClenahan et al., 2003; Hayes et al. 2007; Hayes and McAllister,
2009; Stringer et al., 2009, 2010; Hughes, 2011). That said, the evidence suggests that the various
initiatives that have been put in place over a thirty year period have been rather limited (Smith &
Robinson, 1992, 1996; O’Connor et al., 2002; Gallagher, 2004b, 2010a; 2010b; Arlow, 2004). Even in
the case of integrated schools, despite opinion poll evidence suggesting that most people would like
their children to attend an integrated school; only seven per cent of pupils in Northern Ireland
currently attend one.
In the context of the peace process in Northern Ireland, an opportunity opened up to develop new
interventions which might be more likely to achieve systemic impact and provide all young people
with an opportunity to engage across the religious divide. One initiative, the focus of this paper,
which developed in this period was the Sharing Education Programme (SEP) which sought to develop
collaborative links between Protestant and Catholic schools so that pupils would take classes in each
other’s schools and teachers would engage with other teachers to develop professional communities
of learning. School collaboration had been used in other places, mainly to promote school
improvement, but it does not appear to have been used to promote reconciliation and social
cohesion by bringing together schools from different communities (Atkinson et al. 2007). Further
details on the SEP project can be found in Gallagher et al. (2010), but for the present, the main point
to note is that it has progressed in two phases: SEP1 involved 12 partnerships of up to 65 schools
and ran between 2007-2010, while SEP2 involved 14 partnerships of up to 72 schools and ran
between 2010 and 2013. An extant body of work (Donnelly and Gallagher, 2008; Gallagher et al.,
6
2010; Knox, 2010; Hughes et al., 2010; FGS McClure Waters, 2010) has reported findings from the
collaborative partnerships to date, but the present paper is primarily focused on the issue of
sustainability. More particularly, the paper aims to contextualise not only how schools can sustain
partnership working but how education can play a fundamental role in terms of stabilising societies
where there has been intractable conflict (Bar-Tal, 2000).
SEP benefited from significant funding support from Atlantic Philanthropies and the International
Fund for Ireland, but it was always recognised that this funding was temporary and could only be
used to demonstrate whether or not shared education was possible. Quite apart from whatever
could be achieved by schools working together while they were in receipt of funding and logistical
support, an important issue concerned the capacity of the schools to maintain partnership working
once the various forms of support ended. This paper explores this issue through an examination of
five of the school partnerships involved in SEP1. The paper explores the context around each of the
school partnerships and then demonstrates the challenges posed by and the benefits that emerge
from collaboration. Following this, the paper outlines the types of collaborative activity that remain
after the funding period. The analysis section of the paper outlines series of indicators which
demonstrate the conditions and practice which are most likely to produce sustainable practice.
Indicators of sustainable and effective school partnership in the literature
A number of factors seem to influence the sustainability of school partnerships, including: where
there are funds to support such practice, (Atkinson et al 2007; Hodgson and Spours, 2007; Hughes et
al. 2010); when there is a sympathetic policy environment, (Donnelly & Gallagher 2008)
accompanied by governmental and external agency support, (Billet et al., 2007). School partnerships
are more likely to be sustained if there is support for collaborative practice at the school leadership
level (Woods et al. 2006; Donnelly & Gallagher, 2008); if there are advocates of partnership at the
7
local level (within schools and communities), (Billet et al. 2005) and similarly if there are education
staff who are committed to collaboration, and where partnerships can demonstrate innovation or
flexibility (Woods et al. 2006). A number of studies emphasise that the local context is important if a
partnership is to be sustainable; Hargreaves (2010) highlights that partnerships need to be
geographically close to allow for teacher and pupil mobility. Sustainable partnerships when schools
establish strong links build trust and gain the support in the communities in which they reside and
this is more likely to happen when partnerships address local needs (Billet et al. 2005; Duffy and
Gallagher, 2014).
According to Woods et al. (2006: 33-35) factors which encourage collaboration to embed within
schools include: the capacities of schools, referring to the availability of staff to work on
collaborative initiatives in terms of: time, effort and capacity; school infrastructure which refers to
‘the creation of a durable organisational infrastructure to support the collaborative’; where
collaboration is supported and advanced by credible senior staff whose role it is to ‘support the
vision and operationalise the collaboration’ and where schools can demonstrate flexibility, referring
to collaborative partnerships demonstrating ‘something of an ‘ “ entrepreneurial culture” ’
Billet et al. (2005) provide specific guidance where they argue that sustaining social partnerships
involves:
Building shared purposes and goals: sustaining the partnership involves the partners actively
reflecting upon, reviewing and revising goals, identifying achievements, and renewing
commitment.
Building relations with partners: sustaining the partnership involves endorsing and consolidating
existing relationships, recognising partners’ contributions, and facilitating new and strategic
relationships.
8
Building capacities for partnership work: sustaining the partnership involves securing and
maintaining partners who engage effectively with both community and external sponsors, and
managing the infrastructure required to support staff and partners.
Building partnership governance and leadership: sustaining the partnership involves developing
and supporting close relations and communication between partners, and effective leadership.
Building trust and trustworthiness: sustaining the partnership involves focusing on partners’
needs and expectations, and ensuring that differing needs are recognised and addressed.
Donnelly and Gallagher, (2008: 5) highlight a range of factors within the context of Northern Ireland
which impede sustainable relationships between schools, including: significant differences in school
culture and leadership; different approaches to the construction of the school timetable; transport
costs of transferring children from one to school to another; the distance between schools; the
financial resources to ensure that initiatives to develop collaboration are sustainable; various issues
around compatibility such as sectoral compatibility (e.g. secondary - grammar) or cultural
compatibility (Catholic - Protestant), trust between school leaders and support of school leaders. For
the most part these factors were particularly salient in the data collected for this study; however
schools also elucidate on how these impediments could be resolved (see below).
In this paper we wanted to explore the extent to which the processes identified above could be
found in SEP school partnerships in Northern Ireland. We argue that sustainability and collaborative
effectiveness go hand in hand, in that, the more effective a partnership is the more likely it is to
sustain itself. In Northern Ireland more formalised partnership arrangements similar to those found
in England (such as federations) don’t exist; Muijs et al. (2010) describes federations as more akin to
merger arrangements which have longevity or are permanent. Instead, and bearing in mind the
historical separation of the sectors, more formalised partnership arrangements such as those
9
between schools involved in SEP are relatively nascent, so there is an impetus to understand better
what constitutes collaborative effectiveness and sustainable connections between schools from
different sectors due to the educational and societal benefits they offer. Muijs et al. (2010) argue
that not all partnerships need to be designed for permanency and some can be formed for limited
periods of time, ‘collaborations can have starkly different time frames’ (Muijs et al. 2010: 20) and
most exist between the extremes, however ‘in many cases, there is no clarity as to the intended
duration of the collaboration (Muijs et al. 2010: 20).’ The school partnerships described in this study
were funded to work together over a three year period. Our interest was in exploring if there was
any residual partnership activity after the funding period ended. The findings section will
demonstrate a range of sustainable activity from minimal contact between schools to blossoming
partnerships which demonstrated strong and effective characteristics.
Methodology
The data for this study were collected in the spring and summer months of 2011. The remit of the
study was to explore the sustainability of collaborative practice after project funding and support
had ceased. The schools are not directly identified in this paper. Prior to data collection, three
criteria were applied to the sample. Firstly, schools had to have been lead schools within the
partnership. The first phase of SEP opted to locate funding for partnership activity in a lead school.
These schools had previously been designated by the DENI as specialist schools, which specialised in
a particular curricular area. Within each of these schools a partnership coordinator was appointed.
The second criterion ensured that research was conducted in those schools which were no longer in
receipt of any funding from the Sharing Education Programme. Thirdly, the study should focus on
the perspectives of Coordinators in each of the lead schools. These criteria excluded seven schools
and produced a sample size of five lead partner schools. The coordinators in the schools included
Principals, vice-principals and teachers. A series of semi-structured interviews was carried out with
10
all the coordinators on a one-to-one basis. Each interview lasted approximately 60 - 90 minutes.
Interviews were transcribed and coded using qualitative data analysis software. For the most part
the thematic areas explored at interview were derived from a review of literature and subsequently
used as the basis of a broad coding structure. In turn these themes were explored with participants
at interview and subsequently used as a coding structure in order to organise the data. Themes
included: evidence of sustained collaborative activities post funding; conditions required to sustain
collaborative activity; references to community relations benefits; discussions of historical
collaborative activity; benefits of collaboration; logistics and challenges; motivations and willingness
to collaborate; evidence of best practice and staff/institutional relationships.
The context of school partnerships
School 1:
This school is a controlled, co-educational high school with an identified subject specialism in the
arts; located in a large town in the North West of Northern Ireland; catering for students from 11 to
18, with an approximate enrolment of 750 pupils. The majority of the pupils attending this school
are Protestant. This school has a history of collaboration with a number of its partner schools prior
to SEP. The schools in this partnership are in close proximity to one another, whereby pupils can
walk to each other schools. The cross-sectoral aspect of the SEP1 partnership involved collaborating
with three post primary schools; two voluntary co-educational Catholic schools and one voluntary,
co-educational Grammar school. Also involved was a Further Education College (a post-16 education
facility which is intermediate between secondary education and university level) and a number of
controlled and maintained primary schools. Collaborative activities between this school and the
post-primary schools involved School 1 offering a range of activities including dance, art, drama and
11
moving image art. These activities were pitched at Key Stage 2 – 5. An Art teacher would provide
services to primary schools and activity with a special school, involved an arrangement whereby
students from School 1 would visit pupils and provide assistance developing their literacy skills.
School 2:
This school is a co-educational, non-denominational grammar school with a recognised subject
specialism in a technology area; located within a town in a semi-rural setting in the East of Northern
Ireland. The school caters for approximately 1,200 pupils between the ages of 11-18, most of whom
are Protestant. School 2 formed a cross-sector partnership with a comprehensive, maintained
secondary school located some distance away, in an urban setting in which the vast majority of
pupils were Catholic. Neither school had prior collaborative arrangements. Both schools used Drama
at GCSE level and ICT as the basis of their collaborative activity. Year 11 students and staff engaged
in regular face to face workshops and virtual collaboration, with the intention of creating a number
of drama productions. In the first year of the programme a DVD was created featuring pupil
performances on themes such as reconciliation, identity, collaboration and young people’s
backgrounds. Students also worked with professional actors to present public performances of their
work.
School 3
This school is a Catholic comprehensive maintained secondary school, with a recognised specialism
in the arts, located within a city setting; catering for approximately 1,500 girls aged between 11 and
18. The school specialised in Performing Arts. School 3 formed a partnership with another school
located in the same city. The partner school is a non-denominational, voluntary grammar school
catering for girls from 11 to 18, most of whom were Protestant. Cross-sector collaboration between
12
both schools involved a group of pupils at GCSE level from School 3, travelling to their partner school
on a fortnightly basis to undertake a unit of GCSE Drama with a corresponding group of peers.
Students were involved in the decision to focus on the theme of reconciliation. Alongside shared
classes, students and staff involved, attended a two day residential with a professional theatre
practitioner. A VLE was used as a supplement when students were not involved in face to face
contact. Pupils also performed to public audiences in various venues in the city and in each other’s
schools to fellow pupils, parents and staff; exploring themes such as reconciliation, social
background and being a teenager. The partnership also produced a performance DVD and pupils
attended productions together.
School 4:
This school is a Catholic grammar, with a recognised specialism in the arts, located within a city
setting; catering for approximately 1200 boys aged 11-18. School 3 formed a partnership with a
number of post primary and primary schools within the same city. This partnership involved
collaborating with: one integrated post primary school, one controlled post primary school, one non-
denominational co-educational grammar, four primary schools (two integrated, one controlled and
one Catholic) and one special school. Activity in this partnership centred on sharing sports facilities,
services and coaching to the schools within the partnership and additionally for the post primary
schools undertaking a course in Living in a Divided Societies (delivered by an independent agency at
the lead school). The latter, involved Year 13 students from the lead school and similar age groups
from partner schools attending shared classes together, addressing themes such as: reconciliation,
identity and citizenship.
School 5:
13
This school is a Catholic maintained girls’ secondary school, with a recognised specialism in the arts,
located within a city setting. It caters for over 900 pupils aged 11-18. School 5 formed a partnership
with two post primary schools: an integrated school and controlled secondary school. All three
schools operate within the same city. There are a number of aspects to this partnership including
shared dance, drama and music classes for post-16 pupils. In year one this involved the lead school
and the integrated school, then pupils from the controlled secondary school in years 2 and 3 became
involved. The other aspects of the shared education programme involved students being able to
avail of a Diploma in Health and Social Care and pupils and staff from all three schools visiting a
WW1 museum in Europe with the aim of looking at the impact of conflict and remembrance.
Findings:
The findings section is divided in three sections outlining the partnerships’ perspectives on the
logistics and challenges of collaborating, tempered with the benefits of partnership arrangements
and finally extracting from the data evidence which demonstrates a range of sustainable practice.
The logistics of collaboration
Coordinators across all five schools identified a range of logistical issues or challenges that they
encountered during cross-sector collaboration. All schools discussed timetabling and transport to
and from partner schools as the most prevalent challenges and by default partner school proximity
became an important variable. According to participants, the further schools were apart, the longer
young people spent travelling as opposed to being in the classroom. Agreeing a time for shared
classes was also cited as challenge because school timetables tended not to coincide. One of the SEP
14
coordinators described school timetables as like a ‘sacred cow’; schools were therefore reluctant to
change them and creating space for visiting pupils and shared lessons sometimes impacted on other
subject slots.
There was only a small window of opportunity [for shared classes] and the only time we had
was first thing in the morning. Our pupils could leave here and get to there and do their hour of
work and come back again without impacting on any other subject. Because of the way their
periods ran it was possible with a 20 minute bus journey over to there we left before our
registration, we arrived in time for their class, did class with them, on the bus back again
during our break times – the children had their break on the bus and then ready for the next
class, so no subject was impacted upon.
SEP Coordinator from School 3
For some schools these logistical issues in the second and third year of the programme were less
problematic as schools adjusted to sharing. School 5 described how in the second year timetablers of
both schools met to plan out school timetables and to agree a slot for shared activity to take place.
Other partnerships, in particular School 1, were geographically blessed in that schools were located
within walking distance of each other.
Frequently schools talked about the challenge of adjusting to their partner’s school ethos and
cultural practice. But schools also recognised that this was an important element of the programme
in terms of exposing students to different cultural backgrounds. In some cases these challenges were
a consequence of different expressions of cultural, national and political identities. The SEP
Coordinator in a Catholic school, for example, described their discomfort during an event which they
15
attended in their partner school when the British National Anthem was played. The Coordinator in
School 2 provided a useful account of the challenges posed by cross-sectoral collaboration:
Going back to some of the areas we spoke about earlier, urban/rural a very basic one the kids
from [city name] couldn’t believe that they had to drive through green fields just to get here.
Our kids on the other hand could not believe some of things they saw painted on walls to get
their [partner] school. That was a very simple cultural thing and would happen anywhere in the
world. The Protestant / Catholic thing, walking around [school name], the religious
iconography that goes with being a Catholic school in that part of [city name]. Likewise when
the kids come here there is a union flag flying alongside a European flag outside the school.
SEP Co-ordinator School 2
The benefits of collaboration
Two of the schools in this study are located within city settings which have historically witnessed
significant sectarian clashes. The spaces in which both schools and their partner schools are located
are often defined as contested spaces. Contested spaces, (see Morrisey & Gaffikin, 2006; Leonard,
2006) are usually characterised by different communities or populations, defined on the basis of
ethnic, religious, political or cultural practices, living within the same space (such as a village, town
or city), but separate and in an antagonistic relationship. The manifestation of this can be seen
through various examples, including the demarcation of space through the use of flags, colours,
marches or murals, all of which have the effect of ‘marking’ space as ’belonging’ to one community,
over another; giving way to a pattern of increased residential separation in NI, brutally reflected in
the number of ‘peace walls’ which divide communities in cities.
16
A consequence of living in contested space may mean that there is reluctance to connect with other
communities or groups that do not share the same cultural or religious background. There may also
be a reluctance to travel to other communities or move through contested spaces. This is borne out
in an ethnographic study (Roche 2009) which explored community relations and sectarianism among
16-35 year olds in a city setting in Northern Ireland. Roche (2009) introduces the term ‘bounded
contentment’ to describe a resulting scenario whereby individuals are essentially limited in their
exposure to the other community. As a consequence young people from different community
backgrounds had limited contact with one another; they developed fears about going into ‘other
community’ areas and, as a consequence, movement within and across the contested space became
limited, a process which only increases inter-community isolation.
Instead participants argued that pupils benefitted from the opportunity to visit each other’s schools
and communities. Coordinators regularly talked about the benefits and potency of exposing pupils
and education staff to the diversity of cultural symbols and practice and the significant learning
opportunities that were gained by negotiating how these would best be displayed, practised or
referenced during pupil to pupil contact. As examples, coordinators talked about how regular,
shared learning opportunities between pupils meant repeated exposure to difference in various
forms such as: pupils wearing poppies; crosses on pupils’ foreheads on Ash Wednesday; different
uniforms, religious iconography and other religious symbols; schools flying the Union Flag and pupils
visiting each other’s communities. As a consequence, participants argued that this exposure to
cultural and religious difference helped reduce anxieties about the other, helped students
contextualise and explore difference in a meaningful way and encouraged more movement across
contested spaces. In many cases shared learning facilitated relationship building and the formation
of friendships in and beyond the classroom.
17
Co-ordinators highlighted benefits other than community relations. A number emphasised that the
experience of shared lessons in each other schools helped develop young people’s confidence.
Pupils had opportunities to find their voice and in particular talk and discuss themes in larger groups
and to do this outside of the relative comforts of their own schools or classrooms. Other participants
argued that experience working with other schools had not just ‘educational, but social value.’ One
Co-ordinator highlighted that his students were learning not just about cultural differences but also
about different learning abilities and needs through valuable experience working with young people
with learning difficulties. A Co-ordinator felt that young people from rural and urban backgrounds
had opportunities to explore these differences in the classroom. Another Co-ordinator highlighted
that sharing was valuable in terms of providing young people with an opportunity to explore socio-
economic differences and differences in terms of grammar and non-grammar contexts.
A really good opportunity for our girls, it gave them an insight into another school and another
way of life. It became the focus of their social differences rather than religious. It was more to
do with that in the end.
SEP Coordinator School 3
Institutional benefits
In the study, each of the Coordinators was asked to outline how involvement in the first cohort of
SEP benefitted their school. An analysis of the data on this theme reveals six key benefits of school
collaboration: improved interschool relationships; collaboration promotes a climate of co-operation
when in some contexts there has typically been competition between schools; collaboration allowed
schools to enhance the curriculum and better meet the requirements of the entitlement framework
(DENI, 2010); collaboration was viewed as a positive pursuit in terms of raising school profile in
18
respective communities; in many cases helped develop stronger links with primary schools and
finally schools felt that as a consequence of partnership working, schools could learn from one
another in terms of gleaning positive practice. Several of the schools identified opportunities to learn
from one another. One Co-ordinator explained: ‘if I walked into [school name] for half an hour I
would learn something that I would want to bring back here.’ Another Coordinator suggested:
I asked myself this today, how can we learn from the other school? How can they learn from
us? How would they respond if I said I want to teach you this or I want to challenge you about
this aspect of your school culture?
SEP Coordinator School 1
In one case, School 5 explained that as a consequence of a developing relationship with its
controlled partner school, it had provided guidance and assistance specifically around literacy as a
result of its partner school having ‘gone through a very difficult inspection.’ The Coordinator
explained we have ‘given them help to get beyond that.’
Evidencing Sustainability
The core aim of this study was to ascertain if after the first cohort of SEP funding, were schools able
to sustain collaborative activity? In all cases there remained some form of collaboration, cooperation
or connection between schools after funding ceased. However, some schools have maintained much
higher levels of collaboration than others. In terms of sustainability, the following suggests that the
experience of SEP1 has facilitated: sustained relationships between teachers and educational
managers in partnered schools; in some cases sustained contact between Head Teachers and Boards
of Governors; for some schools, continued cross-sectoral collaborative activity and in other cases
19
evolving collaborative projects where schools have actively sought alternative funding to sustain
partnership working. A summary of the types and extent of sustainable activity between schools,
post SEP 1 funding, is provided in Table 1 on Page 25.
A Willingness to Collaborate
Crucially a by-product emerging out of the experience of schools from different sectors collaborating
appears to be a willingness to collaborate in the future. This is important given the context of the
education system in Northern Ireland. The practice of schools from different sectors, working closely
together, remains a relatively new phenomenon. Evidence from this study indicates that the Sharing
Education Programme is helping to create and sustain a cultural shift within schools, from
institutional isolation towards schools from different sectors working more closely together, for the
benefit of their pupils, teachers and institutions. A Coordinator from School 1 corroborates this
perspective by arguing: the thing [SEP] has entered our bloodstream; it has become the virus and
part the DNA of the place. Similarly, the Coordinator from School 5 recalls how at a conference there
appeared to be a much more positive reaction from delegates to the idea of collaboration from
schools involved in SEP, compared to schools who had not been involved in collaboration to the
same extent:
I was at a conference and they were talking about sharing and improvement, collaboration
versus competition where the two can sit quite comfortably side by side. The idea was thrown
out the schools share baker days and that they are timetabled and there is lots of inter-staff
movement and staff development training. I swear if you sat out front you could have spotted
the SEP schools who were thinking that might work. But there were audible (makes gasp noise)
[…] other than maybe sending pupils out for the entitlement framework that might have been
the extent of it.
20
SEP Coordinator School 5
The Coordinator in School 2 argued the experience of SEP has led to a cultural shift whereby the
perception of teachers has changed in regards to cross-sectoral collaboration; who would have
otherwise viewed collaboration as being disruptive for the school and pupils alike. The following
extract demonstrates how the experience of SEP has removed the ‘stigma’ of collaboration:
Within our staff, the idea of collaboration is something that has had up until now a stigma
attached to it. Because the nature of collaboration often involves compromise around the
edges of staff getting out of class, pupils getting out of class and perhaps the benefit in one
area is as a result of a perception of at least, whether it is real or imagined a perception of
cost elsewhere. Having had the success that we have had with SEP that has been challenged in
the staff room and collaboration is something that can provide very positive outcomes.
SEP Coordinator School 2
Relationships promote sustainability
In all cases SEP Co-ordinators talked about maintaining relationships with members of staff from
their partner SEP schools, post funding. In some cases, the extent of this relationship was
maintained, but limited to email and telephone contact. However other cases, sustained
relationships were much more extensive and involved both personal and professional contact. The
following demonstrates the types of post funding partnership activity:
21
In terms of professional development I still have that relationship with the member of staff…
I’m a principal moderator for GCSE [subject removed] and I would support her through that in
terms of materials and example work and online sharing and the introduction of new courses.
We have introduced a new course here and have provided some INSET for her on that. And she
is thinking about doing that in her school next year. […] Other regular contact where I will
support her with AS and A2 work as well. […] She has also provided me with some work. She is
doing her GCSE agreement trial in October with her class and they are performing at that. So
that has continued.
SEP Coordinator School 3
A number of participants explained that staff relationships created as a result of collaborative
practice during SEP1 were valuable to them and if anything, alongside pupil to pupil contact, one of
the most significant outcomes of cross-sectoral collaboration. A Coordinator went as far as
suggesting:
A project is all about the relationships. I think if we started SEP again and we were starting
afresh I would spend more time on building relationships and stop speeding ahead with the
project.
SEP Coordinator School 5
The experience of sharing and collaboration between schools appeared to forge relationships at
various staffing levels: between teachers; between school leaders and between Governors:
22
Governor relationships have developed through SEP and they are very good and we would
have [school name] Governors at our event. That relationship is very strong and at leadership
level as well, between [name] and [name] and our leadership team. The teacher contact,
[name] would have made some very good contacts at [school name] and they would obviously
be maintained as well. Those relationships are now very easy to sustain.
SEP Coordinator School 5
Sustained collaborative activity
Schools identified that SEP funding enabled them to maintain and sustain high quality collaborative
activities. Absent the availability of additional external funding, or systemic change in core funding to
incentivise and support collaboration, lack of or reduced funding was likely to lead to a drop in both
the quality and the quantity of collaborative activity. Schools frequently highlighted for example,
that transporting students to partner sites was expensive but at the same an essential aspect of
facilitating sustained, face to face and long term contact and shared lessons. Without transport in
many cases, school collaboration would if at all, be reduced to non-sustainable, one off events or
reduced to virtual engagement. However in four cases there has remained pupil contact after the
funding period. In one case, pupil contact occurs occasionally where pupils from both schools where
School 3 is the lead partner, will attend drama productions together. In the case of School 4, more
regular contact between pupils has been sustained but with a smaller group than the initial remit of
the funded programme. Partnerships where School 1 and School 5 are lead schools continue to offer
significant sustained and regular shared provision for pupils:
We still share our A level blocks with the four providers in the town. Aspects of this continuity
are because of SEP1 but the main driver has been the school’s specialism. Dance on the other
23
hand which did come about because of SEP has been maintained and teacher who is on
reduced timetable remains in post and this is currently being funded from Peace III money. The
teacher still teaches mixed dance classes with pupils from the schools in the partnership. The
member of staff involved with IT aspect of the SEP programme is still in place and continues to
serve mixed classes
SEP Coordinator School 1
As previously stated, some schools evidenced much more sustained collaborative activity than
others and as a consequence, a spectrum emerges demonstrating models which appear least to
most sustainable. Table 1 has been constructed to demonstrate this. Schools 1 and 5 represent the
most sustainable models. Schools positioned in the middle of the spectrum demonstrate some
elements of sustainable practice but crucially they are distinct from the more sustainable models
because of the extent of the cross-sectoral activity that remains and the fact that collaborative
activity appears not have fostered significant relationships at an institutional level. School 2 appears
to be the least sustainable; after funding, no pupil to pupil contact remained; while there was still
some level of contact between SEP Co-ordinators, there appeared to be no evidence of any
sustainable institutional links. School 4 demonstrates some elements of sustainable practice in the
fact that it has sought alternative funds to sustain an element of cross-sectoral sharing, however the
bulk of this partnership activity is focused on providing sporting facilities for local primary schools
within the same sector. School 3 on the other hand is ranked higher because there is more evidence
of pupil to pupil contact both in person and virtually. Crucially there is evidence of institutional links
and schools continue to share resources and expertise.
Insert table here (see the final page of this document)
24
Table 1: Sustainable Activity Post SEP1 Funding
Discussion
This study has examined five school partnerships which received funding between 2007 and 2010 to
collaborate and promote shared education between pupils. The intention was to understand more
about the context of each partnership, and assess if there was evidence that collaboration had
embedded into school structures and been maintained after project funding and support had
ceased. This study has captured evidence demonstrating that after the funding period a number of
partnerships have, to varying degrees, sustained collaborative activity. One of the partnerships
appears not to be sustainable, two demonstrate elements of sustainability and two provide strong
evidence of sustainability.
The original aim of the Sharing Education Programme was to encourage sustained, regular contact
between young people and teachers from Protestant and Catholic schools in Northern Ireland in
order to promote reconciliation and tolerance, and underpin the peace process. The intention was
to make this form of contact ubiquitous to the schools. Given the existing education system, schools
from different sectors have only recently begun to collaborate in meaningful ways, as opposed to
previous initiatives which offered superficial contact. It is important to understand more about the
process of collaboration in order that schools can become effective collaborators and sustain
institutional relationships. The following provides an analysis of the partnerships and outlines a
series of criteria which indicate the conditions necessary for a sustainable model of collaboration.
Proximity, time and practice
25
As stated in previous sections, cross-sectoral collaboration is a relatively new practice in Northern
Ireland. As a consequence, a culture of collaboration is more likely to embed and sustain after
schools have had both time and the opportunity to practice collaborating. Shared learning and
accompanying structures which support this activity are ideal to introduce schools to the practice of
effective and sustained cross-sectoral collaboration. The partnership developed around School 1 is
testament to this and is the only partnership of the five to have had previous experience of
collaborative activity prior to SEP1 and as a consequence is one of the most sustainable models.
Chapman (2008) had suggested that the strongest relationships that developed between schools
were those where there was evidence of previous experience of collaboration, while Chapman et al.
(2009) argued that ‘sustainable collaboration is a gradual process.’
Also important is proximity - the distance between collaborating schools. Shared learning requires
pupils to be able to visit partner schools in order to learn together. The partnership led by School 1 is
helped by the fact that the schools are located within the same town and occupy the same street,
thus mitigating the need for transport and minimising disruption in terms of pupils travelling to each
other schools. Importantly, this also indicates that because the most effective models are required
to be geographically close, networks of collaborating schools are created within villages, towns and
cities across Northern Ireland, rather than a somewhat perverse situation whereby schools from
different sectors in local areas, remain isolated from one another.
Innovation and responding to the challenges posed by cross-sector collaboration
According to Woods et al. (2006), partnerships that can demonstrate innovation to seek change or
transformation, are more likely to be effective models of collaboration. Evidence from this study
indicates that partnership working between schools is more likely to be sustained if schools can
overcome or adapt to the challenges posed by cross sectoral collaboration. Challenges highlighted in
26
previous studies (Donnelly & Gallagher, 2008; Knox, 2010), including: time spent travelling between
schools; coordination of timetables and cultural compatibility were also reported here. However
schools also demonstrated ways to mitigate the impact of these. For example, School 5 and School 3
explained that after initial challenges, timetablers from partner schools coordinated their work to
ensure they could build in time for shared activity on an annual basis: importantly, there was no
need to coordinate entire timetables, as long as a common identified slot for shared activity was
built into the timetable of every participating school. Such actions demonstrate a high level of
institutional support for collaboration.
Furthermore schools which engage in cross sector collaboration not only face operational challenges
as outlined above they are also required to overcome systemic challenges. The schools in this study
and elsewhere in Northern Ireland are pioneers in that they are required to provide innovative
solutions which allow them to get out of the groove created by an historic education system which
isolates schools of different sectors and sustains denominational distance between pupils and
educational staff.
Relationships between staff
By extension, after schools have had both time and the opportunity to develop collaborative
practice, sustainable partnerships are more likely to form where significant relationships between
individuals develop. A model of cross-sector collaboration is more likely to be sustainable if teachers,
school managers and governors from different schools can have regular contact and ultimately build
professional and personal relationships. The evidence section above demonstrates how in all cases
positive relationships between staff remained after the funding period. Personal and professional
relationships are important not only for the effective delivery and the management of
shared/collaborative activity but they appear to be an important factor in promoting willingness to
27
sustain collaborative activity. Given the systemic context outlined previously, developing
sustainable, professional and personal relationships between teachers is important, as Catholic and
Protestant teachers are trained in denominationally separate teacher training institutions in
Northern Ireland.
The extent and quality of collaborative activity
Any collaborative activity that remains after the funding period is to varying degrees evidence of
sustainability. However this says nothing about the extent or the type of collaborative activity. In all
cases, there was evidence of some sustained collaborative activity but with varying degrees of
quantity and quality. The partnerships based around School 1 and School 5 provided best evidence
of robust sustainable activity between schools. In both cases shared learning between pupils
remained, coupled with strong contact between schools largely mediated through SEP coordinators,
school managers and Governors. In the case of partnerships developed around Schools 2, 3 and 4, in
one case, limited shared pupil contact remained but institutional links via staff did not develop and
conversely in two cases pupil contact was not maintained but staff relationships did flourish albeit
confined to the remit of the original programme.
Permeation and the creation of a culture of collaboration
The notion of permeation is important; Hargreaves (1992) refers to the idea of ‘bounded
collaboration’, by which he means that the impact of collaboration is constrained or activity is
prescriptive or limited, such that it does not penetrate deeply enough into the culture of a school.
An unsustainable model of collaboration may be one where there is little evidence that collaborative
practice has permeated into other areas of the school. A sustainable model is one where there is
contrary evidence, whereby the practice of collaboration is so positively received by schools that
28
other members of staff or more broadly departments begin to explore the possibility of
collaboration in other areas of the school. This occurred in the schools where School 5 was the lead
partner, where members of each school’s science departments, crucially not involved in the first SEP
cohort, opted to form collaborative links based on witnessing the out-workings of collaborative
practice elsewhere in the school.
This also says something fundamental about the formation of a culture of collaboration between
schools in Northern Ireland. As previously stated schools, especially those from different sectors
traditionally have not collaborated in any meaningful way and as such a culture of collaboration is
only beginning to emerge. Where collaboration is effective; seen to be sustainable; is received
positively and offers clear benefits, in some cases, as is demonstrated by this study, the practice of
collaboration is capable of permeating across schools within a partnership. Conceivably programmes
such as SEP which support multiple partnerships across Northern Ireland create the impetus for
collaboration to permeate across a system.
Advocates of collaboration at strategic levels
Where relationships between senior staff and between Governors develop, this is more likely to
foster sustainability. Institutions are more likely to value and support collaboration if there are
advocates for this practice at the strategic level. Coordinators from School 1 and School 5 were
Principals in their respective schools and clear advocates of collaboration. According to the
Coordinator at School 5:
SEP funding gets your mind because there is nothing that will focus Principals more than a pot
of money. I think what SEP needs to do during the process is get people’s hearts as well. The
best way to do that was actually manage to get Principals seeing the good work that is going
29
on and being very much at the pupil teacher face of what is going on. And for that you need to
showcase it to parents and teachers as well the work that definitely goes on. It will never go on
if it simply stays in people’s minds. If SEP was to really work I would see every head teacher in
Northern Ireland being trained in their tactics and responsibilities
Coordinator at School 5
Shared learning activities can provide a catalyst for developing institutional relationships
Partnerships which can demonstrate all or most of the sustainability criteria identified in this section
are those that are most likely to see collaborative practice embed within their schools. Woods et al.
(2006) argue that effective models are those where collaboration becomes normalised and viewed
as an essential aspect of a school’s culture. The evidence from this study demonstrates that where
collaboration is most effective, partnership working is more likely to be sustained. School 1 and
School 5 provide evidence where they meet most or all of the sustainability indicators. A model of
collaboration begins to emerge whereby schools initially engage with one another through shared
learning activities between pupils. This activity based model of collaboration, over time, cultivates.
Staff involved in programme implementation, develop relationships through sustained contact and
practice; in turn, relationships develop at more senior levels and advocates of collaboration at a
strategic level emerge. In some cases collaboration begins to permeate into other areas of the
school and in other cases partnerships begin to innovate. What emerges is a shift away from
conceptualising sharing/collaboration which is solely based on pupils learning together, towards a
model where institutions develop relationships at various levels throughout the school.
Conclusion
30
One of the aims of this study has been to broaden the current understanding of cross-sectoral
collaboration between schools in a divided society, where that collaboration consciously cuts across
community boundaries. The study focused on the perspectives of five Coordinators in schools which
led different collaborative partnerships, so caution should be exercised in drawing more general
conclusions. Nonetheless the perspectives of Coordinators are valuable and provide an in depth
account of the context surrounding cross-sectoral partnerships. Further work will explore the
perspectives of teachers and others not in leadership roles in the partnerships, and on the
perspectives of pupils and parents.
This study contributes to a wider literature base which examines the role that education plays in
societies racked by ethnic conflict or other various challenges of multi-ethnic or multicultural
societies. The education system in Northern Ireland sees for the most part Catholic and Protestant
children being educated separately and as such the system along with other legacies of conflict
including divided or contested communities plays its part in normalising ethnic isolation during the
formative years of schooling. However the separate system is sustained by the fact that parents
continue to opt to send children to schools which align with their own cultural background. Shared
education and collaboration between schools acknowledges the impact of choice, as well as
recognising the deep groves that have been cut which maintain the existing system and so a
pragmatic approach is required to work within the existing structures but also challenge the systemic
boundaries which effectively keep children apart.
The data from this study suggest that sustained and regular contact through shared education and
broader collaboration interrupts the legacies of a separate education system at both the institutional
and individual level. The discussion on logistical challenges, the benefits of collaboration and the
evidence of sustainability provide insights from stakeholders involved in programme
implementation. The boundaries that have developed between schools seem to be more porous
31
because regular and sustained shared learning exposes both pupils and staff to different religious
and cultural practices. In particular, young people from different backgrounds were learning
together, were encouraged to move through contested spaces and anxieties about the other
community were reduced.
The data collected here confirms the extant literature that effective collaborative practice, rather
than isolated showcase activity, is more likely to lead to sustainable outcomes. Those partnerships
that were more likely to be sustained were those where there was support and advocacy from
senior staff in schools; where relationships between staff developed; where the collaborative activity
was off a high standard and grounded within core areas of the curriculum; and where schools
recognised the challenges and logistics of sharing. Many of the challenges faced in promoting
collaboration between separate schools in a divided society appear to arise from the legacy and
habits of separation and the perceptual consequences (and fears) of cultural difference. Importantly,
sustainable partnerships sought ways to resolve challenges rather than let established habits erode
partnership.
Any educational change process that is dependent on external project funding is always vulnerable
in terms of its sustainability: the literature is littered with examples of worthy projects that collapsed
once external funding ceased, so there was always a concern in SEP that the same outcome might
prevail. For this reason SEP was always predicated on a twin-track approach of using external
funding to demonstrate that collaborative engagement across community and institutional divisions
could be achieved, while at the same time lobbying for policy change to ensure that the normal
funding and support mechanisms in the education system incentivised and supported collaboration,
rather than hampered it. The outcome of the second track remains to be seen, although there has
already been a significant level of official support for the idea of shared education and the
terminology has been firmly established in the political lexicon in Northern Ireland. The present
32
paper was intended to explore the extent to which new relationships had been established through
SEP and whether these were strong enough that, even in the absence of official policy change,
schools and teachers were still trying to maintain collaborative practice. The literature suggests that,
in addition to formal policy frameworks, sustainability is also about creating the right conditions
between schools where collaboration embeds and penetrates throughout the schools involved. The
data gathered for this study suggests that, in most cases, there is clear evidence that collaboration
has become embedded in most schools and there is a clear willingness to sustain the benefits which
are seen to have devolved from collaboration. If the policy framework shifts to encourage and
support this work, then the likelihood of fundamental systemic change in education in Northern
Ireland seems to be high.
References
Akenson, DH. 1973. Education and enmity: the control of schooling in Northern Ireland 1920-1950 ,
London: David and Charles.
Arlow, M. 2004. ‘Citizenship education in a divided society: the case of Northern Ireland’ in: S. Tawil
& A. Harley (Eds) Education, Conflict and Social Cohesion (Geneva, International Bureau of
Education).
Atkinson, A., I. Springate., F. Johnson., and K. Halsey. 2007. Inter-school collaboration: a literature
review. NFER.
Bar Tal, D. 2000. From Intractable Conflict Through Conflict Resolution to Reconciliation:
Psychological Analysis. Political Psychology 21 (2) 2000 351-365
33
Billett, S., A. Clemans., and T. Seddon. 2005 Forming, Developing and Maintaining Social
Partnerships (Adelaide: NCVER).
Billet. S., C. Ovens., A. Clemans., and T. Seddon. 2007. Collaborative working and contested
practices: Forming, developing and sustaining social partnerships in education. Available online at:
https://www.det.nsw.edu.au/proflearn/docs/pdf/socpartners.pdf [last accessed: March 2012]
Bowen, J. 1981. A history of western education. London: Methuen.
Buckland, P. 1979 The Factory of Grievances: devolved government in Northern Ireland 1921-1939 ,
Dublin: Gill and Macmillan.
Chapman, C. 2008. “Towards a Framework for School-to-School Networking in Challenging
Circumstances.” Educational Research 50 (4): 403–420.
Chapman, C., D. Muijs, and A. Collins. 2009. The Impact of Federations on Student Outcomes.
Nottingham: National College for School Leadership.
Department of Education for Northern Ireland. 2010. Delivering the Entitlement Framework by 2013.
DENI.
Donnelly, C. and T. Gallagher. 2008. School collaboration in Northern Ireland: opportunities for
reconciliation. Available online at http://www.schoolsworkingtogether.com/documents/School-
Collaboration-in-NI.pdf [Last accessed July 2011]
34
Duffy, G and T. Gallagher. 2014. Collaborative evolution: the context surrounding the formation and
the effectiveness of a school partnership in a divided community in Northern Ireland, Research
Papers in Education, Published online Jan 24 2014, DOI:10.1080/02671522.2014.880731
Dunn, S. and T.G. Fraser. 1996. Europe and ethnicity :The first world war and contemporary ethnic
conflict. London: Routledge.
Farren, S. 1995. The politics of Irish education 1920-65, Belfast: Institute of Irish Studies, Queen's
University Belfast.
FGS McClure Watters. 2010. The Sharing Education Programme Attitudinal Research Results.
Queen’s University Belfast.
Fitzmaurice, J. 1983. The politics of Belgium: Crisis and compromise in a plural society. London: Hurst.
Fitzmaurice, J. 1996. The politics of Belgium: A unique federalism. London: Hurst & Co.
Gallagher, T. 1997. ‘So What Do You Think? in: K. Fearon (Ed.) Politics: the next generation.
Democratic Dialogue Report No 6 (Belfast, Democratic Dialogue), 7–13
Gallagher, T. 2004a. ‘After the war comes peace? An examination of the impact of the Northern
Ireland conflict on young people.’ Journal of Social Issues, 60(3) 629-642
Gallagher, T. 2004b. Education in divided societies. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
35
Gallagher, T. 2010a. Key Issues in Coexistence and Education. Boston: Brandeis University
Coexistence International
Gallagher, T. 2010b. ‘Building a shared future from a divided past: promoting peace through
education in Northern Ireland.’ In G Salomon and E Cairns (Eds) Handbook of Peace Education, New
York: Psychology Press
Gallagher, T., A. Stewart., R. Walker., M. Baker. and J. Lockhart. 2010. ‘Sharing Education through
schools working together.’ Shared Space 10 65 - 74
Hargreaves, A. 1992. “Cultures of teaching: a focus for change.” In: Understanding teacher
development edited by A. Hargreaves and M.G. Fullan. London: Cassell.
Hargreaves, D. 2010. Creating a self-improving school system, Nottingham: National College for
School Leadership
Hayes, B. C. and I. McAllister. 2009. 'Education as a mechanism for conflict resolution in Northern
Ireland.' Oxford Review of Education, 35: 4, 437 — 450
Hayes, B. C., I. McAllister., and Dowds, L. 2007. ‘Integrated education, intergroup relations, and
political identities in Northern Ireland.’ Social Problems, 54(4), 454-482.
Heater, D. 2003. A history of education for citizenship. London: RoutledgeFalmer.
36
Hodgson, A. and K. Spours. 2006. ‘The organisation of 14–19 education and training in England:
beyond weakly collaborative arrangements.’ Journal of Education and Work Vol. 19, No. 4, pp. 325–
342
Hughes, J., C. Donnelly., M. Hewstone., T. Gallagher. and K. Carlisle. 2010. School Partnerships and
Reconciliation: An evaluation of School Collaboration in Northern Ireland. Queens University Belfast
Hughes, J. 2011. ‘Are separate schools divisive? A case study from Northern Ireland.’ British
Educational Research Journal, 37(5), 829-850.
Knox, C. 2010 Sharing Education Programme: Views from the White Board, Social and Research
Policy Institute. University of Ulster
Leonard, M. 2006. “Teens and territory in contested spaces: Negotiating sectarian interfaces in
Northern Ireland.” Childrens’ Geographies 4 (2): 225-238.
Limage, L. 2000. ‘Education and Muslim identity: the case of France.’Comparative Education, 36(1),
73-94.
Lijphart, A. 1975. The politics of accommodation: Pluralism and democracy in the Netherlands .
London: University of California Press.
Luchtenberg, S. 2004 ‘Ethnic diversity and citizenship education in Germany.’ In Banks, J (Ed)
Diversity and Citizenship Education: global perspectives, California: Jossey-Bass
37
McClenahan, C., P. Irwing., M. Stringer., M. Giles. and R. Wilson. 2003. ‘Educational differences in
self-perceptions of adolescents in Northern Ireland.’ International Journal of Behavioral
Development, 27(6), 513-518
Morrissey, M., and F. Gaffikin. 2006. “Planning for Peace in Contested Space.” International
Journal of Urban and Regional Research 30 (4): 873–893.
Muijs, D., M. West., and M. Ainscow. 2010. “Why network? Theoretical perspectives on
networking.” School Effectiveness and School Improvement 21 (1): 5-26
Mullard, C. 1985. ‘Multicultural education in Britain: from assimilation to cultural pluralism.’ in
Arnot, M (Ed) Race and Gender: equal opportunities policies in education, London: Pergamon Press.
O'Connor, U., B. Hartop. and A. McCully, A. 2002. A review of the schools community relations
programme, Northern Ireland. Department of Education.
Roche, R. 2009. “Facts, fears and feelings: Investigating sectarianism and segregation post-conflict”,
In The challenges of peace research as a contribution to peace-building in Northern Ireland, edited
by the Community Relations Council: Belfast: CRC
Smith, A., and A. Robinson. 1992. EMU: perceptions and policy Coleraine: University of Ulster. Centre
for the study of conflict
Smith, A. and A. Robinson. 1996. EMU: the initial statutory years. Coleraine: University of Ulster.
Coleraine: University of Ulster. Centre for the study of conflict
38
Stringer, M., P. Irwing., M. Giles., C. McClenahan., R. Wilson. and J. Hunter. 2009.’ Intergroup
contact, friendship quality and political attitudes in integrated and segregated schools in Northern
Ireland.’ British Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 239–257
Stringer, M., P. Irwing., M. Giles., C. McClenahan., R. Wilson. and J. Hunter. 2010. ‘ Parental and
school effects on children’s political attitudes in Northern Ireland.’ British Journal of Educational
Psychology (2010), 80, 223–240.
Swann Report. 1985. Committee of Inquiry into the Education of Children from Ethnic Minority
Groups, Education for all: The report of the committee of inquiry into the education of children from
ethnic minority groups. London: H.M.S.O.
Woods, P.A., R. Levacic., J. Evans., F. Castle., R. Glatter. and D. Cooper. 2006. Diversity and
Collaboration? Diversity Pathfinders Evaluation (DfES Report No 826). London: DfE
Schools Sustained Collaborative Activity Post SEP1 Funding
School 2 Little sustainable activity remains
No direct contact between pupils
Some staff contact between schools remains but this has moved from
institutional to personal contact. Two members of teaching staff have developed
a personal relationship and maintain contact via email
39
Students from partner school remain registered on lead school’s VLE
School 4 Collaborative work based on reconciliation and citizenship education continues
to develop between lead and a partner school. School now receives funding
from an alternative source to sustain activity originating from SEP1
School continues to offer sporting activities on Saturdays to schools in local
community, however there remains limited cross-sectoral activity.
Links with a special school in the local community as a result of SEP1 funding
remain in place. Lead school continues to provide and host sporting activity for
pupils.
School 3 Schools have remained in contact making use of virtual technologies post SEP1
funding to showcase a drama project both schools were involved in.
Students from both schools have also attended the theatre together in
preparation for GCSE exam
Both teachers involved in coordinating SEP1 activity in their respective schools
remain in close contact and continue to share resources.
SEP1 lead Coordinator has provided INSET training for partner school
coordinator and aided professional development
School 1 Two members of staff who were hired to facilitate SEP activity remain in post
but on reduced hours. Both continue to deliver same activities that were borne
out of SEP1. Funding for these positions now come from alternative sources.
Students from SEP1 partner school continue to travel to school for sustained
cross-sectoral collaborative activity. Travel is funded by partner school.
School 1 remains involved in SEP activity as a partner with another SEP2 lead
school.
Collaborative SEP activity set up with a local special needs school continues post
40
funding.
Strong links and regular communication between schools involved in SEP1
activity remains.
Relationship between Principals is strong and they remain in regular contact
School 5 Strong relationship between Principals and Governors have been developed and
maintained post SEP1 funding
Strong relationship between teachers have been maintained
A new partnership has evolved out SEP1 including 3 post primary and 5 primary
schools
Partnership has secured significant funds to provide a programme of PDMU and
Learning for Life and Work on a shared basis involving years 5 to year 10
Post 16 A level programme continues to operate post SEP1 funding
Evidence of collaborative activity outside of the remit of funded programme
Table 1: Sustainable Activity Post SEP1 Funding
41
42