Transcript You can position your opening statement here, either in

SUPPORTING LEADERSHIP AND
SECURING QUALITY
An Evaluation of the Impact of Aspects of
the London Leadership Strategy (LLS)
Pam Sammons, Peter Matthews, Qing Gu,
Christopher Day and Peter Smith
School of Education
University of Nottingham
What is the London
Leadership Strategy (LLS)?
• The LLS is designed and supported by the National
College of School Leadership (NCSL) in England to
enhance leadership and management to promote the
wider aims of improving the quality of education and
raising standards in London schools.
• The strategy offers London leaders the opportunity to
build leadership capacity at every level within their
school and to work in close collaboration with other
schools
Source: http://www.ncsl.org.uk/leadership_development/ldevlondonchallenge-index.cfm
Objectives of the London
Leadership Strategy (LLS):
 raise standards across London schools
 re-establish London as a leading force in
educational development
 motivate in education professionals a desire to work in
London
 narrow the achievement gap within London’s schools
 provide highly effective models within the 14–19 and
Every Child Matters agendas
 grow a collaborative culture across London schools to
enhance pupil learning
 learn from London ideas, and disseminate the learning to
others in England and internationally
The Evaluation Focus
Three aspects of the LLS initiative were examined in this
evaluation
This presentation focuses on two of these, the Consultant
Leader (CL) programme and the cumulative impact of
involvement in multiple strands of the LLS programme/of
leadership development on school effectiveness and
improvement.
The tender specification for the evaluation described the
objective as follows:
‘to undertake a formative evaluation of aspects of the
London Leadership Strategy and support the ongoing
effectiveness of the strategy through regular formative
feedback on the impact of agreed aspects of the project’.
The Evaluation Methodology
The evaluation adopted a mixed methods approach
linking quantitative data about pupil attainment and
progress in London schools (available from national data
sets in England) and evidence on standards and
processes produced by Office for Standards in Education
(Ofsted) inspections of schools with data about
engagement in different aspects of the LLS.
In addition, the evaluation sought to increase
understanding of the way LLS activity may contribute to
the improvement process through detailed case studies
of small numbers of schools.
These case studies tap stakeholders’ views and
perceptions of the impact of LLS activity in their schools.
Table 1: Initial conceptual map of the
formative evaluation
EVALUATION PERSPECTIVES
ASPECTS
1. Learning
development
and growth
i. Consultant
Characteristics
leaders programme
Evaluation and
feedback loops
ii. The cumulative
effect of leadership
development on
Adaptation of
school
processes
effectiveness and
improvement
Internal
dissemination
iii. Immersion
leadership
development
2. Impact
and
outcomes
3. Participant and
stakeholder
perspectives
4. Value for
money
Criteria for effectiveness
Focus on school improvement,
sustainability, keys and barriers to
success
Cost benefit
analysis
Methodology
Cost and benefit
case studies
To include a range of data and
evidence from:
Limited surveys
Case studies based on audit trails
(trackers)
Interviews
School information and data
Internal evaluation reports from
each strand.
Value for money
Analysis of VFM
The NCSL Consultant Leaders (CL)
Programme
• The programme aims to raise capacity for system-wide
leadership, with the specific focus on promoting urban
leadership
• The intention is to link recognised ‘good’ leaders with
heads of schools facing a variety of challenges
• It adopts a model based around eight competencies and
three skill areas
• The evaluation combines information and data about the
school with a wide range of evidence from key
stakeholders, particularly the CLs and staff of schools (but
including LEAs, governors and London Challenge Advisers)
The NCSL Consultant Leaders (CL)
Programme
• The evaluation formed an overall picture or profile of the
nature of the relationship between a CL and the leadership
activity in 6 case study schools
• The individual case studies examine the:
• range of activities arising from the CL involvement
• Prevalence of methods
• Relationship of foci to school and LLS objectives
• The evaluation identified barriers and facilitators that either
hinder of promote successful partnership working
The NCSL Consultant Leaders (CL)
Programme
The qualitative component of the enquiry focused on 6Rs to
structure the data analysis:
the readiness of the school in terms of its circumstances and
receptiveness to involvement with the CL and the conditions
under which the consultancy operates;
the rationale for the consultancy, particularly in terms of
improvement priorities and their link with raising achievement of
pupils;
the resource engaged in the CL programme, both in terms of the
CL’s contribution and the school’s investment, together with the
modus operandum or deployment of the resource;
the remediation that ensues from the relationship, i.e. the
initiatives the school takes as a result of or supported by the
consultancy;
the results, in terms of evidence of impact, particularly on matters
related to building leadership capacity and raising standards;
and
reflections on the nature of the CL-head teacher relationship
Figure 1: Hypothesised Relationships
between CL Involvement and
Outcomes
LEAs
Staff morale and
retention
Team building
Headteacher
Outcomes
Barriers +
Enablers
Motivation
Teaching and
Learning
Other leaders
Changes
to policy and
practice +
staff development
Standards
behaviour
Intensity
Leadership consultant
London Challenge Adviser
Methods
+
Engage
ment
with LLS
Strands
The cumulative effect of
leadership development on school
effectiveness
The influence and impact of the degree of
engagement by schools in different
leadership strategy initiatives was studied
using both quantitative and qualitative
approaches.
The most common form of engagement by
far was Leading from the Middle, a
leadership development programme for all
subject leaders.
Figure 2: Overall pattern of engagement in different
LLS strands (as of march 2005)
The cumulative effect of
leadership development on school
effectiveness
The association between degree of
engagement and schools’ inspection and
attainment outcomes was studied, and a
small number of case studies were tested to
explore impacts and processes in schools
engaged with four or more strands of the
LLS.
The hypothesis is that involvement in more
strands has the potential to build greater
leadership capacity, which can better effect
change, leading to higher standards.
Figure 3: Level of Engagement with LLS
Strands (as of March 2005)
Frequency
High
21%
None
13%
Low
25%
Typical
41%
Figure 4 Relationship between level of engagement with
LLS strands and level of social disadvantage of intake
(FSM band)
100
90
80
70
None
60
Low
50
Typical
40
High
30
20
10
0
FSM1
(Low disadvantage school)
FSM2
FSM3
FSM4
(High disadvantage school)
Qualitative strand of the
evaluation
The qualitative strand of the evaluation
sought to distinguish between individual
participation, multiple participation and
collective engagement in leadership
development in examining the impact of
such involvement in the case study
schools.
A central objective of the LLS strategy is: to raise standards for
pupils in all London Schools, therefore key foci of interviews
included:
• How well do the activities focus on this aspect?
• To what extent do the individual professional development
agendas of participants focus on this aspect?
• How do the activities undertaken relate to the improvement
priorities of their school?
• To what extent do the personal agendas for action of
participants relate to raising standards?
• What have they introduced as a result of participation in the
work stream that is geared to raising standards?
• How will participants monitor their impact on raising standards
(including both academic and affective outcomes such as pupil
learning, engagement, motivation and behaviour)?
• Has there been differential improvement by the schools,
departments or subject involved?
Formative contribution of the
evaluation
Much of the formative contribution of the
evaluation took place through interaction in the
form of questions, discussion and the sharing of
observations and expertise.
Members of the evaluation team attended LLS
Board meetings, and meetings of CLs.
Email surveys and dialogue with key groups such
as CLs and London Challenge Advisers were used
to explore their role and perceptions of impact.
Key Evaluation Findings 1
• The 2005/06 year has been one of both consolidation
and development for the London Leadership Strategy.
There are clear signs that the roots put down, lessons
learned and gains made since the beginning of the
Strategy are bearing fruit.
• There are associations between degree of engagement
in the Strategy’s programmes and both enhanced
leadership effectiveness and differential improvement
of results (closing the gap).
• A successful feature of many strands of the Strategy,
especially those on which this evaluation has focused,
is the sharing of expertise across two or more schools.
Data Slide 1
Mean scores of percentage of 15 year old pupils achieving
5 or more grades A*-C at GCSE and equivalents 2002-2005
% of 15 year old pupils achieving 5 or m ore grades A*-C at
GCSE and equivalents
70
65
Mean
60
None
55
Low
Typical
High
50
45
40
%A*-C at GCSE
and equivalents
2002
%A*-C at GCSE
and equivalents
2003
%A *-C at GCSE
and equivalent s
2004
%A *-C at GCSE
and equivalent s
2005
Data Slide 2
Mean difference between None and Highly engaged schools
over time (GCSE average point score per 15 year old pupil)
M e a n D if f e re n c e b e t we e n N o n e _ H i g h O v e r T i m e
50
45
Mean Difference
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
2002
2003
2004
2005
Data Slide 3:
KS3-KS4 VA 2004-2005
KS 3-4 VA 2004-2005
1015.00
Mean scores
1010.00
None
Low
1005.00
Typical
High
1000.00
995.00
990.00
KS 3-4 VA 2004
KS 3-4 VA 2005
Data Slide 4
Leadership of the
Headteacher and Key Staff
(2000-2003) (N=244)
Leadership of the Headteacher
(2003-2005) (N=136)
Key Evaluation Findings 2
• There is evidence that some schools are
over-faced with interventions and offers of
support.
• The involvement of respected and
successful headteachers in the leadership
of the London Leadership Strategy is
proving very effective.
Main Findings on Consultant
Leaders (CLs) (1)
• The CL programme overall is having a marked positive
effect on school and leadership development in the schools
studied.
• The quality of CL is central to the success and reputation of
their work.
• Training in consultancy and coaching skills, with successful
demonstration of their application, remains an essential
prerequisite for this role.
• The main strategies used by the CL are coaching and
mentoring, followed by facilitating and counselling.
• Although it is difficult unequivocally to prove a causal link
between the work of CLs and improvements in quality and
standards, qualitative (particularly) and quantitative
findings all point towards a positive association.
Main Findings on Consultant
Leaders (CLs) (2)
One Consultant Leader says:
‘Very few barriers needed to be overcome. The Acting Head
has been my main point of contact and she was very
pleased to receive support, although there was a period
in which trust needed to be cemented. The School
recognised that there were specific areas that needed
support. I work with all the Leadership Group, although
mainly the Head, and have also given advice to others.’
In another case, the headteacher was reported as
‘Very welcoming. She had a clear vision for the school
vision for the school and was determined to tap into any
and all support available. In general I support the
headteacher but I have given limited support to other
members of the team at her request.’
Main Findings on Consultant
Leaders (CLs) (3)
Case study 1:
‘We supported each other. It has been a good link. It’s
good to be able to talk to somebody who to a large
degree has done a very good job in a school. … He
was powerful in supporting us. … The vanity in me
says that we would have done it anyway, but we
would have taken just slightly longer.’ (Headteacher)
Case study 2:
‘She’s really taken us on board… She is genuinely
enthusiastic about what’s going on here, about the
people and I think she has enjoyed imparting some of
her wisdom from her 14 years of headship and seeing
how it has been an impact on other people.’
(Headteacher)
Main Findings:
Engagement in strands of the LLS
• About 80% of London secondary schools have
been involved in one or more Strategy
programmes.
• Analysis of performance data provides some
indication of closing the attainment gaps at key
stages 3 and 4 between schools with medium to
high engagement and those with little or no
engagement with the Strategy.
• The 2005 inspection evidence that is available
for some London schools also indicates greater
improvement in both leadership and
management and the overall quality of the ‘key
to success group’ than other schools.
Policy Implications (1)
• Consultant Leaders build leadership capacity
and help schools to change.
• Consultancy is shown to be effective in most
cases without needing executive powers.
• The experience of London schools suggests
the need to simplify and rationalise lines of
intervention and support.
• The deployment of Consultant Leaders
elsewhere should be carefully managed,
supported and monitored.
Policy Implications (2)
• It would be a mistake for the higher levels of school
and ‘system’ leadership to become divorced from
core business of schools and their responsibility for
assuring high quality provision for the learning and
other needs of children and young people.
• The teaching and learning immersion programme is
sufficiently successful to be provided in other
centres across and beyond London.
• Opportunity should be taken to promote upward
convergence in schools beyond London, through
transmission and dissemination of strategies used
with great success in the Capital.
CONTACT:
[email protected]