In 2023, Forum Strategy published two papers on system leadership, outlining how significant change across education within the last decade has required a different view of what it means to drive forward improvement and change at a system level. One of the three key areas picked up within that work was the vital importance of locality leadership and the partnerships that underpin it. In this article for Forum Strategy, Joe Hallgarten, former CEO of the CFEY, reflects on this important area and how trust leaders can continue to be at the heart of driving forward meaningful local collaboration.
At the height of the pandemic, I had the privilege of working part-time for a small Primary academy trust in Tower Hamlets, teaching Year 4 and leading our trust’s curriculum development work. What struck me during this extraordinary, and incredibly challenging time, was the outpouring of collaborative spirit even through adversity. I saw this at many different levels. At a classroom level as I observed teachers plan their lessons ready for any kind of bubble, hybrid or face to face permutation. At a trust level as I supported the development of a new ‘explorer’ curriculum or a new anti-racist policy. And at a community level, in the way we built on existing relationships with parents, mosques and other community organisations to offer support to families that went far beyond just the educational. But, what also proved vital throughout all of this was our partnerships with a range of other local school networks, whether hyper-local (in Poplar), or more widely across the locality (through the excellent Tower Hamlets Education Partnership).
Since then, in my first two years as CEO of the Centre for Education and Youth (CFEY), much of our work has focused on localities and place-led change. As a small team of former teachers and youth workers, we work collaboratively with a large active network of organisations and individuals, breaking down divisions and bridging gaps between practitioners, policymakers and researchers across disparate parts of the education and youth sectors. Through our evaluative and investigative research and our practical innovations, we shape debate, inform policy and change practices, so that all young people, especially those most at risk of poor outcomes and marginalisation, can thrive.
Place-led change is a core theme of our work. We think there is an urgent need to understand more about the contexts, conditions, and environments that enable local communities to have a positive impact on the lives of children and young people, and the barriers that prevent them from doing so. We believe trust leaders have an important role to play in these important debates, challenging current orthodoxies around how local-led education change can be enabled.
Our current thinking is based on two beliefs, both of which are offered as opportunities to open up debate and dialogue.
The first fundamental belief we have, as I’ve argued in a 2019 pre-White paper analysis and prognosis, is that any future structural reforms should go with the grain of a school system that is plural and diverse but not necessarily fragmented (as many suggest is the case now). Rather than force the pace of academisation, we could accept that the current plurality of school structures is likely to continue, and that there is no evidence-based rationale beyond policymakers’ need for ‘tidiness’ to change this. Yes, the current system may, at times, feel a little messy, but we have always had a diverse education system, with a range of independent, faith and local authority schools, some of whom rely heavily on their local authority for improvement support, others who access and offer support more autonomously. The problem, in our view, is not about a half-academised system. The problem is a system that appears to struggle with building sufficient, consistent capacity for school improvement (whether within or beyond a school); it struggles to co-ordinate or allocate this capacity effectively so that every single school within the system that needs it, receives the right support at the right time; and it cannot effectively regulate so that those responsible for school improvement are also accountable in the right ways. The challenge, in our view, is to make the most of the patchwork of schools, trusts, groups and other improvement providers so that no school is left behind, informed by academy-agnostic evidence on the effectiveness of different partnerships and improvement models. In my view, rather than a fully trust-led education system, we should be aiming for a trust-enabled self-improving school system.
Our second belief is that regardless of the rate of schools joining trusts, something else might be needed alongside this at a local or regional level. This is partly about oversight (and we think that MAT commissioning responsibilities should largely pass from DfE to LAs or sub-regions). Our report on area-based education partnerships revealed a growing number of semi-formal, voluntary local alliances and relationships that support school improvement (and wider goals) across a local area, separate from (but often engaging with) formal school networks such as trusts. From inner London to other urban areas and in some cases across whole regions, Area Based Education Partnerships (ABEPs) have emerged organically in response to local need, drawing on the professional perspectives of school leaders and other wider stakeholders. These partnerships are seen by many locally as vital to tackling some of the big challenges affecting schools, trusts, and crucially, young people: soaring costs, pupil absence, and enduring workload pressures to name but a few. In addition, our report highlighted several potential ‘bridging’ roles of ABEPs, including bridging between the outcomes our education system currently values, and broader outcomes – from wellbeing to career-readiness. This links to the kind of locality leadership envisaged from some of Forum Strategy’s CEO members in last year’s cutting-edge reports on system leadership in the academy trust system. Liberated from formal ‘accountability’ upwards to DfE, these partnerships can enable schools to nurture forms of ‘lateral accountability’ where, as professional peers, they can review and support improvement – in the widest sense of the word – in less formal but powerful ways. Liberated from the constraints and day-to-day pressures that individual MATs face, they can draw on local assets and infrastructure to provide opportunities for learners and teachers that address the particular needs of groups and draw on the particular strengths of otherwise unconnected schools in a locality.
Building on this report, we’ve launched England’s first ever publicly available, interactive map of local collaborative partnerships that go beyond what many trusts or schools alone might be offering. Our map allows local authorities, schools and teachers to find local partnerships in their own area and in areas with similar characteristics. Whilst usually rooted in school improvement, many of these partnerships support broader outcomes for young people, and lever local collaborations – for instance with employers, charities or youth organisations, on behalf of many schools. This might include issues from careers advice to youth violence – those things that affect schools and pupil performance, but that lone organisations struggle to deal with alone. As well as being an invaluable tool for trust leaders and all those interested in driving local collaborative change, the map adds to the ongoing and much-needed debate about localism and the place of schools in their communities.
The map is a work in progress; we have already had strong engagement from policymakers, and local leaders, who have offered us their feedback, allowing us to make significant improvements.
We now need your help. Our top priority is Multi Academy Trusts; although many of the partnerships we have found do include trusts, we would like to document the local partnerships that trusts are involved in or leading beyond the schools they are directly responsible for. We know that many trusts already engage in this work, often linked to their values and ambitions as civic institutions. To take one example, Delta Academy Trust’s leadership of the Education Exchange. In capturing these kinds of examples, we want to defuse the myths – and we know they are out there – that trusts are inward looking, focused only on their own schools, and don’t engage well with their localities; and instead show the true picture that many trusts are very much at the heart of communities and are forming effective local partnerships to support children & young people and their families.
Some conversations we have been involved in with local leaders have, at times, mentioned that some trusts do, at times, appear to act in ways that might seem insular. In particular, some of the large geographically dispersed trusts who might opt for a highly centralised model, might have too few schools in certain localities to encourage local engagement, or might only want to connect as part of a ‘join our MAT’ sales pitch. However, it is important to also acknowledge that this is not a MAT vs non-MAT problem, LA-maintained schools can of course act in a similar way. Big Local Trust’s 2022 report on relationships with public agencies suggested that ‘school connections tend to be ad hoc, except where there is some means of ongoing dialogue.’ There is a sense that schools can be key players in community-building, but are at risk of being barriers rather than enablers if partnerships are not formed and committed to in the right way.
There is no doubt that trusts have the power to nudge a large number of schools towards local collaboration (and many are already). However, the current reductive accountability and regulatory frameworks that shape trusts’ vision and strategy – including funding agreements – do not directly incentivise local collaboration. But we know that government rhetoric around this is already changing – consider for example, Amanda Spielman’s recent speech where she argued that:
‘MATs should work productively with LAs and with other schools and MATs in their local area…They should work with others to ensure that all pupils in their area receive a high-quality education and appropriate provision, not least the most vulnerable pupils and those subject to exclusion.’
We also know there are plenty of examples of trusts who do not need to wait for government incentives or permission to take forward this work and are at the heart of positive collaboration and partnerships across their locality (several examples of which are referred to in Forum Strategy’s first paper on system leadership).
However, the levers to support meaningful change are slower to turn. We need greater consistency and system wide commitment. Meanwhile, our most vulnerable pupils slip through local nets and some schools and trusts continue to promote local competition over collaboration, and many local organisations keen to support schools have to navigate multiple, confusing entry points.
The good news is we can change this and it is heartening to see some good examples of great locality leadership in places. A better understanding of the range and effectiveness of these partnerships, combined with a proactive role for national government, could make the difference in driving consistency in collaborations across localities. We cannot risk waiting for another pandemic to stimulate the collaborations that our young people so desperately need. So, as trust leaders, with vital roles to play in your local areas, let me finish with three suggestions based on our learning about effective local partnerships:
- Share and shout about your current locality-based work that goes beyond your own schools, including through contributing to our map
- Engage constructively with existing or emerging area-based partnerships in your localities. You might have more to learn or offer than you think.
- Tell us what changes to national policies, regulations and accountability systems might help you to prioritise local partnership-building.
To contribute to the map, please look at your local authority area here and review the information you find there, before contacting us through this form with any suggestions for amendments or additions. To find out more about CfEY’s work or subscribe to our newsletter, please contact hello@cfey.org.
