Presentation on theme: "SUPPORTING LEADERSHIP AND SECURING QUALITY An Evaluation of the Impact of Aspects of the London Leadership Strategy (LLS) Pam Sammons, Peter Matthews,"— Presentation transcript:
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)? Source: http://www.ncsl.org.uk/leadership_development/ldev- londonchallenge-index.cfm 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
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 2. Impact and outcomes 3. Participant and stakeholder perspectives 4. Value for money i. Consultant leaders programme ii. The cumulative effect of leadership development on school effectiveness and improvement iii. Immersion leadership development Characteristics Evaluation and feedback loops Adaptation of processes Internal dissemination Criteria for effectiveness Focus on school improvement, sustainability, keys and barriers to success Cost benefit analysis Cost and benefit case studies Value for money Analysis of VFM Methodology 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.
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 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 The NCSL Consultant Leaders (CL) Programme
Figure 1: Hypothesised Relationships between CL Involvement and Outcomes Barriers + Enablers Other leaders Motivation LEAs Headteacher Staff morale and retention Outcomes Team building Standards behaviour Teaching and Learning Leadership consultant London Challenge Adviser Methods + Engage ment with LLS Strands Intensity Changes to policy and practice + staff development
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)
Figure 4 Relationship between level of engagement with LLS strands and level of social disadvantage of intake (FSM band) (High disadvantage school)(Low disadvantage school)
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. Qualitative strand of the evaluation
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?
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. Formative contribution of the evaluation
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
Data Slide 2 Mean difference between None and Highly engaged schools over time (GCSE average point score per 15 year old pupil)
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.