1. Daniel Muijs @ProfDanielMuijs d.muijs@soton.ac.uk
Collaboration & Networking between Rural Schools: A Model for School Improvement?
Daniel Muijs
@ProfDanielMuijs

2. Networking and collaboration
Increasing interest from policymakers in education
Limitations of top-down approaches
Limitations of single-school improvement
Large number of programmes in the UK recently
Networking has also gained popularity in the private sector due to increased competition and need for innovation

3. Why network?
Many glib statements, but…

4. Theories of networking
Theoretical groundings for networking can be classified as:
Constructivist organisational theory
Social Capital theory
New Social Movements
Durkheimian network theory

5. Any evidence?
Most research qualitative. CUREE (2010) review: some positive effects for professional development and specific subgroups
Chapman & Muijs (2014a, 2014b): quantitative research on impact of Federations shows positive relationship between pupil attainment and being part of ‘performance federation’.

6. So what about rural schools?
Main focus in policy and school improvement has been on urban schools (e.g. ‘London/Manchester Challenge’)
Recent focus on coastal towns
Lack of interest in rural schools, not seen as having the same problems
Recent evidence, however, shows 8 out of 20 lowest performing LA’s largely rural (Paton, 2014)
Specific challenges:
Limited aspirations and lower participation (Baker, 2013)
Distance
Disconnect from government policies (ATL, 2008)

7. So what about rural schools
Key questions:
1. What forms of collaboration and networking exist in rural schools in England?
2. What is the impact of collaboration and networking in rural schools on student outcomes?
3. What factors are associated with successful collaboration in rural schools in England?

8. Methodology – Mixed Methods study
Secondary data analysis:
Reanalysis of public data on school collaboration, focussing on rural schools, using multilevel statistical models
Qualitative interviews with staff in five rural networks (31 schools)
Headteachers/principals
Governors
Teachers

9. What forms of collaboration and networking exist in rural schools in England?
Sample total, percentage schools
Rural sample, percentage schools
Cross-Phase
35.1
38.7
Performance
15.6
12.9
Size
18.8
32.2
Mainstreaming
4.6
Faith
14.8
16.1
Academy Chain
2.3

10. The impact of collaboration
Quasi-experimental design
National Pupil and School Datasets from 2001 onwards
As no list exists, 50 LA’s contacted
Matched sample drawn
Data from Federations project reanalysed using only rural schools
Multilevel models

11. The impact of collaboration
Students outperform their peers in matched non-federation schools in from the second year of Federation.
Being part of network explains between 9% (in year 2) and 22% (in year 4) of the school-level variation in pupil outcomes. In all cases the analyses controlled for student characteristics.
These findings are similar to those in the sample as a whole.

12. Factors associated with successful collaboration
Necessary elements:
Trust – often based on existing relationships. May need to be built up in competitive situations, though less an issue than in urban
Establish clear goals and build in mutual wins at the outset - ‘with the development of the shared CPD, it was pretty clear that we would all, as schools, benefit, and be getting something that we wouldn’t have on our own’ (Headteacher)

13. Factors associated with successful collaboration
Necessary elements:
Distinct activities – e.g CPD, resource sharing, sharing teachers
Where no specific action resulted from collaboration it had, for some interviewees, proved a waste of time: ‘In my previous school we were part of this network, but we never really did anything, we would talk and share ideas, but at the end of the day it kind of died because you have more urgent things to do than just go to meetings.’ (Deputy Head)
Complementary resources and shared needs

14. Factors associated with successful collaboration
Constraints:
In rural areas especially, value needs to be clear as distance can make collaboration costlier
Reluctance among parents and governors
Finance and resources seen as more challenging than in urban collaborations, but competition is less so

15. Generating collaboration
Need for Federating seen as linked to rurality:
‘I come from the South East, where everything is close together, London is just down the road. We don’t have that here, things are not on hand, so it is important for us to develop collaboration between ourselves, and make sure headteachers meet as a group’
Personality driven, or brokered
External consultant role
Relationships developed through action
Joint activities
Middle managers, teachers and sometimes support staff

16. Conclusion
Evidence that collaboration can have positive impacts. BUT: there is variation between networks, it is no panacea
Rural networks are different:
Greater challenges in terms of finance and resources
Greater emphasis on complementary resources and challenges
Contextual factors - greater distance, lower resources, lower (state school) competition

17. Thank you for your attention
Daniel Muijs
@ProfDanielMuijs