BEACON SCHOOLS: FURTHER EXTERNAL EVALUATION OF THE INITIATIVE
Final Report
Peter Rudd
Deborah Davies
Jim Jamison
Mark Rickinson
Robyn Johnson
May 2001
CONTENTS
page
Acknowledgements
1.INTRODUCTION
1.1Introduction
1.2Background and Rationale
1.3Aims of the Evaluation
1.4Methodology of the Evaluation
1.5Report Structure
2.BECOMING A BEACON SCHOOL
2.1Gaining Beacon Status
2.2Identifying Areas of Good Practice
3.BEACON ACTIVITIES
3.1Beacon Areas and Activities – Questionnaire Findings
3.2Beacon Areas and Activities – Case-Study Schools
4.THE NATURE OF BEACON RELATIONSHIPS
4.1Beacon Relationships and Partnership Models
4.2Beacon Relationships: the 1999 Case Studies
4.3Beacon Relationships: the 2000 Case Studies
5.THE ROLE OF THE LEA
5.1Positive Aspects of LEA Involvement in the Beacon School Initiative
5.2Difficulties Encountered by Beacon Schools and LEAs
6.RESOURCES AND VALUE FOR MONEY
6.1Value for Money
6.2Expenditure
6.3Funding
7.SUCCESSES OF BEACON WORK
7.1Successes for Beacon Schools
7.2Successes for Partner Schools
8.ISSUES AND CHALLENGES
8.1Staff Workload
8.2Potential Disruption
8.3Managing Relationships with Partner Schools
8.4Relationships with the LEA
8.5Feedback from DfEE
8.6Evaluation
8.7Long-term Prospects
9.EMERGING ISSUES
9.1Introduction
9.2Funding, Workload and Time Pressures
9.3The Role of the LEA
9.4Feedback and Information Cycles
9.5Quantity and Quality in Beacon Partnerships
9.6Partnerships, Consortia or Networks
10.CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ACTION
10.1Summary and Conclusions
10.2Recommendations for Action by DfEE
10.3Recommendations for Action by Beacon Schools
10.4Recommendations for Partner Schools
10.5Recommendations for Local Education Authorities
Appendix AResponses from Annual Report Questionnairei
Appendix BInterview Schedulesv
Appendix CThe Annual Report Questionnairexvii
Appendix DSupport Mechanisms for Beacon Schoolsxxxv
Appendix ENumbers and Types of Schools joining the Beacon Initiative at Different Phases xxxix
Appendix FBibliography and Referencesxli
BECOMING A BEACONSCHOOL
Acknowledgements
The research team would like to express their gratitude to the headteachers and staff in schools and Local Education Authorities (LEAs) who participated in the evaluation, by giving generously of their time to contribute to the evidence and insights on which this report is based.
We should also like to thank colleagues who served on the steering group and provided practical and informed guidance throughout the evaluation, along with members of the Beacon Team at the Department for Education and Employment (DfEE), who were very efficient in providing us with additional information concerning the initiative.
Project team:
Project DirectorSheila Stoney
Project LeaderPeter Rudd
Project TeamDeborah Davies
Peter Dickson
Jim Jamison
Robyn Johnson
Mark Rickinson
Monica Taylor
Project StatisticianRachel Felgate
Project AdministratorJulia Rose
Project LibrarianPauline Benefield
BECOMING A BEACONSCHOOL
1.INTRODUCTION
1.1Introduction
The Beacon Schools programme continues to expand at some speed and the initiative is of central importance in the DfEE’s raising standards agenda. Although the policy is, in some respects, still in its relatively early stages, there is now a developing body of evidence and experience relating to Beacon activity, along with increasing awareness of the significance of this expansion on the part of the policy, practitioner and research communities.
The time was therefore right for the further external evaluation of the initiative reported upon here. This evaluation provided an opportunity to build upon the previous research base – the NFER carried out the first evaluation of Beacon Schools last year – and to investigate and inform the further impact of the work of Beacon Schools. Considerations of new emphases within the initiative, such as the creation of more Beacon partnerships in urban contexts, were incorporated into the research framework used for this project.
1.2Background and Rationale
At the time this evaluation started there were 250 Beacon Schools. Each of these receives extra funding of around £35,000 a year, usually for a minimum period of three years, (though the actual amounts vary considerably) in exchange for an agreed programme of activities to enable them to collaborate with and help to raise standards in other schools (DfEE, 2000c). The programme of activities is based on identified strengths of the school and has the aims of spreading good practice to, and promoting new ideas in, a number of partner institutions. These partnerships are, however, two-way and multi-faceted, and many of the Beacon Schools are at pains to stress that this is a learning process for their own staff as well as for individuals at other institutions.
The launch of the Beacon Schools initiative was announced in the summer of 1998. The aim was for these schools to play a formative role for other schools in identifying, celebrating, disseminating and promoting good practice in key areas. The first 75 Beacon Schools began operating in September 1998. A further 125 joined in September 1999. As part of this selection, attempts were made to ensure that there was a broad geographical distribution of schools and that schools from a range of different socio-economic contexts were included. A further 50 schools joined the initiative in January 2000, bringing the total to 250. Within these 250 schools, 50 participant schools are in city areas as identified in the Excellence in Cities strategy (DfEE, 1999a and b).
The number of Beacon Schools in operation more than doubled in September 2000 when a further 300 schools took on Beacon status. A further 37 were added in January 2001 (for full details of phases, numbers of school joining, and types of school joining, please see Appendix E). Schools in the most recent cohorts have been selected on the basis of one or more of three factors:
appearance in the most recent annual reports of Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of schools as a ‘high performing’ school;
past and present school performance in relation to school circumstances;
Local Education Authority nominations.
The identification of relative school performance within free school meal bands and the calculation of a rate of improvement (based on GCSE/GNVQ results for secondary schools and key stage 2 results for primary schools) ensured that schools from a variety of socio-economic contexts would be eligible for selection for Beacon status at this stage of the initiative (DfEE, 2000a). In addition LEAs where Beacon schools were underrepresented were each asked to nominate between one and three schools as eligible to apply for Beacon status. This latter approach ensured a further geographical spread and also provided a basis for LEA involvement in the selection process.
The Beacon Schools initiative is now one of seven major strands within the Excellence in Cities policy. The goal of Excellence in Cities is ‘to raise standards in inner city schools and to change both the reality and perception of what is possible’ (DfEE, 1999b). Further, a central and explicit aim of the policy is ‘diversity of provision within a coherent framework’. It is clearly expected that Beacon Schools will make a major contribution to the achievement of these broad policy goals. It is anticipated that they will have an important role to play in terms of diversifying provision, disseminating good practice and raising expectations in schools in areas of urban disadvantage. By September 2001, within a national network, at least one in four Beacons will be in or serving a city area and Beacons outside city areas will have specified partners in areas of social deprivation (DfEE, 1999a).
There have also been some changes of emphasis on how Beacon Schools, regardless of socio-economic context, might disseminate and promote their activities, with further encouragement, for example, to use new forms of technology and communications. An example of this was the announcement of a DfEE partnership with International Business Machines (IBM) based upon the provision of technical services and support for Beacon Schools, worth up to $1 million over two years (DfEE 1999c). IBM’s Re-Inventing Education project, already operating in a number of other countries, has initially been implemented in 11 BeaconSchools and their partners. One of the aims of this project is to consider whether a software package, Wired for Learning, can facilitate the exchange of information between teachers and others involved in the project (IBM, 1999).
1.3Aims of the Evaluation
The evaluation of pilot Beacon Schools, carried out by the NFER last year, showed how, despite some initial difficulties, the first 75 Beacon Schools were rapidly adapting to the demands of the initiative (Rudd et al., 2000).[1] They were trying out different ways, with considerable success, of encouraging good practice elsewhere whilst, on the whole, maintaining the high quality of education achieved in their own institutions. There may well have been some ‘settling down’ and consolidation of Beacon work in this first cohort of Beacon Schools – and in addition the newer cohorts will have benefited from guidance developed in the light of earlier Beacon experiences. This further evaluation has been able to consider these types of issues. The aims of this further study have been to assess and evaluate:
the range and quality of BeaconSchool activities – for the purpose of identifying the more successful models of dissemination;
the impact of Beacon activities on partner schools and on Beacon Schools themselves – in particular those effects that are likely to be most enduring;
the extent, nature and quality of relationships between BeaconSchools and their partner institutions;
resourcing issues and the cost effectiveness of the initiative.
1.4Methodology of the Evaluation
The main stages in the methodology of the project were as follows:
Questionnaire analysis. A report was produced based upon information provided by 229 Beacon schools in response to the Annual Report Questionnaire issued to schools by the Department for Education and Employment (DfEE) (Davies et al., 2000). The questionnaire required schools to account for their Beacon activity for the period 1 April 1999 to 31 March 2000. Comparisons were made with the information collected from the Evaluation of Pilot Beacon Schools (1999) so as to give some account of similarities and changes in the nature of Beacon activity year on year.[2]
As indicated above, the evidence upon which this report was based was collected from a total of 229 Beacon Schools.[3] These schools were located in 105 different Local Education Authorities (LEAs) and the distribution of respondent schools by sector was as follows:
eight nursery schools
96 primary schools
104 secondary schools
21 special schools.
Qualitative case studies. Case studies of 16 Beacon Schools were carried out to ascertain the positive aspects of Beacon work and to highlight further issues and difficulties that the schools have encountered. The fieldwork phase of the evaluation was carried out between September 2000 and February 2001 and included:
Follow up visits of previous case studies. These involved revisits to the original eight pilot school case studies (as evaluated by the NFER team last year). Initially, a single visit was made to each BeaconSchool to ascertain developments and progress one year on from the previous evaluation.
New case studies of eight BeaconSchools and their partner institutions. These were schools which acquired their Beacon status in either September 1999 (when 125 schools joined) or January 2000 (when a further 50 schools joined). Each of these case studies involved a core set of activities, consisting of interviews with key staff at the BeaconSchool, key staff at partner institutions and relevant documentary analysis.
Criteria for the selection of the ‘new’ case-study schools. The process for selecting the new case-study Beacon Schools involved the research team drawing up a list of potential schools from the evidence provided by schools on their Annual Report Questionnaires. In consultation with the DfEE, a range of criteria was used to help identify a ‘long list’ of possible schools and the eight case-study schools were selected from this list by the NFER.[4] The criteria for selecting the case-study schools were as follows:
Sector: three secondary schools, three primary schools, onenursery school and one special school were included in the fieldwork (reflecting the spread of the 250 current Beacon Schools).
Geography: based on eight different regions in England; South West, South East/South, London, East, West Midlands, East Midlands, North West and North East.
LEA context: given the importance of the LEA/Beacon School relationship, case studies included two schools that were deemed to have ‘close relations’ with their LEAs.
Mode of dissemination: steps were taken to include both Beacon activities that were identified last year, such as INSET/Continued Professional Development and the use of ICT, as well as certain types of newly-identified activities such as the provision for ‘Gifted and Talented’ pupils.
Involvement in IBM ‘Reinventing Education’ Programme: one school in the first phase of this new DfEE/IBM partnership programme was included among the case studies; another was in the second phase of this programme.
‘Maturity’ of Beacon Schools: schools could have joined the initiative in Phase 1 (September 1998), Phase 2 (September 1999) or Phase 3 (January 2000). Phase 1 schools made up the ‘revisit’ part of the fieldwork and the new case studies included schools from Phases 2 and 3.
1.5Report Structure
This report summarises the outcomes derived from the methodological approach described above. It makes use of both the quantitative questionnaire data and the qualitative case-study material to provide:
an overview of the achievements and value of the Beacon Schools initiative, two years on;
an active comparison of current BeaconSchool and partner experiences with their main experiences as described in the previous Beacon evaluation;
updated illustrative examples of good practice in Beacon dissemination, along with further examples of how difficulties and issues have been resolved;
a set of recommendations for the future based on, and illustrated by, material gathered from the case studies.
This introductory Section has briefly set out some of the policy background as it relates to the Beacon Schools Initiative and has also outlined the evaluation aims and methods. The ways in which case-study schools have come to apply for Beacon status and the processes through which they identified areas of good practice are considered in Section 2. In Section 3, the discussion moves on to the kinds of activities Beacon Schools have offered to their partner schools. Sections 4 and 5 are concerned with exploring the nature of Beacon partnerships, both with other schools and with LEAs. Issues around the resourcing of Beacon activity and ‘value for money’ are considered in Section 6. The following two sections (Sections 7 and 8) outline the successes and problems or issues arising from the initiative; both from the points of view of Beacon Schools themselves, and from the perspectives of their partners. General issues, as they have emerged from the evaluation as a whole, are outlined in Section 9 and a final Section presents some recommendations for action for consideration by the relevant parties.
BECOMING A BEACONSCHOOL
2.BECOMING A BEACONSCHOOL
2.1Gaining Beacon Status
The 16 case-study Beacon Schools visited as part of the evaluation included the eight ‘pilot’ schools from the 1999 evaluation and an additional eight schools. Those schools that were new to the evaluation this year, were asked about their motivation for becoming a BeaconSchool. Most of the ‘new’ case-study schools included in this evaluation reported that they were invited to bid for Beacon status by the DfEE, generally as a result of having a good OFSTED inspection. Schools were obviously pleased to receive such an invitation – and at least one school described the invitation as having the effect of boosting morale – but such invitations did not always guarantee future Beacon status or funding. One of the school’s initial bids was unsuccessful (due, the headteacher thought, to an over-emphasis on the use of ICT equipment rather than staff training and development). This school subsequently re-focused its areas of Beacon activity and its re-application was accepted.
In addition to this external recognition, a number of schools reported that the drive and vision of the headteacher provided the impetus for becoming a BeaconSchool. One headteacher described himself as ‘having a passion for staff development… I saw an opportunity to create a mini training department.’
It was clear from the interviews that schools commonly had in place a culture of professionalism and a willingness to share good practice both among staff within the BeaconSchool and usually with other schools and/or LEAs. For example, one school provided in-service training on behalf of the LEA prior to their Beacon status. Another school’s Beacon status had enabled staff to manage the disruption caused by ad hoc visits to the school – the Beacon role allowed them to disseminate their good practice via a structured programme of courses. In this sense, securing Beacon status provided the means to formalise and rationalise existing links and partnerships.
In other schools, headteachers reported that their school’s Beacon status provided them with the opportunity to improve their status in the local community, and that the initiative was a way of widening horizons of staff and providing the school with a new professional challenge.
A number of headteachers reported that the decision to become a BeaconSchool had been taken in consultation with teaching staff. One headteacher was concerned to know whether her staff wanted a stable period, or if they felt ready take on Beacon status and held a vote amongst staff.
There were no difficulties reported in relation to the process of becoming a BeaconSchool, other than having a bid declined, following an invitation from the DfEE (see above).
The evidence from these new case-study schools broadly reflects the findings from the 1999 evaluation of the eight pilot schools. The invitation from DfEE to bid for Beacon status appears to continue to be a major factor in encouraging schools to become involved in the initiative.[5] It is noticeable, however, that some of the practical difficulties experienced by schools in the first phase of the initiative, notably the short time-scale between notification of status and ‘starting up, were not reported by schools this year.
2.2Identifying Areas of Good Practice
The evidence from the interviews with the ‘new’ schools suggests that schools have come to a decision about their strengths during a process of reflection on their existing work, often using a combination of: