The changing roles of English LEAs:
a study of practice
Mel Ainscow, Andy Howes and Maria Nicolaidou
University of Manchester.
Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference, Cardiff University, September 7-10 2000
We are working with a number of LEAs in relation to their school improvement strategies, focusing specifically on notions of inclusion. Recently we prepared an evaluation report for one of these authorities, looking specifically at the impact of its work on schools. Overall we were very positive in our comments, not least because of the reactions we had picked up during our discussions with Heads and teachers. However, senior officers within the LEA expressed concern about certain aspects of our report. They were particularly doubtful about the sections in which we referred to the long hours spent by members of their service in preparing schools for Ofsted inspections. Their concern was that during their forthcoming LEA inspection this evidence could leave them exposed to criticism.
This story illustrates the sense of uncertainty and, indeed, threat that seems to permeate the work of senior staff within English LEAs at the moment. In this paper we try to throw light on the nature of these pressures and their impact. More specifically, we attempt to understand the directions in which policy is moving and the influences that are driving the changes that are occurring. This analysis leads us to consider some of the implications and to pinpoint areas that we intend to pursue through more detailed research. In this sense the paper should be seen as ‘work in progress’.
The changing roles of LEAs
Massive changes within the English education system in recent years have significantly affected the roles and responsibilities of LEAs, the detail of which is still being resolved. There is evidence of a growing political commitment to ‘raising standards’, intertwined with a struggle to determine how the education system is to be managed. The interaction between schools and LEAs in relation to educational improvement has clearly been on the Government’s agenda since the White Paper, ‘Excellence in Cities’, and the School Standards and Framework Act, 1998:
‘The role of LEAs is not to control schools, but to challenge all schools to improve and support those which need help to raise standards’ (DfEE 1997, p67)
The apparent tension here between the notions of ‘challenge’, ‘support’ and ‘need’ is suggestive of a fundamental tension ‘between autonomy and external intervention’ (Audit Commission 1998, p.9). So, whilst the principle responsibility for ‘driving up standards’ lies with individual schools, LEAs remain responsible for ‘failing schools’. Similar tensions exist ‘between local and national levels’ (ibid. P.9). LEAs need to work collaboratively within their contexts to find local solutions to problems that arise through particular conditions and cultural practices, and yet there are external agendas to which they are being driven to respond.
The significance of the changes that are going on in respect to the roles of LEAs can only be understood if they are viewed within the context of the wider developments that have been going on in the English education system over the last twenty years. The agenda for these changes has been taken on by national politicians and has been associated with an intensification of interest throughout the system in how to raise standards of achievement. A variety of legislative efforts to improve schools occurred during the 1980s, culminating in a series of Acts of Parliament of which the 1988 Education Reform Act, known as ‘ERA’, was the most important. These Acts were consolidated by further legislation in the early 1990s and then continued by the new Labour Government that came into office in 1997.
There are four main fronts on which this attack on the traditional organisation of the school system has been carried forward, of which three hit hard at established local education authority structures. Increasing prescription, of which the prime examples were the National Curriculum and the associated schemes for national testing at 7, 11 and 14, removed some of the school’s control over the curriculum and increased the influence of the DfEE. Decentralisation had a direct effect in reducing roles of local education authorities, with key policy initiatives such as local management of schools and increased power for school governors. So did competition, which reduced the control of the authority over provision; this was encouraged by the introduction of grant-maintained status for schools, open enrolment supported by the publication of ‘league tables’ of school results, and a general emphasis on the use of performance indicators. Finally there was the privatisation of services to schools, such as cleaning and catering, professional advice and school inspections. This latter reform, involving the full inspection of each school every four years by teams of trained and nationally accredited independent inspectors, acting on behalf of a government agency (The Office of Standards in Education, or Ofsted), proved to be a very significant influence on thinking and attitudes in the school system, including local education authorities.
In these ways occupational and organisational norms within LEAs have been challenged, particularly since the election of the Labour government in 1997. Within the current Government’s overall agenda for raising standards in education, in all schools and for all pupils, four major policy documents provide the overall context within which LEAs are now required to operate. Educational Development Plans must include the LEA’s proposals for approval by the Secretary of State, setting out performance targets and a school improvement programme designed to address and achieve these targets, plus supporting information to underpin the proposals. The Code of Practice on LEA - School Relations makes explicit the principles, expectations, powers and responsibilities that must guide the work of LEAs in relation to schools. In particular, it places responsibilities on LEAs to intervene in schools found to have serious weaknesses or placed in special measures as a result of an Ofsted inspection. As the Educational Development Plan prescribes what LEAs are required to do, the Code focuses on how it should be done. Fair Funding sets out to clear the ‘funding fog’ surrounding education budgets by requiring funds to be allocated transparently and in line with a clearer definition of the respective roles of schools and LEAs; school improvement is one of the areas in which the LEA is permitted to retain central funding (Derrington, 2000). Lastly, the Framework for the Inspection of Local Education Authorities defines the basis of the inspection programme which, it is argued, will identify the strengths and weaknesses of each LEA inspected, including the effectiveness of its support for school improvement.
Together, then, these policy documents provide the means for determining what LEAs will address, how they will operate, how all of this will be funded and how the whole strategy will be monitored and evaluated. In the context of this shifting framework of policy and this developing understanding of the process of facilitating school improvement, our study of LEA practices in respect to related issues is highly illuminative. What becomes clear is that national policy is only one of the elements informing the activities of the LEA in respect of schools. In addition, a bleaker side is revealed, showing how those within LEAs are struggling to respond to competing agendas.
Analysing practice
In this section we describe and reflect on accounts of the work of LEA school improvement staff in order to make some sense of the approaches that are being used and the factors that are influencing these developments. Traditionally such staff were known as LEA advisers or inspectors, but increasingly new titles, such as ‘school improvement officer’, are used in order to signal their more specific areas of responsibility. In this paper we have chosen to retain the more generic term, ‘adviser’. The accounts presented are based on our observations in schools and interviews with school staff, particularly headteachers, and LEA advisers. These examples give some flavour of the different approaches we have noted within LEAs.
St. Ann’s Primary School. This account tells the story of a LEA adviser’s involvement in a small primary school as it worked its way out of special measures over the last year. In describing how he had first become involved in the school in September 1998, the adviser explained that at the time ‘on paper’ all looked well and the school had had a satisfactory Ofsted inspection. Apparently ‘alarm bells had rung’, however, when there was difficulty in appointing a new Headteacher. It seemed that rumours were around in the area about difficulties in the school. Eventually the adviser arranged for the present Headteacher to join the school, initially on a two term secondment, covering the period up to the school’s second inspection. At the same time two advisers had a look at the school and concluded that ‘it was an absolute disaster’.
Although the LEA attempted to mobilise support for the school, including the seconding in of a deputy head, the inspection carried out in March 1999 resulted in the school being placed in special measures. The actual report pinpointed nine key issues, plus four supplementary issues. The adviser noted that it was the worst report he had seen.
In the following period the adviser helped the school develop an action plan, as required by the legislation. In addition the LEA also had to produce its own plan for supporting the school. During a follow-up visit made by HMI, in September 1999, this latter plan was described as being ‘exemplary’. However, the same HMI suggested that these plans should be ‘put away’ in order that she could provide a more specific strategy for moving the school forward. In essence she felt that the Ofsted report had led to far too many action points, some of which were in the wrong order of priority, and that it was necessary to have a much more focused agenda. Her proposals placed considerable emphasis on staff observing one another teaching and the use of what she called ‘de luxe lesson planning’. This was the approach that the Head adopted, with the adviser’s support.
At the same time they chose to ignore one piece of advice given by the HMI. Having observed one young teacher for a short period, the inspector was reported to have said, ‘She’s hopeless, get rid of her’. However, top priority was given to bringing about deep improvements in that teacher’s classroom.
During the period following the HMI visit, from September to December, the school went through a further period of deep crisis. The adviser noted that three weeks before Christmas ‘the main objective was to avoid fatalities’. Staff illnesses and the presence of lots of supply teachers had, it seemed, led to a sense of growing unease amongst pupils. The LEA attempted to mobilise further help, including members of the behaviour support team and the school psychological service. A SENCO from another school came to help ‘sort out paper work’ in relation to the school’s special needs policy, and an experienced deputy head was also seconded to the school. Support was offered from other schools, including a secondary Head who offered to come and do some teaching. In essence, the LEA’s role during this period involved mobilising various forms of external support from within the local community.
Towards the end of the term the school started to settle down as teachers who had been ill returned to their duties. In January the HMI returned for a further visit. The adviser remembered fearing the worst since he felt that little progress had been made, even though a ‘school improvement teacher’ had been put in the school. Things had calmed down in the school, however, and the adviser and the Head remember discussing, ‘will we get away with it?’. The adviser felt it wiser not to report the situation to senior colleagues in the LEA at this stage, although he recalled being very anxious about this decision.
Much to everybody’s relief, after two days of observation the HMI reported ‘good progress’. Reflecting on what had happened, the Headteacher noted, ‘We had worked to
her menu!’
In the period that followed, steady progress was made and in June of this year two HMI concluded that the school could be taken out of special measures, ahead of the expected schedule. Commenting on what happened, the Head explained that the lead HMI ‘had arrived with that frame of mind’. The adviser added that this HMI ‘has faith in the Head and in the LEA’. It is worth noting that recent SAT results at KS2 have shown a massive improvement, no pupils have been excluded, and staff morale is said to be very high.
In discussing this fascinating account with the adviser we reflected on his role in such a school. We agreed that it would be impossible to follow a recipe in such situations. Each school in difficulty has its own unique problems. Consequently, it is necessary to ‘read’ the situation. For example, what is the nature of the underlying difficulties in the school? Is the Head actually able to produce an acceptable action plan? (apparently in one local school recently the plan was written by the adviser after the Head’s submission was rejected by Ofsted).
All of this is a messy, unpredictable process within which the action plans that are produced are of little practical use. As the adviser noted in relation to St Ann’s, ‘I’ve never even looked at the LEA action plan since it was written’. It seems, then, that the plans and targets represent a form of ‘window-dressing’ that conceal a much more complex set of social processes of working with people to build confidence and increase collaboration in the school in order to solve practical problems. In this context, much of the adviser’s actions were with, or though, the Head: ‘It’s about coordinating support in the background ..... My key role is supporting the Head’. It also seemed that his experience as a former headteacher meant that he could offer more tangible help in areas such as the budget.
The account also raises interesting questions about where the power lies in respect to schools in special measures. Despite all the emphasis placed on the role of the Ofsted inspection teams and the actions they require, ultimately what mattered was what the particular HMI felt was necessary. The trick was to get clarity on her requirements and then to ensure they were put into place. Interestingly, this was the 45th school taken out of special measures by this particular HMI.
Parkside Primary School. This school is shortly to be inspected and is on its LEA’s list of those where there is ‘cause for concern’. This is a category created within the particular LEA whereby additional support is provided because there is ‘a high probability of a school being placed in serious weakness or special measures’. This is not public information but the Head and governors are informed. Formal review meetings involving a member of the LEA’s senior management team, an adviser, and the Head and Chair of Governors are held. All of this triggers off the process by which the advisory service has authority to allocate more time to the particular school.
The minutes of such a review meeting in relation to Parkside noted that the ‘Headteacher was unhappy with the tone of the letter inviting the school to this meeting’. It went on, ‘The Assistant Director apologised and agreed to look at wording of the letter. The Head and Chair were happy with the intention behind the process of discussing at termly meetings how the LEA can monitor progress and provide support’. The minutes went on to summarise the ‘issues facing the school’, as follows: governing body weaknesses; low standards of attainment; attendance - high level of authorised absence; and quality of teaching, compounded by a high number of maternity leaves. In addition, the Head reported concerns about support for special needs and children from minority ethnic backgrounds. Another set of minutes summarised a ‘supported school self review’ visit on 29th March 2000, involving two LEA advisers. As a result of their classroom observations a series of very positive remarks were made about the learning environment, management, staff work and commitment, and the implementation of the Numeracy and Literacy Strategies. The minutes conclude, ‘Given the many clear strengths of the school, in particular the high proportion of good or very good teaching, it is not easy to understand why the school has experienced low standards of attainment in recent years.’ These minutes also summarised the ‘main points from classroom observations which formed the basis of feedback to individual teachers’. These notes tended to be descriptive of what had occurred, interspersed with frequent evaluative comments, such as ‘an excellent lesson’, ‘demonstrated secure knowledge and understanding of the subject’, ‘strong pleasant relationships’, ‘ the teacher exposition was undifferentiated’, and ‘classroom management was not sufficiently effective’. Issues for action were also noted and two teachers were seen as requiring ‘regular monitoring’.