Competition between schools is now an established feature of the education system. In years gone by, the debate over school improvement centred on collective issues, like resources and pedagogy. But education now operates as a quasi-market, where school providers have greater autonomy. Parent choice is the name of the game, with schools competing for students and the funding they bring. This strategy became a key policy of David Cameron’s coalition government, aiming to “drive up standards through competition”.
The question is whether this approach lends itself to effective collaboration between schools. According to the National Union of Teachers (NUT), it doesn’t. In 2013, it warned that “the single biggest challenge to collaboration is the government’s marketised approach to education, which is resulting in greater competition, rather than collaboration, between schools.”
The government quickly dismissed this concern, citing Silicon Valley as its inspiration: “In the business world, including Silicon Valley, collaboration and competition live side by side.” Ministers admitted that competition could create tension between schools, but claimed these were merely “creative tensions”. “That is healthy, because it might encourage them to collaborate,” they said.
‘Competitive isolation’
Despite assurances, research has continued to question whether competition may be damaging collaboration. In 2014, an official report acknowledged ongoing concerns that schools could be “characterised by competitive isolation”. Even a report by Policy Exchange, the right-wing thinktank, noted that certain academy chains were “trademarking their school improvement systems” which “could be detrimental to the system as a whole if this were to prevent teachers and schools sharing ideas”.
So is competition really holding back collaboration? “I think it really is,” says teacher Paul Maynard*. “When it comes down to developing resources and delivering learning through teachers that you’ve trained excellently, then it doesn’t make a lot of sense to simply give that away.
Maynard says that other schools nearby schools are losing dozens of pupils who are switching to his. “Those schools don’t really want my school to have any more influence on their pupils than currently happens,” he explains. “At a teacher level, there’s plenty of willingness to help out. But if I were one of those heads, I would be trying to limit the impact that my school had on others.”
Wendy Marshall, chief executive of the David Ross Educational Trust, admits: “Obviously we’re going to look after ourselves first because we’ve got an accountability to our stakeholders. But if we’ve got anything that’s of any value or use to anybody, we will share it. But the hard part – the bit that money can’t buy – is developing a culture and that feeling that you’re going to be supported even if you get it wrong.”
She says collaboration is now flourishing within her multi-academy trust (Mat), after years of development. “Everyone’s got a collective urge to make sure that the group shares resources to make everybody stronger than they would be individually, and that’s the key thing.”
Struggle and support
But being in an Mat does not necessarily boost collaboration within the group. For a start, it is inevitably more difficult for smaller chains. “You’ve got to have enough schools to have enough outstanding teachers in those schools,” Marshall says.
Professor Merryn Hutchings, from London Metropolitan University, agrees. “The government keeps telling us that Mats can collaborate. They can, but they don’t necessarily – and other schools can too. I’ve been to one academy which was part of a large chain and I said to the head: ‘Do you get together with the heads of the other schools in the chain?’ He said: ‘We don’t really have anything to do with the chain at all’.”
Mary Bousted, general secretary of the ATL union, says the government’s marketised approach has broken up traditional methods of collaboration, with schools left to fend for themselves. “Fragmentation has meant that teachers and schools are much more isolated and there’s much less opportunity to share,” she says. “Teachers want to share and collaborate. But there is a definite sense among teachers now that they’re much more isolated in their schools. The quality of the training and development you get as a member of staff very much depends on the school leadership. If you’re in a good Mat, where best practice is shared, you’ll be doing very well. But if you’re not, then you won’t be. It’s the luck of the draw.”
However, many teachers have positive experiences of collaboration and there are plenty of examples of effective partnerships. “There are lots of opportunities out there for collaboration – at an individual, departmental or school level,” says Chris Hewett*, who teaches at an academy.
“It is largely the responsibility of the school to collaborate, but there are levers in place that encourage schools to do it. For example, Ofsted would look for evidence that you are working with successful schools. If you are a failing school there would be more pressure to collaborate further. In my current school there is definitely a lot of collaboration with other schools and teachers – and we aren’t part of a big Mat.”
*Names have been changed
