Innovation networks in practice: using coaching and mentoring to implement a whole school learning strategy

 

Mr Tom Evans, Miss Paula Smith & Mr Martin Willmott

Queen Elizabeth's Community College
Crediton, Devon, UK

 

Abstract: This paper examines the development of coaching in a large rural community college in the UK. The changing role of training school coaches in the implementation of a whole school learning strategy is discussed and evaluated. Three phases in the development of coaching within the school are identified: Launching, Consolidation and Innovation. The concept of innovation networks is forwarded as an alternative model of school organisation that can enable authentic, sustainable improvements in teaching and learning.

 

Context

Queen Elizabeth's Community College (QECC) is a mixed 11-18 school of 1,545 students serving the small town of Crediton and rural Mid Devon. The school is accommodated on a split site, with a two mile separation creating issues surrounding communication and developing whole school initiatives. As a technology college and high performing specialist school (HPSS) with training school (TS) status, we have focused in recent years on developing a whole college Learning Strategy, which lies at the heart of our school improvement plan. Under the aegis of the training school, using ten training school coaches, the aim has been to transform the classroom experience for both teachers and learners alike and to develop a ‘collective learning culture'. The Skills for Success were identified as those necessary for students to become active lifelong learners who are equipped for life in a globalised post-industrial society. These represent our interpretation of the ‘new educational imaginary' outlined by Hargreaves (2004). The outcomes of this new ‘educational imaginary' are not just improved external examination results but a whole range of competencies that we have highlighted in our new Learning Strategy as the Skills for Success.

QECC Skills for Success

Active lifelong learners must be:

• adaptable;

• creative innovators;

• literate in word, number and ICT;

• able to learn new things quickly;

• able to use new technologies;

• able and confident communicators;

• great team workers;

• emotionally well grounded;

• fit and healthy;

• politically aware citizens;

• self-motivated and responsible;

• possessors of a wide range of interests.

The mechanics of personalising learning in the classroom are notoriously ‘sticky practices', they are often tacit, opaque and difficult to express in words. As a result, this cultural shift in teaching and learning can be hard to put into practice for both students and staff. Pivotal to the implementation of these changes has been the development of ‘innovation networks': creating new spaces for dialogue about teaching and learning.

The action plan: creating a Learning2Learn Network

Outlined below are the phases of implementation to launch and embed a whole-school Learning Strategy via coaching and mentoring.

Phase I: Launching the Learning Strategy (2005)

Staff join one of the following learning networks:

• emotional intelligence;
• creative thinking in the classroom;
• team teaching;
• innovative use of ICT.

Other organisational features include the following.

• Seminars are held during INSET days and in lieu of twilight staff meetings. They have a practical focus and staff apply ideas in their classrooms in their curriculum areas.
• Staff review their learning and can pilot action research projects with their students.
• Staff can use their research for their professional development and Masters programmes.
• Staff evaluate the success of their learning groups, in particular relevance to their own classroom practice and learning.

Phase II Consolidation (2006)

For the second year of running, the initiative staff join another learning workshop from the following:

• emotional intelligence;

• creative thinking in the classroom;
• assessment for learning;
• team teaching;
• innovative use of ICT;
• the Assessment for Learning group was initiated as it was identified in a recent Ofsted inspection as being an area for future development that underpins learning.

Phase III Innovation (2007/8)

Distributed coaching in departmental areas will be based on their own needs analysis (key areas for development based in the annual review and departmental evaluations of strengths and weaknesses). Training school coaches will act as capacity builders to trigger sustainable improvement in departments:

• to develop outreach training with the local learning community using staff and students trained as Lead Learners;
• to train students as Lead Learners in developing peer group teaching strategies with younger students as a pilot project with the Humanities department, both in primary schools and using key stage 5 students to teach key stage 4 students;
• to pilot a middle leaders/ team leaders coaching network across the school in the light of the TLR (Teaching and Learning Responsibility) restructuring process and the national strategy of ‘leading from the middle'.

Rationale: the bigger picture

‘Shared leadership, in a fully democratic sense, is more than mere delegation; it involves a range of voices being heard, perspectives being shared, conflicting interpretations of reality debated' (Wrigley 2003: 33).

Successful distributed leadership then, according to Wrigley means engaging teachers at the chalk face fully in the processes of change, rather than merely paying lip service to ‘empowerment', ‘participation' and ‘teams'. Effecting change in schools must avoid the morale sapping pitfalls of pseudo-participation or contrived collegiality (Gunter 2001: 122, Hargreaves 1994: 35). During Phase I Launch of the Training School Programme, the paramount issue was that of organising the innovation in such a way that facilitated authentic participation from staff. The desired outcome was that the shift towards a learning culture was effective and real for those who would be implementing it in the classroom.

It was decided that the previous department-based meeting structure was not fit for this purpose. The Phase I meeting structure was modelled on the ‘distributed innovation network' with ‘soft', ‘strong', ‘closed' and ‘near' characteristics that have been identified as those most productive in implementing ‘bottom up' change in organisational cultures (see Hargreaves 2005). At its inception a key feature of the delivery of the TS programme would be the use of teaching methods that could serve as a model of the new Learning Strategy. The aim was to develop a ‘culture of coaching', in which sessions would be based on dialogue and ‘learning conversations' between diverse members of staff in a high trust environment. Aspects of dialogic coaching practice have been identified by Creasy and Paterson (2005:29).

The structure of delivery throughout Phase I and Phase II remained centralised following a relatively comfortable format:

• one one-hour seminar once a half-term;
• two coaches to deliver
• typical ‘lesson' structure (introduction, body, plenary);
• delivered in classroom.

The model of delivery, too, while based around a coaching conversation, would be a balance between the delivery of information (coaching) and the session being a forum for the cross-fertilisation of ideas (co-coaching), with the Training School Coach being the facilitator. Learning2Learn approaches were used to model good practice in these one-hour workshops.

‘[Intelligence is] the capacity to think freely, without fear, without formula, so that you can begin to discover for yourself what is real…' (Krishnamurti: cited in Corrie 2001: 18 ).

In moving to Phase III - Innovation, we want to move out of the familiar format and stretch the comfort zones to facilitate a more fluid, dynamic, personalised development. The intention is to create a more ‘decentralised network'.

‘The communication system is more open; collaboration is easier to stimulate: and knowledge potentially travels faster since the members often work laterally ' (Hargreaves 2005: 14).

The inhibiting but comfortable vertical structure could now be disbanded with a view to making innovation real on a departmental level. Staff should now still be working within a safe, high trust environment, with the tutor acting as a capacity builder.

Evaluation

Each year the course is evaluated at both a formative and summative level. From the 68 replies to the Phase I evaluation questionnaire, 88% of staff said that they enjoyed participating in the programme. Moreover, 91% of them found the programme useful and had changed their classroom practice in some way as a result of their training. The style of delivery in the workshops was liked by 100% of the respondents asked. Finally, 86% of staff were happy with the current structure of delivery, with training workshops replacing traditional information giving staff meetings. Qualitative data was equally favourable. ‘I really value the opportunity to meet in cross-curricular groups with a range of people at different levels in the College to focus on learning'. This sentiment from a member of staff was a common observation. Furthermore, a focus on Learning2Learn proved stimulating to staff, as opposed to a traditional training model of didactic expert transmission.

The way forward

The inspiration for the next phase in the development of the Training School Programme is the network theory outlined by Hargreaves (2005). Shifting towards a decentralised diffused model of coaching that links professional and departmental improvement that is sustainable. The Phase III of TS will be organised with the following characteristics.

• Personalised: Training School Coaches will act as facilitators, tailoring their input to the needs of departments and the individuals within them.
• Capacity Building: individual CPD (Continuing Professional Development) will interconnect with a departmental needs analysis, which is informed by the College Improvement Plan and Ofsted inspection report.
• Project Management Approach: the role of the Training School Coach will be to ‘paint the big picture' by synthesising national initiatives, raising awareness of good practice from other institutions in the region and providing information on relevant websites, publications and training course opportunities.
• Typical Format: an initial coaching discussion at departmental level in the first seminar, identifying opportunities for improvement at the individual, departmental and college level. Departments split into small teams that agree on a practical teaching and learning focus.
• Example: it is identified from a departmental SWOT analysis in Humanities that the development of AfL (Assessment for Learning) is inconsistent across the subject areas. Teachers form key stage 3, key stage 4 and post-16 groups to address this and devise two to three lead lessons or resource materials to be utilised by the whole department. The Training School Coach identifies relevant literature, websites and training courses for members to attend and report back.
• Outcomes: Self-managing groups create innovative and practical resources used by all members of the department. Workload is reduced.
• Sharing Innovation: Half-day INSET rondavel session, where teams and departments showcase their innovations. This use of innovation networks will facilitate inter-departmental learning conversations and the sharing of good practice.

Implementing a whole-school Learning Strategy is an extremely ambitious task. Innovative use of coaching and mentoring strategies will be critical in effecting this cultural shift. Innovation networks can provide a new paradigm of school organisation that enable staff to be active stakeholders in the process of change.

References

Cordingley, P, et al., (2004). The Impact of Collaborative Continuing Professional Development on Classroom Teaching and Learning. See: www.gtce.org.uk/PolicyAndResearch/ROMtopics/impactcpd/

Corrie, C, Becoming Emotionally Intelligent, Network, 2001.

Creasy, J, Paterson, F, (2005). Leading Coaching in Schools, National College for School Leadership.

DfES, (2004). The Core Principles: Teaching and Learning School Improvement: System Wide Reform, consultation text.

Hargreaves, A (1994). Changing Teachers, Changing Times, ( London: Cassell).

Hargreaves, DH (2003). Education Epidemic: Transforming Secondary Schools through Innovation Networks, Demos.

Hargreaves, DH (2005). Networking for Innovation, paper presented to Developing Leaders conference, July 2005.

Hargreaves, DH, (2005). Personalising Learning: Next steps in working laterally.

Harris, A (2002). Distributed Leadership in Schools: Leading or misleading? BELMAS conference. Birmingham keynote paper.

Hopkins, D, (2001). School Improvement for Real. London: Routledge.

Gunter, H, (2001). Leaders and Leadership in Education. London: Chapman.

Leading the Education Agenda, Demos, 2004.

Ofsted, (2005). Queen Elizabeth's Technology and Community College Inspection Report, (HMSO).

Prestage, M, (2005). ‘What Mentoring Means?' In Teaching: The GTC Magazine, Autumn, 2005.

QECC (2005). The Learning Strategy.

Wrigley, T, (2003). Schools of Hope: A new agenda for school improvement. (Trentham: Stoke on Trent).

 

Mr Tom Evans is a humanities teacher, training school coach, initial teacher training mentor and staff governor at Queen Elizabeth's Community College in Crediton, Devon, UK. Miss Paula Smith is Head of Sixth Form, a humanities teacher and a training school coach, and Mr Martin Willmott is Head of Humanities and a training school coach at the same school.

Join the online discussion for all supporting papers from Monday 19 June to Sunday 26 June 2006.