Raising the stakes

It is time to raise the stakes in the transformation of schools. There are five reasons. The first derives from the meaning of transformation, which is considered to be significant, systematic and sustained change that secures success for all students in all settings. Governments around the world have subscribed to this view for decades but nations still fall short of its achievement, except in a relatively small number of schools. It is time for delivery to be an issue on which governments stand or fall.

The second concerns the manner in which schools are supported. There are reservoirs of resources that have not been drawn on to the extent that is possible or desirable because of the limited view that is held about the support of public education. If the reservoirs of resources are considered to be forms of capital, then it is time that we increased the capital of schools: financial capital, intellectual capital, social capital and spiritual capital.

The third relates to the limited range of people who have a serious stake in the success of schools. It is time that every individual, organisation and institution became a stakeholder.

The fourth is concerned with failure to fully network knowledge about how transformation can be achieved. It is time to renew the call for researchers, policymakers and practitioners to work more closely in this regard.

The fifth reason is that a focus on school improvement or incremental improvement has got us only so far. It is time to raise the stakes and move from satisfaction with improvement to accepting the challenge to transform.

There is now persuasive if not irrefutable evidence that all students can achieve success, even under the most challenging of circumstances, if all of the resources that are required to support the effort are made available to schools, where they are deployed strategically in the passionate and purposeful pursuit of such an outcome. This has been a truly remarkable breakthrough.  The aim in this article is to introduce information about how it has been achieved and to show how all schools can do the same. A pre-condition is that schools be self-managing and that their leaders be allowed to lead. 

Breaking through: a new view of resources

No reform in education can succeed without appropriate resources to support the endeavour. This means that initiatives such Every Child Matters in England, No Child Left Behind in the United States, and the Blueprint for Government Schools in Victoria (Australia) are certain to fail if the level and mix of resources are not appropriate.

Traditionally such a statement would be assumed to mean more money is needed from government to reduce class sizes, or fund a programme of in-service training for teachers about a preferred approach to curriculum or pedagogy, or provide a new pot of money as an incentive for schools to take on a new project related to one or more aspects of the reform.  All of these may be desired by policymakers, who include these time-honoured approaches in their election campaign announcements. They would be welcomed by practitioners, because well-designed initiatives in school improvement must be funded one way or another, and the size of the school budget is sometimes (mistakenly) seen as an indicator of success.

The focus on money alone as the chief resource for schools has not resulted in expectations being achieved to any great extent.  Governments have despaired when their apparently well-conceived programmes have not succeeded, sometimes blaming teachers who are perceived as unresponsive or incompetent or both. Schools are frustrated because they feel their best efforts have not been supported.  Schools and schools systems continue to search for the magic formula for the allocation of funds among schools and within schools so that expectations can be achieved.

These disappointments are largely the result of a narrow view of resources and adherence to a status quo view of the way schools and school systems should be led and managed. They reflect what may be described as ‘old enterprise logic of schools’. What is needed is a new mechanism to allocate funds when the key unit of organisation is the student, not the classroom or school or school system. What is needed is a view of resources that pays more than lip-service to intellectual capital, one that accounts more accurately and comprehensively for the knowledge and skills of every person who supports the learning enterprise, and ensures that all who work in or for the school are at the forefront in terms of their professional capacity. What is needed is the application of all of the resources of a community, not just government and not just money, and this is where the notion of social capital comes in. It has been under-valued and under-utilised in the past. What is also needed is a sense of urgency, accompanied by an unprecedented campaign of action, to replace the appalling facilities in which much of the learning and teaching occurs in many countries. Resources in the form of infrastructure still reflect a 19th century factory or industrial model or ‘the old enterprise logic’.

The good news is that this broader view of resources is now being adopted in some countries as governments and the wider community reach the end of their tether. England is a good example of where there is now a deeper understanding of what is required. Following the White Paper (Secretary for Education and Skills, 2005), new legislation provides every school with an opportunity to acquire a trust, employ its staff and manage its assets. Trusts may support a number of schools which will acquire the flexibility of specialist schools and academies. The tipping point has been passed as far as specialist secondary schools are concerned, with a consistent gain over non-specialist schools in achievement in the GCSE (General Certificate of Secondary Education), and with benefits being greatest in schools in challenging circumstances.

A model for alignment

A model for alignment is proposed if transformation is to be achieved. The student lies at its heart. This is as it should be, given that the purpose of transformation is to secure success for all students in all settings. Above all, there must be alignment with the interests of students and the goal of transformation. Four domains are included - intellectual, financial, social and spiritual - and there must be alignment one with the other. Securing alignment between these different types of capital calls for outstanding governance. The entire enterprise must succeed in a context of change – local, national and international. The stakes are high. If schools are transformed in the sense under consideration in this book, it opens up an era of unprecedented opportunity for learners and learning. This is a global challenge.

The model is illustrated in Figure 1 followed by brief descriptions of the four kinds of capital along with a definition of governance.

 

Figure 1: A model for alignment

 

• Intellectual capital refers to the level of knowledge and skill of those who work in or for the school, all of whom should be at the forefront of knowledge and skill. We prefer the concept of ‘talent force’ to ‘workforce’.
• Social capital refers to the strength of formal and informal partnerships and networks involving the school, parents, community, business and industry, indeed, all individuals, agencies, organisations and institutions that have the potential to support and, where appropriate, be supported by the school.
• Spiritual capital refers to the strength of moral purpose and the degree of coherence among values, beliefs and attitudes about life and learning. For some schools, spiritual capital has a foundation in religion. In other schools, spiritual capital may refer to ethics and values shared by members of the school and its community.
• Financial capital refers to the monetary resources available to support the school as it seeks to achieve transformation, securing success for all students. It is acknowledged that some schools are in more challenging circumstances than others, so the notion of needs-based funding is embraced.
• Governance is concerned with the formal decision-making processes of the school and their interaction with civil society, which comprises the network of mutually supporting relationships with government, business, industry, other services in the public and private sectors, community, home, and voluntary agencies and institutions.

There is an important qualification to make in respect to the case for alignment. It will be readily apparent to the reader. While alignment is important, it should include a capacity for creativity, innovation, exploring the boundaries, and developing a new alignment.

A new alignment in education is an exciting prospect. It presents challenges and creates opportunities for policymakers at every level. There will always be a concern to build financial capital, but more must be done to build spiritual and social capital. The evidence is strong that the most important resource of a school is intellectual capital and bold new strategies are required to make it strong.

Funding high quality and high equity

Space for this article does not permit a full exposition of each of the four capitals. Financial capital has been chosen but not because it is the most important as that laurel belongs to intellectual capital. It has been chosen because of the current work of the International Confederation of Principals (ICP) in developing strategies to assist member countries to design school resource models which support the achievement of high quality and high equity, or all students in all settings achieving success in learning.

The authors have been asked by the ICP to assist in the development of these strategies based on the concepts of alignment. Initial trial work is being undertaken with a small group of member countries including Australia and the Republic of Ireland.

‘High quality’ and ‘high equity’ are not clichés but well-designed evidenced-based terms with international currency that are helpful in framing efforts to allocate resources to schools and within schools. Their international context is established with reference to work at the OECD which has illuminated the issue of the relationship between educational achievement and the socio-economic background of students by drawing on the findings of its Programme in International Student Assessment (PISA).

Participating countries were classified according to ‘quality’ and ‘equity’. ‘Quality’ is measured by the performance of 15 year olds in the PISA tests. ‘Equity’ is indicated by the strength of the relationship between students’ achievements and their socio-economic background, information about which was also gathered in PISA. While there is an overall positive relationship between the two, disadvantaged background is not necessarily related to poor performance.  For example, in Finland and Korea, social background is less substantially related to educational achievement than among participating countries taken as a whole, whereas in Australia, United Kingdom and the United States, social background is more substantially related to educational achievement than in the OECD as a whole.

The OECD classified participating countries according to quality, as indicated by results in reading, and equity, as indicated by the strength of the relationship between social background and achievement. Countries that are ‘high quality’ and ‘high equity’ are Canada, Finland, Hong Kong – China, Iceland, Ireland, Japan, Korea and Sweden. In these countries there is no trade-off between quality and equity. Countries that are ‘high quality’ and ‘low equity’ include Australia, Belgium, France, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States.

It is now an imperative that both high quality and high equity be achieved in all countries, including Australia. It is an imperative in the interests of both the student and the nation.

Seeking to align the funding of schools with these changing expectations means that alignment must be sought not only with number and nature of students but also, importantly, with the learning needs of students, particularly with those needs that act as impediments to learning. Major attention in the development of funding models for self-managing schools has been given to the needs of children with impairments and disabilities. Funding has also taken account of socio-economic circumstances, language background, indigenous culture and isolation. However, children from these environments, particularly when these factors occur in combination, still predominate among those disengaging from schooling and/or failing to attain success prior to leaving. Not only is there a requirement to now address learning and teaching for these students, but there is also a requirement to determine appropriate funding mechanisms.

Guidelines

The following guidelines propose a strategy for aligning the allocation of core student learning resources in a student-focused funding model with the number, nature and needs of students, using evidence gained from leading-edge schools which are systematically adding significant value to student learning. It is emphasised that this evidence is best gained from within a school system proposing to develop a student-focused approach. This ensures the ‘cultural validity’ of the data.

• The design of a model for the allocation of funds to schools in systems of self-managing schools should be based on evidence from schools, as it is at the school level that constantly changing educational and socio-political environments expressed through ever-increasing expectations have implications for student funding.
• School principals are the critical participants in gathering evidence as they are in the best position to  know the implications of changing expectations for student funding (the pre-eminent leadership position in education is that of principal).
• Evidence of resource deployment should be sought through a focus on how people/programmes contribute to learning and teaching or the support of learning and teaching, and not through simple financial analysis.
• Information should be gathered from schools that are representative of type, size, location and socio-economic circumstance, and that are known to significantly, systematically and sustainably add value to student learning outcomes.
• These schools should exhibit best practice in learning and teaching and in those characteristics related to the nature of schooling as it is likely to evolve in the future.
• These schools should exhibit a culture of continually and avidly seeking better practice.
• Evidence should include analysis of all activities that enhance or support learning, irrespective of the source of the related funding.
• There may be a need to consider compensation for diseconomies of scale for some schools through the application of variable base allocations.
• Parallel evidence should be sought from a random sample of schools to ascertain whether there is a relationship between school nature, student performance and school resource deployment patterns.
• Resource provision should be driven by the recipients of schooling and this should be reflected in allocation models.
• Models should ensure maximum flexibility for schools to deploy resources as expectations and the educational environment change.
• Any resource allocation model can only reflect the expectations and environment of the ‘near’ future. There is a need to update evidence and refine models on at least a triennial basis.

Space does not permit the detailing of the strategy in relation to designing funding models to differentiate between schools predominantly serving affluent communities and those serving communities where there is a high incidence of social deprivation. This detail can be accessed from ‘Raising the Stakes’, Caldwell and Spinks (2007). These strategies are also currently being further refined through the development work being undertaken through the International Confederation of Principals.

The future

The challenge to the status quo is the challenge of securing success for all students in all settings. Different imagery has been invoked to describe that challenge: ‘transformation’, ‘raising the bar and narrowing the gap’, achieving ‘high quality’ and ‘high equity’, and moving ‘from good to great’. However, it is perhaps best expressed by Sir Dexter Hutt, Executive Headteacher of Ninestiles Community School, in Birmingham. In a presentation at the 14th National Conference of the Specialist Schools and Academies Trust in November 2006, Sir Dexter related the ‘Saving of Corey’ – a story of personalising the learning of a young lad from very deprived circumstances. After years of struggle, support, intervention, laughter, despair and celebration, Corey successfully completed secondary education at Ninestiles and is now a positive and thriving participant in the wider community.

Sir Dexter remarked that it is not unusual for a Corey to be saved in a 20th century school but that it is certainly not the ‘default position’, with a guarantee that all students from sad and dysfunctional backgrounds will successfully complete school and use education as a launching pad for positive participation in the world at large. All schools are only too aware of the many Coreys who fall through even the best safety nets.

In proposing a characteristic of the 21st century school, Sir Dexter challenged his audience to regard the saving of the Coreys as the ‘default position’. In the 20th century school this was but a hope. However, success for all students in all settings is possible with current advances in personalising learning,  including the capacity to set targets, design and deliver learning and teaching of the highest quality, carefully and intensively monitor progress, positively intervene where necessary, and evaluate schools on the outcomes. These attributes will flourish where alignment of intellectual, financial, social and spiritual capital and governance occurs, and such alignment will position schools to attain the default position for the 21st Century.

References

Caldwell, B J and Spinks, J M (2008). Raising the stakes. London: Routledge.
McGaw, B (2006). ‘Use of data in innovation and transformation in schools and school systems’. Keynote presentation at the International Conference of School Principals, conducted by the Specialist Schools and Academies Trust and the Academy for Educational Administration. Beijing, 13-16 October. Available at www.ssat.org.uk

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Mr Jim M Spinks is Director of All Across the Line and a former school principal who consults widely on student-focused planning and resource allocation. He is based in Australia.
Professor Brian J Caldwell is Managing Director of Educational Transformations and a former Dean of Education at the University of Melbourne, Australia.

Caldwell and Spinks are well known as the authors of The self-managing school (1988), Leading the self-managing school (1992) and Beyond the self-managing school (1998).

Raising the stakes (2008) is their fourth book and the first in a series on ‘Leading School Transformation’ to be published by Routledge. This article is based on excerpts from Raising the stakes.

 

Go to top of page     Go to online discussion