Sustaining school partnerships: The context of cross-sectoral collaboration between

schools in a separate education system in Northern Ireland

Word count: 11,147 including references

Abstract

This study explores the current understanding of cross-sectoral collaboration between schools in a

divided society. The paper provides the context surrounding inter-school collaboration in Northern

Ireland then presents findings based on a qualitative study of five post-primary partnerships made

up of schools from the various sectors in Northern Ireland (maintained/Catholic,

controlled/Protestant and integrated sectors). Participants in the study are teachers and school

leaders. Evidence from this study reveals a number of things: despite a separate education system

made up of different sectors, schools on an inter-sectoral basis are willing to collaborate and those

represented in this study appeared disposed to sustain partnership activities; schools recognised

that collaboration and partnership while beset with a number of logistical challenges, is also

beneficial for pupils and institutions. In all cases there remained evidence of sustainable

collaborative practice; although some of this was more developed in some partnerships than in

others. In effect this paper concludes by recognising that schools do require some level of funding to

sustain partnership working but that sustainability should not be couched entirely around these

terms; rather, sustainability is about creating the right conditions to allow schools to develop

effective and strong partnerships. This paper outlines these conditions in the latter stages of the

paper.

Keywords: shared Education, school partnerships, sustainability, collaborative effectiveness

1

Introduction

Mass education has played a key role in nation-building, with schools often providing one of the key

mechanisms for acculturating citizens (Bowen, 1981; Heater, 2003). Debates in education in the

latter half of the last century in Europe often centred on equality of opportunity and access: initially

the primary focus of this was on social class, but as the century progressed the challenge posed by

ethnic diversity loomed larger. Traditional ethnic cleavages in Europe had largely been mitigated by

the alteration of borders after the First World War. There were some exceptions to this, such as

relations between regional communities and central government in Spain, or between Flemings and

Walloons in Belgium, or between Protestant and Catholics in Northern Ireland. New tensions

emerged in many countries as a consequence of increased diversity following economic migration

from the 1950s onwards, either within Europe or from former colonial territories to metropolitan

centres (Gallagher, 2004a). Other fault-lines were to re-open after the collapse of the Soviet Union

and Communist governments in East/Central Europe (Dunn and Fraser, 1996).

The responses within education to these tensions have normally involved a combination of two

elements related to structure and curriculum. The structural dimension concerns the operation of

common schools for all pupils or separate schools for pupils from different communities. Britain

decided to go down the route of common schools after an official enquiry into the education of

minority ethnic children (Swann Report, 1985), while France had always cast schools as places where

common Republican virtues were acquired (Limage, 2000). In contrast, the Netherlands had a long

established constitutional tradition of funding separate schools to serve distinct educational

philosophies (Lijphart, 1975), while Belgium had undergone a process of increasing federalisation,

including the development of entirely separate and unconnected school systems for its language

communities (Fitzmaurice, 1983, 1996).

2

The curriculum dimension refers to the extent to which the curriculum promotes a unitary image of

society or reflects diversity. In practice many polities operated school curriculums with overt

assimilationist goals, especially as they related to newly arrived migrant communities, although in

many places this shifted towards greater recognition of diversity and the development of

multicultural curriculums, as in, for example, Britain (Mullard, 1985). In places such as Germany a

largely unitary curriculum in mainstream school was supplemented by special classes for the

children of migrant communities, predicated on the assumption that their position in the country

was transitory and they needed to be able to return to their host country at some point

(Luchtenberg, 2004).

A separate education system in Northern Ireland

Northern Ireland operates an education system which for the most part sees Protestants and

Catholics attending separate schools. The parallel systems have come about for several reasons.

Historically, prior to the partition of Ireland into Northern Ireland and eventually the Republic of

Ireland, Church authorities wanted to run their own schools, despite an official preference to have a

unitary education system attended by pupils from all religious backgrounds. By the end of the 19 th

century a confessional system was in place in which schools were owned and managed by the

Protestant and Catholic churches. After partition, the 1923 Education Bill proposed that churches

could transfer their ownership of schools to local educational authorities, mirroring the English

system. In transferring ownership schools would be known as county schools and would be fully

funded by the state. A Church that wanted to maintain control of its schools could opt for voluntary

status but would only receive limited financial support from the state. There was an expectation that

schools managed by the Protestant churches would transfer. There was less expectation that the

Catholic church would transfer its schools to the Unionist state and so a third category of school was

proposed known as the four and two, whereby a third of the places of the school’s governing board

3

would be allocated to public representatives. This in effect allowed the church to maintain control of

the school and have a higher rate of public funding in exchange for an element of public governance.

Initially all churches resisted the proposals and opted to continue to run their own schools. However

after negotiation, the Protestant Churches achieved a number of legislative concessions and agreed

to transfer their schools: the concessions included compulsory religious education (defined as simple

bible teaching) on the curriculum, local committee control over teacher appointments, and Church

representation on school boards as of right (Akenson, 1973; Buckland, 1979; Farren, 1995). At this

point the parallel systems of separate schools crystallised. While Protestant schools were now

controlled by the local managing authorities, the churches maintained a strong influence over them.

The Catholic Church on the other hand would not relinquish control but continued to be maintained

in part by state funding. In 1947 an Education Act was passed to establish free secondary education.

Over the next decade this required the construction of new secondary schools, which were

designated as county schools, and hence under the control of the local authorities. A parallel set of

Catholic secondary schools was also built during this period and these were termed ‘voluntary

maintained’ schools, thus further entrenching a separate school system.

Other types of schools began to emerge from the 1960s, including the first Irish speaking schools.

There are now 29 Irish medium schools and 10 Irish medium units attached to mainstream schools

and one Irish medium secondary school. Integrated schools emerged in 1981 and educate Catholic

and Protestant children together. There are currently 42 integrated primaries and 20 integrated

secondary schools and they educate approximately 7% of the pupil population.

Today there are in effect four school sectors in Northern Ireland, controlled and maintained schools

and integrated and voluntary schools. Together, both controlled and maintained account for the vast

majority of schools. Controlled schools, which can be primary, secondary or grammar schools

(academically selective), are managed by boards of Governors and the education and library boards

4

are the employing authorities. These schools are fully funded by the state. Controlled schools, while

open to all faiths and none, are mostly populated by pupils from the Protestant community.

Maintained schools are also fully funded by the state but owned by the Catholic Church and

managed by the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools. Catholic schools offer an explicit faith

based education but are also open to all. The vast majority of pupils in attendance are Catholic.

Voluntary schools are owned by trustees, are mostly academic grammar schools and are directly

funded by the Department of Education. Some of the voluntary grammar schools fall within the

Catholic sector and have almost exclusively Catholic pupils; most other voluntary schools have a

relationship with one or other of the Protestant Churches and the majority of the pupils are

Protestant, although overall about 10 per cent of their pupils are Catholic. Integrated schools

educate together children from both Protestant and Catholic traditions, as well as those of other

faiths and none. There are two types of integrated school. Grant-maintained integrated schools

receive funds directly from the Department of Education for Northern Ireland (DENI) and are

managed by a Board of Governors. In these schools a greater number of parents sit on the Board of

Governors. Controlled integrated school receive their budget directly from an Education and Library

Board. A controlled integrated school is managed in the same way as a normal controlled school and

typically has transformed from a being a controlled school to a controlled integrated school.

The role of schools in promoting reconciliation and tolerance in Northern Ireland

Political violence in Northern Ireland between 1968 and 1994 exacerbated ethnic separation.

Throughout this period many looked to the schools as spaces to promote reconciliation and

tolerance. In the last three decades four main strategies can be identified: curriculum initiatives to

produce common programmes and textbooks to be used across all schools; contact programmes, to

provide opportunities for young people to meet across the sectarian divide; the development of new

religiously integrated schools in which pupils and teachers from all communities could attend

5

together; and the provision of equal funding to Catholic schools as part of a wider commitment to

equal opportunity.

Although a highly contested issue still, there is evidence that attending separate schools in a divided

society can have negative social consequences in that it can encourage, to some extent, divisions in

the wider society (Gallagher, 1997; McClenahan et al., 2003; Hayes et al. 2007; Hayes and McAllister,

2009; Stringer et al., 2009, 2010; Hughes, 2011). That said, the evidence suggests that the various

initiatives that have been put in place over a thirty year period have been rather limited (Smith &

Robinson, 1992, 1996; O’Connor et al., 2002; Gallagher, 2004b, 2010a; 2010b; Arlow, 2004). Even in

the case of integrated schools, despite opinion poll evidence suggesting that most people would like

their children to attend an integrated school; only seven per cent of pupils in Northern Ireland

currently attend one.

In the context of the peace process in Northern Ireland, an opportunity opened up to develop new

interventions which might be more likely to achieve systemic impact and provide all young people

with an opportunity to engage across the religious divide. One initiative, the focus of this paper,

which developed in this period was the Sharing Education Programme (SEP) which sought to develop

collaborative links between Protestant and Catholic schools so that pupils would take classes in each

other’s schools and teachers would engage with other teachers to develop professional communities

of learning. School collaboration had been used in other places, mainly to promote school

improvement, but it does not appear to have been used to promote reconciliation and social

cohesion by bringing together schools from different communities (Atkinson et al. 2007). Further

details on the SEP project can be found in Gallagher et al. (2010), but for the present, the main point

to note is that it has progressed in two phases: SEP1 involved 12 partnerships of up to 65 schools

and ran between 2007-2010, while SEP2 involved 14 partnerships of up to 72 schools and ran

between 2010 and 2013. An extant body of work (Donnelly and Gallagher, 2008; Gallagher et al.,

6

2010; Knox, 2010; Hughes et al., 2010; FGS McClure Waters, 2010) has reported findings from the

collaborative partnerships to date, but the present paper is primarily focused on the issue of

sustainability. More particularly, the paper aims to contextualise not only how schools can sustain

partnership working but how education can play a fundamental role in terms of stabilising societies

where there has been intractable conflict (Bar-Tal, 2000).

SEP benefited from significant funding support from Atlantic Philanthropies and the International

Fund for Ireland, but it was always recognised that this funding was temporary and could only be

used to demonstrate whether or not shared education was possible. Quite apart from whatever

could be achieved by schools working together while they were in receipt of funding and logistical

support, an important issue concerned the capacity of the schools to maintain partnership working

once the various forms of support ended. This paper explores this issue through an examination of

five of the school partnerships involved in SEP1. The paper explores the context around each of the

school partnerships and then demonstrates the challenges posed by and the benefits that emerge

from collaboration. Following this, the paper outlines the types of collaborative activity that remain

after the funding period. The analysis section of the paper outlines series of indicators which

demonstrate the conditions and practice which are most likely to produce sustainable practice.

Indicators of sustainable and effective school partnership in the literature

A number of factors seem to influence the sustainability of school partnerships, including: where

there are funds to support such practice, (Atkinson et al 2007; Hodgson and Spours, 2007; Hughes et

al. 2010); when there is a sympathetic policy environment, (Donnelly & Gallagher 2008)

accompanied by governmental and external agency support, (Billet et al., 2007). School partnerships

are more likely to be sustained if there is support for collaborative practice at the school leadership

level (Woods et al. 2006; Donnelly & Gallagher, 2008); if there are advocates of partnership at the

7

local level (within schools and communities), (Billet et al. 2005) and similarly if there are education

staff who are committed to collaboration, and where partnerships can demonstrate innovation or

flexibility (Woods et al. 2006). A number of studies emphasise that the local context is important if a

partnership is to be sustainable; Hargreaves (2010) highlights that partnerships need to be

geographically close to allow for teacher and pupil mobility. Sustainable partnerships when schools

establish strong links build trust and gain the support in the communities in which they reside and

this is more likely to happen when partnerships address local needs (Billet et al. 2005; Duffy and

Gallagher, 2014).

According to Woods et al. (2006: 33-35) factors which encourage collaboration to embed within

schools include: the capacities of schools, referring to the availability of staff to work on

collaborative initiatives in terms of: time, effort and capacity; school infrastructure which refers to

‘the creation of a durable organisational infrastructure to support the collaborative’; where

collaboration is supported and advanced by credible senior staff whose role it is to ‘support the

vision and operationalise the collaboration’ and where schools can demonstrate flexibility, referring

to collaborative partnerships demonstrating ‘something of an ‘ “ entrepreneurial culture” ’

Billet et al. (2005) provide specific guidance where they argue that sustaining social partnerships

involves:

Building shared purposes and goals: sustaining the partnership involves the partners actively

reflecting upon, reviewing and revising goals, identifying achievements, and renewing

commitment.

Building relations with partners: sustaining the partnership involves endorsing and consolidating

existing relationships, recognising partners’ contributions, and facilitating new and strategic

relationships.

8

Building capacities for partnership work: sustaining the partnership involves securing and

maintaining partners who engage effectively with both community and external sponsors, and

managing the infrastructure required to support staff and partners.

Building partnership governance and leadership: sustaining the partnership involves developing

and supporting close relations and communication between partners, and effective leadership.

Building trust and trustworthiness: sustaining the partnership involves focusing on partners’

needs and expectations, and ensuring that differing needs are recognised and addressed.

Donnelly and Gallagher, (2008: 5) highlight a range of factors within the context of Northern Ireland

which impede sustainable relationships between schools, including: significant differences in school

culture and leadership; different approaches to the construction of the school timetable; transport

costs of transferring children from one to school to another; the distance between schools; the

financial resources to ensure that initiatives to develop collaboration are sustainable; various issues

around compatibility such as sectoral compatibility (e.g. secondary - grammar) or cultural

compatibility (Catholic - Protestant), trust between school leaders and support of school leaders. For

the most part these factors were particularly salient in the data collected for this study; however

schools also elucidate on how these impediments could be resolved (see below).

In this paper we wanted to explore the extent to which the processes identified above could be

found in SEP school partnerships in Northern Ireland. We argue that sustainability and collaborative

effectiveness go hand in hand, in that, the more effective a partnership is the more likely it is to

sustain itself. In Northern Ireland more formalised partnership arrangements similar to those found

in England (such as federations) don’t exist; Muijs et al. (2010) describes federations as more akin to

merger arrangements which have longevity or are permanent. Instead, and bearing in mind the

historical separation of the sectors, more formalised partnership arrangements such as those

9

between schools involved in SEP are relatively nascent, so there is an impetus to understand better

what constitutes collaborative effectiveness and sustainable connections between schools from

different sectors due to the educational and societal benefits they offer. Muijs et al. (2010) argue

that not all partnerships need to be designed for permanency and some can be formed for limited

periods of time, ‘collaborations can have starkly different time frames’ (Muijs et al. 2010: 20) and

most exist between the extremes, however ‘in many cases, there is no clarity as to the intended

duration of the collaboration (Muijs et al. 2010: 20).’ The school partnerships described in this study

were funded to work together over a three year period. Our interest was in exploring if there was

any residual partnership activity after the funding period ended. The findings section will

demonstrate a range of sustainable activity from minimal contact between schools to blossoming

partnerships which demonstrated strong and effective characteristics.

Methodology

The data for this study were collected in the spring and summer months of 2011. The remit of the

study was to explore the sustainability of collaborative practice after project funding and support

had ceased. The schools are not directly identified in this paper. Prior to data collection, three

criteria were applied to the sample. Firstly, schools had to have been lead schools within the

partnership. The first phase of SEP opted to locate funding for partnership activity in a lead school.

These schools had previously been designated by the DENI as specialist schools, which specialised in

a particular curricular area. Within each of these schools a partnership coordinator was appointed.

The second criterion ensured that research was conducted in those schools which were no longer in

receipt of any funding from the Sharing Education Programme. Thirdly, the study should focus on

the perspectives of Coordinators in each of the lead schools. These criteria excluded seven schools

and produced a sample size of five lead partner schools. The coordinators in the schools included

Principals, vice-principals and teachers. A series of semi-structured interviews was carried out with

10

all the coordinators on a one-to-one basis. Each interview lasted approximately 60 - 90 minutes.

Interviews were transcribed and coded using qualitative data analysis software. For the most part

the thematic areas explored at interview were derived from a review of literature and subsequently

used as the basis of a broad coding structure. In turn these themes were explored with participants

at interview and subsequently used as a coding structure in order to organise the data. Themes

included: evidence of sustained collaborative activities post funding; conditions required to sustain

collaborative activity; references to community relations benefits; discussions of historical

collaborative activity; benefits of collaboration; logistics and challenges; motivations and willingness

to collaborate; evidence of best practice and staff/institutional relationships.

The context of school partnerships

School 1:

This school is a controlled, co-educational high school with an identified subject specialism in the

arts; located in a large town in the North West of Northern Ireland; catering for students from 11 to

18, with an approximate enrolment of 750 pupils. The majority of the pupils attending this school

are Protestant. This school has a history of collaboration with a number of its partner schools prior

to SEP. The schools in this partnership are in close proximity to one another, whereby pupils can

walk to each other schools. The cross-sectoral aspect of the SEP1 partnership involved collaborating

with three post primary schools; two voluntary co-educational Catholic schools and one voluntary,

co-educational Grammar school. Also involved was a Further Education College (a post-16 education

facility which is intermediate between secondary education and university level) and a number of

controlled and maintained primary schools. Collaborative activities between this school and the

post-primary schools involved School 1 offering a range of activities including dance, art, drama and

11

moving image art. These activities were pitched at Key Stage 2 – 5. An Art teacher would provide

services to primary schools and activity with a special school, involved an arrangement whereby

students from School 1 would visit pupils and provide assistance developing their literacy skills.

School 2:

This school is a co-educational, non-denominational grammar school with a recognised subject

specialism in a technology area; located within a town in a semi-rural setting in the East of Northern

Ireland. The school caters for approximately 1,200 pupils between the ages of 11-18, most of whom

are Protestant. School 2 formed a cross-sector partnership with a comprehensive, maintained

secondary school located some distance away, in an urban setting in which the vast majority of

pupils were Catholic. Neither school had prior collaborative arrangements. Both schools used Drama

at GCSE level and ICT as the basis of their collaborative activity. Year 11 students and staff engaged

in regular face to face workshops and virtual collaboration, with the intention of creating a number

of drama productions. In the first year of the programme a DVD was created featuring pupil

performances on themes such as reconciliation, identity, collaboration and young people’s

backgrounds. Students also worked with professional actors to present public performances of their

work.

School 3

This school is a Catholic comprehensive maintained secondary school, with a recognised specialism

in the arts, located within a city setting; catering for approximately 1,500 girls aged between 11 and

18. The school specialised in Performing Arts. School 3 formed a partnership with another school

located in the same city. The partner school is a non-denominational, voluntary grammar school

catering for girls from 11 to 18, most of whom were Protestant. Cross-sector collaboration between

12

both schools involved a group of pupils at GCSE level from School 3, travelling to their partner school

on a fortnightly basis to undertake a unit of GCSE Drama with a corresponding group of peers.

Students were involved in the decision to focus on the theme of reconciliation. Alongside shared

classes, students and staff involved, attended a two day residential with a professional theatre

practitioner. A VLE was used as a supplement when students were not involved in face to face

contact. Pupils also performed to public audiences in various venues in the city and in each other’s

schools to fellow pupils, parents and staff; exploring themes such as reconciliation, social

background and being a teenager. The partnership also produced a performance DVD and pupils

attended productions together.

School 4:

This school is a Catholic grammar, with a recognised specialism in the arts, located within a city

setting; catering for approximately 1200 boys aged 11-18. School 3 formed a partnership with a

number of post primary and primary schools within the same city. This partnership involved

collaborating with: one integrated post primary school, one controlled post primary school, one non-

denominational co-educational grammar, four primary schools (two integrated, one controlled and

one Catholic) and one special school. Activity in this partnership centred on sharing sports facilities,

services and coaching to the schools within the partnership and additionally for the post primary

schools undertaking a course in Living in a Divided Societies (delivered by an independent agency at

the lead school). The latter, involved Year 13 students from the lead school and similar age groups

from partner schools attending shared classes together, addressing themes such as: reconciliation,

identity and citizenship.

School 5:

13

This school is a Catholic maintained girls’ secondary school, with a recognised specialism in the arts,

located within a city setting. It caters for over 900 pupils aged 11-18. School 5 formed a partnership

with two post primary schools: an integrated school and controlled secondary school. All three

schools operate within the same city. There are a number of aspects to this partnership including

shared dance, drama and music classes for post-16 pupils. In year one this involved the lead school

and the integrated school, then pupils from the controlled secondary school in years 2 and 3 became

involved. The other aspects of the shared education programme involved students being able to

avail of a Diploma in Health and Social Care and pupils and staff from all three schools visiting a

WW1 museum in Europe with the aim of looking at the impact of conflict and remembrance.

Findings:

The findings section is divided in three sections outlining the partnerships’ perspectives on the

logistics and challenges of collaborating, tempered with the benefits of partnership arrangements

and finally extracting from the data evidence which demonstrates a range of sustainable practice.

The logistics of collaboration

Coordinators across all five schools identified a range of logistical issues or challenges that they

encountered during cross-sector collaboration. All schools discussed timetabling and transport to

and from partner schools as the most prevalent challenges and by default partner school proximity

became an important variable. According to participants, the further schools were apart, the longer

young people spent travelling as opposed to being in the classroom. Agreeing a time for shared

classes was also cited as challenge because school timetables tended not to coincide. One of the SEP

14

coordinators described school timetables as like a ‘sacred cow’; schools were therefore reluctant to

change them and creating space for visiting pupils and shared lessons sometimes impacted on other

subject slots.

There was only a small window of opportunity [for shared classes] and the only time we had

was first thing in the morning. Our pupils could leave here and get to there and do their hour of

work and come back again without impacting on any other subject. Because of the way their

periods ran it was possible with a 20 minute bus journey over to there we left before our

registration, we arrived in time for their class, did class with them, on the bus back again

during our break times – the children had their break on the bus and then ready for the next

class, so no subject was impacted upon.

SEP Coordinator from School 3

For some schools these logistical issues in the second and third year of the programme were less

problematic as schools adjusted to sharing. School 5 described how in the second year timetablers of

both schools met to plan out school timetables and to agree a slot for shared activity to take place.

Other partnerships, in particular School 1, were geographically blessed in that schools were located

within walking distance of each other.

Frequently schools talked about the challenge of adjusting to their partner’s school ethos and

cultural practice. But schools also recognised that this was an important element of the programme

in terms of exposing students to different cultural backgrounds. In some cases these challenges were

a consequence of different expressions of cultural, national and political identities. The SEP

Coordinator in a Catholic school, for example, described their discomfort during an event which they

15

attended in their partner school when the British National Anthem was played. The Coordinator in

School 2 provided a useful account of the challenges posed by cross-sectoral collaboration:

Going back to some of the areas we spoke about earlier, urban/rural a very basic one the kids

from [city name] couldn’t believe that they had to drive through green fields just to get here.

Our kids on the other hand could not believe some of things they saw painted on walls to get

their [partner] school. That was a very simple cultural thing and would happen anywhere in the

world. The Protestant / Catholic thing, walking around [school name], the religious

iconography that goes with being a Catholic school in that part of [city name]. Likewise when

the kids come here there is a union flag flying alongside a European flag outside the school.

SEP Co-ordinator School 2

The benefits of collaboration

Two of the schools in this study are located within city settings which have historically witnessed

significant sectarian clashes. The spaces in which both schools and their partner schools are located

are often defined as contested spaces. Contested spaces, (see Morrisey & Gaffikin, 2006; Leonard,

2006) are usually characterised by different communities or populations, defined on the basis of

ethnic, religious, political or cultural practices, living within the same space (such as a village, town

or city), but separate and in an antagonistic relationship. The manifestation of this can be seen

through various examples, including the demarcation of space through the use of flags, colours,

marches or murals, all of which have the effect of ‘marking’ space as ’belonging’ to one community,

over another; giving way to a pattern of increased residential separation in NI, brutally reflected in

the number of ‘peace walls’ which divide communities in cities.

16

A consequence of living in contested space may mean that there is reluctance to connect with other

communities or groups that do not share the same cultural or religious background. There may also

be a reluctance to travel to other communities or move through contested spaces. This is borne out

in an ethnographic study (Roche 2009) which explored community relations and sectarianism among

16-35 year olds in a city setting in Northern Ireland. Roche (2009) introduces the term ‘bounded

contentment’ to describe a resulting scenario whereby individuals are essentially limited in their

exposure to the other community. As a consequence young people from different community

backgrounds had limited contact with one another; they developed fears about going into ‘other

community’ areas and, as a consequence, movement within and across the contested space became

limited, a process which only increases inter-community isolation.

Instead participants argued that pupils benefitted from the opportunity to visit each other’s schools

and communities. Coordinators regularly talked about the benefits and potency of exposing pupils

and education staff to the diversity of cultural symbols and practice and the significant learning

opportunities that were gained by negotiating how these would best be displayed, practised or

referenced during pupil to pupil contact. As examples, coordinators talked about how regular,

shared learning opportunities between pupils meant repeated exposure to difference in various

forms such as: pupils wearing poppies; crosses on pupils’ foreheads on Ash Wednesday; different

uniforms, religious iconography and other religious symbols; schools flying the Union Flag and pupils

visiting each other’s communities. As a consequence, participants argued that this exposure to

cultural and religious difference helped reduce anxieties about the other, helped students

contextualise and explore difference in a meaningful way and encouraged more movement across

contested spaces. In many cases shared learning facilitated relationship building and the formation

of friendships in and beyond the classroom.

17

Co-ordinators highlighted benefits other than community relations. A number emphasised that the

experience of shared lessons in each other schools helped develop young people’s confidence.

Pupils had opportunities to find their voice and in particular talk and discuss themes in larger groups

and to do this outside of the relative comforts of their own schools or classrooms. Other participants

argued that experience working with other schools had not just ‘educational, but social value.’ One

Co-ordinator highlighted that his students were learning not just about cultural differences but also

about different learning abilities and needs through valuable experience working with young people

with learning difficulties. A Co-ordinator felt that young people from rural and urban backgrounds

had opportunities to explore these differences in the classroom. Another Co-ordinator highlighted

that sharing was valuable in terms of providing young people with an opportunity to explore socio-

economic differences and differences in terms of grammar and non-grammar contexts.

A really good opportunity for our girls, it gave them an insight into another school and another

way of life. It became the focus of their social differences rather than religious. It was more to

do with that in the end.

SEP Coordinator School 3

Institutional benefits

In the study, each of the Coordinators was asked to outline how involvement in the first cohort of

SEP benefitted their school. An analysis of the data on this theme reveals six key benefits of school

collaboration: improved interschool relationships; collaboration promotes a climate of co-operation

when in some contexts there has typically been competition between schools; collaboration allowed

schools to enhance the curriculum and better meet the requirements of the entitlement framework

(DENI, 2010); collaboration was viewed as a positive pursuit in terms of raising school profile in

18

respective communities; in many cases helped develop stronger links with primary schools and

finally schools felt that as a consequence of partnership working, schools could learn from one

another in terms of gleaning positive practice. Several of the schools identified opportunities to learn

from one another. One Co-ordinator explained: ‘if I walked into [school name] for half an hour I

would learn something that I would want to bring back here.’ Another Coordinator suggested:

I asked myself this today, how can we learn from the other school? How can they learn from

us? How would they respond if I said I want to teach you this or I want to challenge you about

this aspect of your school culture?

SEP Coordinator School 1

In one case, School 5 explained that as a consequence of a developing relationship with its

controlled partner school, it had provided guidance and assistance specifically around literacy as a

result of its partner school having ‘gone through a very difficult inspection.’ The Coordinator

explained we have ‘given them help to get beyond that.’

Evidencing Sustainability

The core aim of this study was to ascertain if after the first cohort of SEP funding, were schools able

to sustain collaborative activity? In all cases there remained some form of collaboration, cooperation

or connection between schools after funding ceased. However, some schools have maintained much

higher levels of collaboration than others. In terms of sustainability, the following suggests that the

experience of SEP1 has facilitated: sustained relationships between teachers and educational

managers in partnered schools; in some cases sustained contact between Head Teachers and Boards

of Governors; for some schools, continued cross-sectoral collaborative activity and in other cases

19

evolving collaborative projects where schools have actively sought alternative funding to sustain

partnership working. A summary of the types and extent of sustainable activity between schools,

post SEP 1 funding, is provided in Table 1 on Page 25.

A Willingness to Collaborate

Crucially a by-product emerging out of the experience of schools from different sectors collaborating

appears to be a willingness to collaborate in the future. This is important given the context of the

education system in Northern Ireland. The practice of schools from different sectors, working closely

together, remains a relatively new phenomenon. Evidence from this study indicates that the Sharing

Education Programme is helping to create and sustain a cultural shift within schools, from

institutional isolation towards schools from different sectors working more closely together, for the

benefit of their pupils, teachers and institutions. A Coordinator from School 1 corroborates this

perspective by arguing: the thing [SEP] has entered our bloodstream; it has become the virus and

part the DNA of the place. Similarly, the Coordinator from School 5 recalls how at a conference there

appeared to be a much more positive reaction from delegates to the idea of collaboration from

schools involved in SEP, compared to schools who had not been involved in collaboration to the

same extent:

I was at a conference and they were talking about sharing and improvement, collaboration

versus competition where the two can sit quite comfortably side by side. The idea was thrown

out the schools share baker days and that they are timetabled and there is lots of inter-staff

movement and staff development training. I swear if you sat out front you could have spotted

the SEP schools who were thinking that might work. But there were audible (makes gasp noise)

[…] other than maybe sending pupils out for the entitlement framework that might have been

the extent of it.

20

SEP Coordinator School 5

The Coordinator in School 2 argued the experience of SEP has led to a cultural shift whereby the

perception of teachers has changed in regards to cross-sectoral collaboration; who would have

otherwise viewed collaboration as being disruptive for the school and pupils alike. The following

extract demonstrates how the experience of SEP has removed the ‘stigma’ of collaboration:

Within our staff, the idea of collaboration is something that has had up until now a stigma

attached to it. Because the nature of collaboration often involves compromise around the

edges of staff getting out of class, pupils getting out of class and perhaps the benefit in one

area is as a result of a perception of at least, whether it is real or imagined a perception of

cost elsewhere. Having had the success that we have had with SEP that has been challenged in

the staff room and collaboration is something that can provide very positive outcomes.

SEP Coordinator School 2

Relationships promote sustainability

In all cases SEP Co-ordinators talked about maintaining relationships with members of staff from

their partner SEP schools, post funding. In some cases, the extent of this relationship was

maintained, but limited to email and telephone contact. However other cases, sustained

relationships were much more extensive and involved both personal and professional contact. The

following demonstrates the types of post funding partnership activity:

21

In terms of professional development I still have that relationship with the member of staff…

I’m a principal moderator for GCSE [subject removed] and I would support her through that in

terms of materials and example work and online sharing and the introduction of new courses.

We have introduced a new course here and have provided some INSET for her on that. And she

is thinking about doing that in her school next year. […] Other regular contact where I will

support her with AS and A2 work as well. […] She has also provided me with some work. She is

doing her GCSE agreement trial in October with her class and they are performing at that. So

that has continued.

SEP Coordinator School 3

A number of participants explained that staff relationships created as a result of collaborative

practice during SEP1 were valuable to them and if anything, alongside pupil to pupil contact, one of

the most significant outcomes of cross-sectoral collaboration. A Coordinator went as far as

suggesting:

A project is all about the relationships. I think if we started SEP again and we were starting

afresh I would spend more time on building relationships and stop speeding ahead with the

project.

SEP Coordinator School 5

The experience of sharing and collaboration between schools appeared to forge relationships at

various staffing levels: between teachers; between school leaders and between Governors:

22

Governor relationships have developed through SEP and they are very good and we would

have [school name] Governors at our event. That relationship is very strong and at leadership

level as well, between [name] and [name] and our leadership team. The teacher contact,

[name] would have made some very good contacts at [school name] and they would obviously

be maintained as well. Those relationships are now very easy to sustain.

SEP Coordinator School 5

Sustained collaborative activity

Schools identified that SEP funding enabled them to maintain and sustain high quality collaborative

activities. Absent the availability of additional external funding, or systemic change in core funding to

incentivise and support collaboration, lack of or reduced funding was likely to lead to a drop in both

the quality and the quantity of collaborative activity. Schools frequently highlighted for example,

that transporting students to partner sites was expensive but at the same an essential aspect of

facilitating sustained, face to face and long term contact and shared lessons. Without transport in

many cases, school collaboration would if at all, be reduced to non-sustainable, one off events or

reduced to virtual engagement. However in four cases there has remained pupil contact after the

funding period. In one case, pupil contact occurs occasionally where pupils from both schools where

School 3 is the lead partner, will attend drama productions together. In the case of School 4, more

regular contact between pupils has been sustained but with a smaller group than the initial remit of

the funded programme. Partnerships where School 1 and School 5 are lead schools continue to offer

significant sustained and regular shared provision for pupils:

We still share our A level blocks with the four providers in the town. Aspects of this continuity

are because of SEP1 but the main driver has been the school’s specialism. Dance on the other

23

hand which did come about because of SEP has been maintained and teacher who is on

reduced timetable remains in post and this is currently being funded from Peace III money. The

teacher still teaches mixed dance classes with pupils from the schools in the partnership. The

member of staff involved with IT aspect of the SEP programme is still in place and continues to

serve mixed classes

SEP Coordinator School 1

As previously stated, some schools evidenced much more sustained collaborative activity than

others and as a consequence, a spectrum emerges demonstrating models which appear least to

most sustainable. Table 1 has been constructed to demonstrate this. Schools 1 and 5 represent the

most sustainable models. Schools positioned in the middle of the spectrum demonstrate some

elements of sustainable practice but crucially they are distinct from the more sustainable models

because of the extent of the cross-sectoral activity that remains and the fact that collaborative

activity appears not have fostered significant relationships at an institutional level. School 2 appears

to be the least sustainable; after funding, no pupil to pupil contact remained; while there was still

some level of contact between SEP Co-ordinators, there appeared to be no evidence of any

sustainable institutional links. School 4 demonstrates some elements of sustainable practice in the

fact that it has sought alternative funds to sustain an element of cross-sectoral sharing, however the

bulk of this partnership activity is focused on providing sporting facilities for local primary schools

within the same sector. School 3 on the other hand is ranked higher because there is more evidence

of pupil to pupil contact both in person and virtually. Crucially there is evidence of institutional links

and schools continue to share resources and expertise.

Insert table here (see the final page of this document)

24

Table 1: Sustainable Activity Post SEP1 Funding

Discussion

This study has examined five school partnerships which received funding between 2007 and 2010 to

collaborate and promote shared education between pupils. The intention was to understand more

about the context of each partnership, and assess if there was evidence that collaboration had

embedded into school structures and been maintained after project funding and support had

ceased. This study has captured evidence demonstrating that after the funding period a number of

partnerships have, to varying degrees, sustained collaborative activity. One of the partnerships

appears not to be sustainable, two demonstrate elements of sustainability and two provide strong

evidence of sustainability.

The original aim of the Sharing Education Programme was to encourage sustained, regular contact

between young people and teachers from Protestant and Catholic schools in Northern Ireland in

order to promote reconciliation and tolerance, and underpin the peace process. The intention was

to make this form of contact ubiquitous to the schools. Given the existing education system, schools

from different sectors have only recently begun to collaborate in meaningful ways, as opposed to

previous initiatives which offered superficial contact. It is important to understand more about the

process of collaboration in order that schools can become effective collaborators and sustain

institutional relationships. The following provides an analysis of the partnerships and outlines a

series of criteria which indicate the conditions necessary for a sustainable model of collaboration.

Proximity, time and practice

25

As stated in previous sections, cross-sectoral collaboration is a relatively new practice in Northern

Ireland. As a consequence, a culture of collaboration is more likely to embed and sustain after

schools have had both time and the opportunity to practice collaborating. Shared learning and

accompanying structures which support this activity are ideal to introduce schools to the practice of

effective and sustained cross-sectoral collaboration. The partnership developed around School 1 is

testament to this and is the only partnership of the five to have had previous experience of

collaborative activity prior to SEP1 and as a consequence is one of the most sustainable models.

Chapman (2008) had suggested that the strongest relationships that developed between schools

were those where there was evidence of previous experience of collaboration, while Chapman et al.

(2009) argued that ‘sustainable collaboration is a gradual process.’

Also important is proximity - the distance between collaborating schools. Shared learning requires

pupils to be able to visit partner schools in order to learn together. The partnership led by School 1 is

helped by the fact that the schools are located within the same town and occupy the same street,

thus mitigating the need for transport and minimising disruption in terms of pupils travelling to each

other schools. Importantly, this also indicates that because the most effective models are required

to be geographically close, networks of collaborating schools are created within villages, towns and

cities across Northern Ireland, rather than a somewhat perverse situation whereby schools from

different sectors in local areas, remain isolated from one another.

Innovation and responding to the challenges posed by cross-sector collaboration

According to Woods et al. (2006), partnerships that can demonstrate innovation to seek change or

transformation, are more likely to be effective models of collaboration. Evidence from this study

indicates that partnership working between schools is more likely to be sustained if schools can

overcome or adapt to the challenges posed by cross sectoral collaboration. Challenges highlighted in

26

previous studies (Donnelly & Gallagher, 2008; Knox, 2010), including: time spent travelling between

schools; coordination of timetables and cultural compatibility were also reported here. However

schools also demonstrated ways to mitigate the impact of these. For example, School 5 and School 3

explained that after initial challenges, timetablers from partner schools coordinated their work to

ensure they could build in time for shared activity on an annual basis: importantly, there was no

need to coordinate entire timetables, as long as a common identified slot for shared activity was

built into the timetable of every participating school. Such actions demonstrate a high level of

institutional support for collaboration.

Furthermore schools which engage in cross sector collaboration not only face operational challenges

as outlined above they are also required to overcome systemic challenges. The schools in this study

and elsewhere in Northern Ireland are pioneers in that they are required to provide innovative

solutions which allow them to get out of the groove created by an historic education system which

isolates schools of different sectors and sustains denominational distance between pupils and

educational staff.

Relationships between staff

By extension, after schools have had both time and the opportunity to develop collaborative

practice, sustainable partnerships are more likely to form where significant relationships between

individuals develop. A model of cross-sector collaboration is more likely to be sustainable if teachers,

school managers and governors from different schools can have regular contact and ultimately build

professional and personal relationships. The evidence section above demonstrates how in all cases

positive relationships between staff remained after the funding period. Personal and professional

relationships are important not only for the effective delivery and the management of

shared/collaborative activity but they appear to be an important factor in promoting willingness to

27

sustain collaborative activity. Given the systemic context outlined previously, developing

sustainable, professional and personal relationships between teachers is important, as Catholic and

Protestant teachers are trained in denominationally separate teacher training institutions in

Northern Ireland.

The extent and quality of collaborative activity

Any collaborative activity that remains after the funding period is to varying degrees evidence of

sustainability. However this says nothing about the extent or the type of collaborative activity. In all

cases, there was evidence of some sustained collaborative activity but with varying degrees of

quantity and quality. The partnerships based around School 1 and School 5 provided best evidence

of robust sustainable activity between schools. In both cases shared learning between pupils

remained, coupled with strong contact between schools largely mediated through SEP coordinators,

school managers and Governors. In the case of partnerships developed around Schools 2, 3 and 4, in

one case, limited shared pupil contact remained but institutional links via staff did not develop and

conversely in two cases pupil contact was not maintained but staff relationships did flourish albeit

confined to the remit of the original programme.

Permeation and the creation of a culture of collaboration

The notion of permeation is important; Hargreaves (1992) refers to the idea of ‘bounded

collaboration’, by which he means that the impact of collaboration is constrained or activity is

prescriptive or limited, such that it does not penetrate deeply enough into the culture of a school.

An unsustainable model of collaboration may be one where there is little evidence that collaborative

practice has permeated into other areas of the school. A sustainable model is one where there is

contrary evidence, whereby the practice of collaboration is so positively received by schools that

28

other members of staff or more broadly departments begin to explore the possibility of

collaboration in other areas of the school. This occurred in the schools where School 5 was the lead

partner, where members of each school’s science departments, crucially not involved in the first SEP

cohort, opted to form collaborative links based on witnessing the out-workings of collaborative

practice elsewhere in the school.

This also says something fundamental about the formation of a culture of collaboration between

schools in Northern Ireland. As previously stated schools, especially those from different sectors

traditionally have not collaborated in any meaningful way and as such a culture of collaboration is

only beginning to emerge. Where collaboration is effective; seen to be sustainable; is received

positively and offers clear benefits, in some cases, as is demonstrated by this study, the practice of

collaboration is capable of permeating across schools within a partnership. Conceivably programmes

such as SEP which support multiple partnerships across Northern Ireland create the impetus for

collaboration to permeate across a system.

Advocates of collaboration at strategic levels

Where relationships between senior staff and between Governors develop, this is more likely to

foster sustainability. Institutions are more likely to value and support collaboration if there are

advocates for this practice at the strategic level. Coordinators from School 1 and School 5 were

Principals in their respective schools and clear advocates of collaboration. According to the

Coordinator at School 5:

SEP funding gets your mind because there is nothing that will focus Principals more than a pot

of money. I think what SEP needs to do during the process is get people’s hearts as well. The

best way to do that was actually manage to get Principals seeing the good work that is going

29

on and being very much at the pupil teacher face of what is going on. And for that you need to

showcase it to parents and teachers as well the work that definitely goes on. It will never go on

if it simply stays in people’s minds. If SEP was to really work I would see every head teacher in

Northern Ireland being trained in their tactics and responsibilities

Coordinator at School 5

Shared learning activities can provide a catalyst for developing institutional relationships

Partnerships which can demonstrate all or most of the sustainability criteria identified in this section

are those that are most likely to see collaborative practice embed within their schools. Woods et al.

(2006) argue that effective models are those where collaboration becomes normalised and viewed

as an essential aspect of a school’s culture. The evidence from this study demonstrates that where

collaboration is most effective, partnership working is more likely to be sustained. School 1 and

School 5 provide evidence where they meet most or all of the sustainability indicators. A model of

collaboration begins to emerge whereby schools initially engage with one another through shared

learning activities between pupils. This activity based model of collaboration, over time, cultivates.

Staff involved in programme implementation, develop relationships through sustained contact and

practice; in turn, relationships develop at more senior levels and advocates of collaboration at a

strategic level emerge. In some cases collaboration begins to permeate into other areas of the

school and in other cases partnerships begin to innovate. What emerges is a shift away from

conceptualising sharing/collaboration which is solely based on pupils learning together, towards a

model where institutions develop relationships at various levels throughout the school.

Conclusion

30

One of the aims of this study has been to broaden the current understanding of cross-sectoral

collaboration between schools in a divided society, where that collaboration consciously cuts across

community boundaries. The study focused on the perspectives of five Coordinators in schools which

led different collaborative partnerships, so caution should be exercised in drawing more general

conclusions. Nonetheless the perspectives of Coordinators are valuable and provide an in depth

account of the context surrounding cross-sectoral partnerships. Further work will explore the

perspectives of teachers and others not in leadership roles in the partnerships, and on the

perspectives of pupils and parents.

This study contributes to a wider literature base which examines the role that education plays in

societies racked by ethnic conflict or other various challenges of multi-ethnic or multicultural

societies. The education system in Northern Ireland sees for the most part Catholic and Protestant

children being educated separately and as such the system along with other legacies of conflict

including divided or contested communities plays its part in normalising ethnic isolation during the

formative years of schooling. However the separate system is sustained by the fact that parents

continue to opt to send children to schools which align with their own cultural background. Shared

education and collaboration between schools acknowledges the impact of choice, as well as

recognising the deep groves that have been cut which maintain the existing system and so a

pragmatic approach is required to work within the existing structures but also challenge the systemic

boundaries which effectively keep children apart.

The data from this study suggest that sustained and regular contact through shared education and

broader collaboration interrupts the legacies of a separate education system at both the institutional

and individual level. The discussion on logistical challenges, the benefits of collaboration and the

evidence of sustainability provide insights from stakeholders involved in programme

implementation. The boundaries that have developed between schools seem to be more porous

31

because regular and sustained shared learning exposes both pupils and staff to different religious

and cultural practices. In particular, young people from different backgrounds were learning

together, were encouraged to move through contested spaces and anxieties about the other

community were reduced.

The data collected here confirms the extant literature that effective collaborative practice, rather

than isolated showcase activity, is more likely to lead to sustainable outcomes. Those partnerships

that were more likely to be sustained were those where there was support and advocacy from

senior staff in schools; where relationships between staff developed; where the collaborative activity

was off a high standard and grounded within core areas of the curriculum; and where schools

recognised the challenges and logistics of sharing. Many of the challenges faced in promoting

collaboration between separate schools in a divided society appear to arise from the legacy and

habits of separation and the perceptual consequences (and fears) of cultural difference. Importantly,

sustainable partnerships sought ways to resolve challenges rather than let established habits erode

partnership.

Any educational change process that is dependent on external project funding is always vulnerable

in terms of its sustainability: the literature is littered with examples of worthy projects that collapsed

once external funding ceased, so there was always a concern in SEP that the same outcome might

prevail. For this reason SEP was always predicated on a twin-track approach of using external

funding to demonstrate that collaborative engagement across community and institutional divisions

could be achieved, while at the same time lobbying for policy change to ensure that the normal

funding and support mechanisms in the education system incentivised and supported collaboration,

rather than hampered it. The outcome of the second track remains to be seen, although there has

already been a significant level of official support for the idea of shared education and the

terminology has been firmly established in the political lexicon in Northern Ireland. The present

32

paper was intended to explore the extent to which new relationships had been established through

SEP and whether these were strong enough that, even in the absence of official policy change,

schools and teachers were still trying to maintain collaborative practice. The literature suggests that,

in addition to formal policy frameworks, sustainability is also about creating the right conditions

between schools where collaboration embeds and penetrates throughout the schools involved. The

data gathered for this study suggests that, in most cases, there is clear evidence that collaboration

has become embedded in most schools and there is a clear willingness to sustain the benefits which

are seen to have devolved from collaboration. If the policy framework shifts to encourage and

support this work, then the likelihood of fundamental systemic change in education in Northern

Ireland seems to be high.

References

Akenson, DH. 1973. Education and enmity: the control of schooling in Northern Ireland 1920-1950 ,

London: David and Charles.

Arlow, M. 2004. ‘Citizenship education in a divided society: the case of Northern Ireland’ in: S. Tawil

& A. Harley (Eds) Education, Conflict and Social Cohesion (Geneva, International Bureau of

Education).

Atkinson, A., I. Springate., F. Johnson., and K. Halsey. 2007. Inter-school collaboration: a literature

review. NFER.

Bar Tal, D. 2000. From Intractable Conflict Through Conflict Resolution to Reconciliation:

Psychological Analysis. Political Psychology 21 (2) 2000 351-365

33

Billett, S., A. Clemans., and T. Seddon. 2005 Forming, Developing and Maintaining Social

Partnerships (Adelaide: NCVER).

Billet. S., C. Ovens., A. Clemans., and T. Seddon. 2007. Collaborative working and contested

practices: Forming, developing and sustaining social partnerships in education. Available online at:

https://www.det.nsw.edu.au/proflearn/docs/pdf/socpartners.pdf [last accessed: March 2012]

Bowen, J. 1981. A history of western education. London: Methuen.

Buckland, P. 1979 The Factory of Grievances: devolved government in Northern Ireland 1921-1939 ,

Dublin: Gill and Macmillan.

Chapman, C. 2008. “Towards a Framework for School-to-School Networking in Challenging

Circumstances.” Educational Research 50 (4): 403–420.

Chapman, C., D. Muijs, and A. Collins. 2009. The Impact of Federations on Student Outcomes.

Nottingham: National College for School Leadership.

Department of Education for Northern Ireland. 2010. Delivering the Entitlement Framework by 2013.

DENI.

Donnelly, C. and T. Gallagher. 2008. School collaboration in Northern Ireland: opportunities for

reconciliation. Available online at http://www.schoolsworkingtogether.com/documents/School-

Collaboration-in-NI.pdf [Last accessed July 2011]

34

Duffy, G and T. Gallagher. 2014. Collaborative evolution: the context surrounding the formation and

the effectiveness of a school partnership in a divided community in Northern Ireland, Research

Papers in Education, Published online Jan 24 2014, DOI:10.1080/02671522.2014.880731

Dunn, S. and T.G. Fraser. 1996. Europe and ethnicity :The first world war and contemporary ethnic

conflict. London: Routledge.

Farren, S. 1995. The politics of Irish education 1920-65, Belfast: Institute of Irish Studies, Queen's

University Belfast.

FGS McClure Watters. 2010. The Sharing Education Programme Attitudinal Research Results.

Queen’s University Belfast.

Fitzmaurice, J. 1983. The politics of Belgium: Crisis and compromise in a plural society. London: Hurst.

Fitzmaurice, J. 1996. The politics of Belgium: A unique federalism. London: Hurst & Co.

Gallagher, T. 1997. ‘So What Do You Think? in: K. Fearon (Ed.) Politics: the next generation.

Democratic Dialogue Report No 6 (Belfast, Democratic Dialogue), 7–13

Gallagher, T. 2004a. ‘After the war comes peace? An examination of the impact of the Northern

Ireland conflict on young people.’ Journal of Social Issues, 60(3) 629-642

Gallagher, T. 2004b. Education in divided societies. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

35

Gallagher, T. 2010a. Key Issues in Coexistence and Education. Boston: Brandeis University

Coexistence International

Gallagher, T. 2010b. ‘Building a shared future from a divided past: promoting peace through

education in Northern Ireland.’ In G Salomon and E Cairns (Eds) Handbook of Peace Education, New

York: Psychology Press

Gallagher, T., A. Stewart., R. Walker., M. Baker. and J. Lockhart. 2010. ‘Sharing Education through

schools working together.’ Shared Space 10 65 - 74

Hargreaves, A. 1992. “Cultures of teaching: a focus for change.” In: Understanding teacher

development edited by A. Hargreaves and M.G. Fullan. London: Cassell.

Hargreaves, D. 2010. Creating a self-improving school system, Nottingham: National College for

School Leadership

Hayes, B. C. and I. McAllister. 2009. 'Education as a mechanism for conflict resolution in Northern

Ireland.' Oxford Review of Education, 35: 4, 437 — 450

Hayes, B. C., I. McAllister., and Dowds, L. 2007. ‘Integrated education, intergroup relations, and

political identities in Northern Ireland.’ Social Problems, 54(4), 454-482.

Heater, D. 2003. A history of education for citizenship. London: RoutledgeFalmer.

36

Hodgson, A. and K. Spours. 2006. ‘The organisation of 14–19 education and training in England:

beyond weakly collaborative arrangements.’ Journal of Education and Work Vol. 19, No. 4, pp. 325–

342

Hughes, J., C. Donnelly., M. Hewstone., T. Gallagher. and K. Carlisle. 2010. School Partnerships and

Reconciliation: An evaluation of School Collaboration in Northern Ireland. Queens University Belfast

Hughes, J. 2011. ‘Are separate schools divisive? A case study from Northern Ireland.’ British

Educational Research Journal, 37(5), 829-850.

Knox, C. 2010 Sharing Education Programme: Views from the White Board, Social and Research

Policy Institute. University of Ulster

Leonard, M. 2006. “Teens and territory in contested spaces: Negotiating sectarian interfaces in

Northern Ireland.” Childrens’ Geographies 4 (2): 225-238.

Limage, L. 2000. ‘Education and Muslim identity: the case of France.’Comparative Education, 36(1),

73-94.

Lijphart, A. 1975. The politics of accommodation: Pluralism and democracy in the Netherlands .

London: University of California Press.

Luchtenberg, S. 2004 ‘Ethnic diversity and citizenship education in Germany.’ In Banks, J (Ed)

Diversity and Citizenship Education: global perspectives, California: Jossey-Bass

37

McClenahan, C., P. Irwing., M. Stringer., M. Giles. and R. Wilson. 2003. ‘Educational differences in

self-perceptions of adolescents in Northern Ireland.’ International Journal of Behavioral

Development, 27(6), 513-518

Morrissey, M., and F. Gaffikin. 2006. “Planning for Peace in Contested Space.” International

Journal of Urban and Regional Research 30 (4): 873–893.

Muijs, D., M. West., and M. Ainscow. 2010. “Why network? Theoretical perspectives on

networking.” School Effectiveness and School Improvement 21 (1): 5-26

Mullard, C. 1985. ‘Multicultural education in Britain: from assimilation to cultural pluralism.’ in

Arnot, M (Ed) Race and Gender: equal opportunities policies in education, London: Pergamon Press.

O'Connor, U., B. Hartop. and A. McCully, A. 2002. A review of the schools community relations

programme, Northern Ireland. Department of Education.

Roche, R. 2009. “Facts, fears and feelings: Investigating sectarianism and segregation post-conflict”,

In The challenges of peace research as a contribution to peace-building in Northern Ireland, edited

by the Community Relations Council: Belfast: CRC

Smith, A., and A. Robinson. 1992. EMU: perceptions and policy Coleraine: University of Ulster. Centre

for the study of conflict

Smith, A. and A. Robinson. 1996. EMU: the initial statutory years. Coleraine: University of Ulster.

Coleraine: University of Ulster. Centre for the study of conflict

38

Stringer, M., P. Irwing., M. Giles., C. McClenahan., R. Wilson. and J. Hunter. 2009.’ Intergroup

contact, friendship quality and political attitudes in integrated and segregated schools in Northern

Ireland.’ British Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 239–257

Stringer, M., P. Irwing., M. Giles., C. McClenahan., R. Wilson. and J. Hunter. 2010. ‘ Parental and

school effects on children’s political attitudes in Northern Ireland.’ British Journal of Educational

Psychology (2010), 80, 223–240.

Swann Report. 1985. Committee of Inquiry into the Education of Children from Ethnic Minority

Groups, Education for all: The report of the committee of inquiry into the education of children from

ethnic minority groups. London: H.M.S.O.

Woods, P.A., R. Levacic., J. Evans., F. Castle., R. Glatter. and D. Cooper. 2006. Diversity and

Collaboration? Diversity Pathfinders Evaluation (DfES Report No 826). London: DfE

Schools Sustained Collaborative Activity Post SEP1 Funding

School 2 Little sustainable activity remains

No direct contact between pupils

Some staff contact between schools remains but this has moved from

institutional to personal contact. Two members of teaching staff have developed

a personal relationship and maintain contact via email

39

Students from partner school remain registered on lead school’s VLE

School 4 Collaborative work based on reconciliation and citizenship education continues

to develop between lead and a partner school. School now receives funding

from an alternative source to sustain activity originating from SEP1

School continues to offer sporting activities on Saturdays to schools in local

community, however there remains limited cross-sectoral activity.

Links with a special school in the local community as a result of SEP1 funding

remain in place. Lead school continues to provide and host sporting activity for

pupils.

School 3 Schools have remained in contact making use of virtual technologies post SEP1

funding to showcase a drama project both schools were involved in.

Students from both schools have also attended the theatre together in

preparation for GCSE exam

Both teachers involved in coordinating SEP1 activity in their respective schools

remain in close contact and continue to share resources.

SEP1 lead Coordinator has provided INSET training for partner school

coordinator and aided professional development

School 1 Two members of staff who were hired to facilitate SEP activity remain in post

but on reduced hours. Both continue to deliver same activities that were borne

out of SEP1. Funding for these positions now come from alternative sources.

Students from SEP1 partner school continue to travel to school for sustained

cross-sectoral collaborative activity. Travel is funded by partner school.

School 1 remains involved in SEP activity as a partner with another SEP2 lead

school.

Collaborative SEP activity set up with a local special needs school continues post

40

funding.

Strong links and regular communication between schools involved in SEP1

activity remains.

Relationship between Principals is strong and they remain in regular contact

School 5 Strong relationship between Principals and Governors have been developed and

maintained post SEP1 funding

Strong relationship between teachers have been maintained

A new partnership has evolved out SEP1 including 3 post primary and 5 primary

schools

Partnership has secured significant funds to provide a programme of PDMU and

Learning for Life and Work on a shared basis involving years 5 to year 10

Post 16 A level programme continues to operate post SEP1 funding

Evidence of collaborative activity outside of the remit of funded programme

Table 1: Sustainable Activity Post SEP1 Funding

41

42