· Web viewOne headteacher who was unhappy about this described it as ‘INSET on the cheap’....

NATIONAL FOUNDATION FOR EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH

Long-Term

External Evaluation of the

Beacon Schools Initiative 2001-2002

Peter RuddMark RickinsonSarah Blenkinsop Susan McMeekingMonica TaylorNina Phillips

June 2002

CONTENTS

page

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS i

1. INTRODUCTION 11.1 Introduction 11.2 Background and Rationale 11.3 Aims of the Evaluation 21.4 Methodology of the Evaluation 31.5 Report Structure 4

2. BECOMING A BEACON SCHOOL 72.1 Gaining Beacon Status 72.2 Identifying Areas of Good Practice 72.3 Issues Surrounding the Identification of Beacon Activities 82.4 Renewing Beacon Status 9

3. BEACON ACTIVITIES 113.1 Beacon Activities and Processes 113.2 Frequency and Nature of Dissemination 14

4. THE CONTEXTS OF BEACON SCHOOLS 174.1 Introduction: Contextual Dimensions of Beacon Work 174.2 Taking Account of Cultural Differences 174.3 Beacon Schools in Excellence in Cities Areas 20

5. THE NATURE OF BEACON RELATIONSHIPS 235.1 Introduction: Models of Beacon Activity 235.2 The Revisit Case Studies 255.3 The New Case Studies 265.4 Types of Beacon Relationships 27

6. THE USE OF ICT IN BEACON SCHOOLS 316.1 The Use of Information and Communications Technology 316.2 The Use of ICT in General 316.3 The Use of ICT in Specific Initiatives 336.4 The IBM Reinventing Education Programme 346.5 The Talking Heads Project 346.6 The Beacon Area of the Standards Site 346.7 Using ICT to Disseminate Good Practice 35

7. THE ROLE OF THE LEA 377.1 Positive Aspects of LEA Involvement 387.2 Difficulties with LEA Involvement 397.3 A Typology of LEA Roles 407.4 Conclusion: Clarifying the LEA role? 42

8. RESOURCES AND VALUE FOR MONEY 438.1 Beacon Grants Awarded 438.2 Beacon Grant Expenditure 44

9. BEACON DEVELOPMENT OVER TIME 479.1 Patterns in the Evolution of the Beacon Initiative 479.2 Changes Within Beacon Schools 479.3 Changes Beyond Beacon Schools 499.4 Changes in Beacon Partnerships 51

10. SUCCESSES OF BEACON WORK 5310.1 Successes for Beacon Schools 5310.2 Successes for Partner Schools 58

11. ISSUES AND CHALLENGES 6311.1 Negative Responses from Non-Beacon Schools 6311.2 Managing Workload 6411.3 Managing Disruption 6511.4 Maintaining Standards 6611.5 Relationships with the LEA 6711.6 Financial Issues 6711.7 Evaluation 6811.8 Reapplying for Beacon Status 6811.9 Conclusions 68

12. CONCLUSIONS 7112.1 Summary: Consolidation and Change in the Beacon Initiative 7112.2 Recommendations for Beacon Schools 7312.3 Recommendations for Action by DfES 74

APPENDIX A Interview Schedules iAPPENDIX B The Annual Report Questionnaire xvAPPENDIX C Support Mechanisms for Beacon Schools xxxiiiAPPENDIX D Numbers and Types of Schools joining the

Beacon Initiative at Different Phases xxxviiAPPENDIX E Bibliography and References xxxix

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The research team would like to express their gratitude to the headteachers and staff in schools and Local Education Authorities (LEAs) who participated in the evaluation. These individuals gave generously of their time to contribute to the evidence and insights on which this report is based.

We should also like to thank colleagues who served on the steering group and provided practical and informed guidance throughout the evaluation, along with members of the Beacon Team at the Department for Education and Skills (DfES), who were very efficient in providing us with additional information concerning the initiative.

Special thanks are due to a number of individuals: Julia Rose for her consistently high level of administrative support, Rachel Felgate for her valuable statistical inputs, Peter Dickson (Principal Research Associate) and Annette Massey (Senior Research Associate) for carrying out some of the case-study visits, Pauline Benefield for her assistance with the bibliography and references, and Johanna Dornette for her contribution to the analysis for Chapter 6.

Project team:

Project Directors Sheila Stoney / Sandie SchagenProject Leader Peter RuddProject Team Sarah Blenkinsop

Deborah DaviesSusan McMeekingNina PhillipsMark Rickinson Monica Taylor

Project Statistician Rachel FelgateProject Administrator Julia RoseProject Librarian Pauline Benefield

i

INTRODUCTION

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Introduction

The Beacon initiative has been in operation for almost four years, and during this time the number of Beacon Schools has grown from 75 in 1998 to 1000 in 2002. A research team from the National Foundation for Educational Research (NFER) has had the opportunity to evaluate the initiative since its launch in September 1998, with three national evaluations being carried out in the years 1999–2000, 2000–2001 and 2001–2002. This report summarises the findings of the third annual national evaluation of Beacon Schools. In addition, the report examines some of the longer-term impacts of the initiative, taking the opportunity to build on the previous research base and to explore the ongoing nature of the Beacon initiative and its impact on educational practice.

The Department for Education and Skills (DfES) outlined four major strands of evaluation in their long-term Beacon Schools evaluation plan. These were:

an independent evaluation of Beacon Schools

anecdotal evaluation evidence drawn from four sources:

evidence collated from Beacon Schools themselves

visits to Beacon Schools

outcomes of Beacon School workshops

results of questionnaires sent to partner schools of existing Beacon Schools

monitoring the performance data of existing Beacon Schools to ensure that Beacon status does not have a detrimental effect on their own standards

monitoring the performance data of partner schools.

The long-term external evaluation of the Beacon Schools initiative, to be carried out by the NFER to March 2004, forms the first of these strands, the independent evaluation of Beacon Schools.

1.2 Background and Rationale

At the time this 2001–2002 evaluation started there were 587 Beacon Schools. Each of these schools received around £35,000 – £40,000 extra funding a year, usually for a minimum of three years, in exchange for an agreed programme of activities enabling the school to collaborate with others to disseminate good

1

LONG-TERM EXTERNAL EVALUATION OF THE BEACON SCHOOLS INITIATIVE

practice and raise standards in schools. The activities which Beacon Schools offer are based on identified strengths within the individual school. The aim of such activities is to disseminate good practice and promote new ideas in a number of partner institutions. These partnerships, however, are two-way processes, and many of the Beacon Schools stress that they can learn from their partners, just as their partners can learn from them.

When the Beacon Schools initiative was launched in the summer of 1998, the main aim was for selected schools to identify, promote and share good practice in key areas. Initially 75 pilot Beacon Schools began operating in September 1998 and, in September 1999, an additional 125 schools were granted Beacon status. Further cohorts of Beacon Schools joined in January 2000, September 2000, January 2001 and September 2001. By September 2001 there were 1,000 Beacon Schools and the next expansion is planned for September 2002. The selection criteria for this expansion are as follows (DfES, 2002):

appearance in the 2000–2001 annual report (2000/2001) of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools as a ‘high performing’ school;

past and present school performance in relation to school circumstances – schools have to be in the top 15 per cent of the relevant Free School Meals (FSM) band;

local education authority (LEA) nominations – LEAs were advised that nominated schools would need to have a proven track record in terms of high standards. They needed to be skilled in self-evaluation, aware of their own strengths and weaknesses and able to work collaboratively and build strong mutually beneficial partnerships with other schools. Above all, however, they needed to be centres where good practice exists and from which others can learn effectively.

1.3 Aims of the Evaluation

The key aim of the long-term external evaluation of Beacon Schools has been to evaluate the impact of Beacon activities on improving the quality of teaching and learning in partner schools. More specific aims included:

to investigate whether the initiative is a cost-effective way of disseminating good practice in schools;

to investigate whether there is a school-led or LEA-led demand for Beacon School services;

to investigate whether long-term partnerships between Beacon and non-Beacon Schools were established and if so, whether they have changed over time;

to find out if networks of schools have emerged, initiated by Beacon Schools, to assist the spread of good practice;

2

INTRODUCTION

to assess the extent to which partnerships and networks could include schools on special measures, with serious weaknesses or at risk as designated by the LEA; the extent to which any positive effect on such schools can be attributed to them being in contact with a Beacon School;

to investigate what impact there has been on Beacon Schools themselves as a result of working with partner schools;

to investigate the advantages and disadvantages of different approaches to disseminating and promoting good practice.

1.4 Methodology of the Evaluation

The main methodological stages of the 2001–2002 evaluation of Beacon Schools were as follows:

Questionnaire Analysis. As in previous years, a report was produced using information provided in response to the Annual Report Questionnaire distributed to all Beacon Schools by the DfES (Rudd et al., 2001). The questionnaire asked Beacon Schools to report on the Beacon activities they had provided during the period 1 April 2000 to 31 March 2001.

The evidence presented in this report was based on 531 completed Beacon School questionnaire returns. The distribution of Beacon questionnaire returns by school sector was as shown in Table 1 below:

Table 1. Questionnaire Responses by School Sector

Type of school NumberNursery 15Primary 311Middle 4Secondary 158Special 27Sector not identified 16Total 531

Qualitative case studies. The fieldwork stages of the evaluation were carried out between November 2001 and February 2002 and included:

new case studies of 12 Beacon Schools and their partner institutions;

follow-up visits to eight previous case-study schools.

New case studies were carried out in 12 Beacon Schools to gain an insight into the positive outcomes of Beacon work and to highlight any problems or difficulties the schools may have faced whilst offering Beacon activities. Each of these case studies involved interviewing key members of staff within the

3


school who were responsible for Beacon activities, key members of staff in partner schools, an adviser connected with the Beacon School initiative within the local education authority, and the collection of a variety of documentary evidence.

Criteria for the selection of ‘new’ case-study schools. The criteria for selecting 12 Beacon Schools as ‘new’ case-study schools were as follows:

Sector of education: four primary schools, four secondary schools, one middle school, one nursery school and two special schools were selected.

Geography: the schools were based in eight different regions in England; South West, South East/South, London, East, West Midlands, East Midlands, North West and North East. One or two schools were selected from each region.

LEA context: given the importance of the relationship between the LEA and Beacon Schools within it, care was taken to ensure that the case-study schools selected had ‘differing’ relationships with their LEA.

Mode of dissemination: steps were taken to ensure there was a spread of both established Beacon activities, which had been commonly identified in previous years (such as the use of ICT), as well as newly-identified Beacon activities, such as citizenship or environmental education.

Involvement in ICT projects: it was ensured that at least three selected Beacon Schools were involved in an ICT initiative, e.g. the IBM Reinventing Education Programme, the Talking Heads Project or use of the Standards Site.

Maturity of Beacon School: the 12 new case-study Beacon Schools were selected from all phases of the initiative. Schools could have been granted Beacon status in September 1998, September 1999, January 2000, January 2001 or September 2001. This helped to ensure that the sample included schools with differing degrees of Beacon ‘maturity’.

Follow-up visits were made to eight previous case-study schools. A single revisit was made to each of eight Beacon Schools which had been visited by the NFER in the previous two evaluations of the initiative. Key members of staff were interviewed in these case-study schools. The revisits provided opportunities to gain an insight into the progress Beacon Schools were making over a period of time.1

1.5 Report Structure

1 Beacon Schools in Excellence in Cities areas. An additional six case-study visits were carried out as part of the Beacon School strand of the Excellence in Cities (EiC) evaluation (and two more such visits are planned). The EiC strand study of Beacon Schools looked at (1) the activities of the new ‘urban’ Beacon Schools and their partners; and (2) how Beacon Schools assist or contribute to the overall aims of the Excellence in Cities policy.

4

INTRODUCTION

This introductory chapter has given some background information on the policy surrounding the Beacon School initiative and has highlighted the main aims and methods of the evaluation. In the next chapter, the ways in which the case-study schools came to apply for Beacon status, and the process through which they identified their areas of good practice, are discussed. Chapter 3 provides details of the types of activities that Beacon Schools were offering to their partner institutions. Modes or models of dissemination are discussed in Chapter 4, whilst Chapter 5 discusses the contexts of Beacon Schools, with particular emphasis on the impact of Beacon Schools in urban (Excellence in Cities) areas. In Chapter 6 the changing nature of Beacon relationships is discussed. In Chapter 7, the use of ICT in Beacon Schools, including involvement in specific ICT projects, is outlined. The roles of the LEA are described in Chapter 8, whilst Chapter 9 focuses on the financial and cost effectiveness aspects of the Beacon initiative. Chapter 10 considers the initiative over a period of three years and identifies possible differences between the activities of ‘mature’ and ‘young’ Beacon Schools. Chapters 11 and 12, respectively, deal with the successes of Beacon work, and the issues and challenges faced. Finally, conclusions and recommendations are presented in Chapter 13.

5


6

BECOMING A BEACON SCHOOL

2. BECOMING A BEACON SCHOOL

2.1 Gaining Beacon Status

Twenty case-study Beacon Schools were visited as part of the 2001–2002 annual evaluation. These included eight schools from the 1999 evaluation and 12 ‘new’ schools.

Staff in schools which were new to the evaluation this year were asked about their motivation for becoming a Beacon School. As was found in last year’s evaluation, most of the schools were invited to bid for Beacon School status by the Department for Education and Skills (DfES). Schools were generally invited to bid for Beacon status as the result of a good OFSTED inspection report, or in the case of one school, improved Standard Assessment Test (key stage test) results. One school was encouraged to apply on the basis of external recognition from their LEA. The latter school accepted the offer to bid for Beacon status, though the headteacher said that she would not have put in a bid herself as she thought the school was very busy already.

It was apparent from interviewees’ comments that many of the case-study Beacon Schools already had a culture of professionalism and a readiness to share good practice with other institutions. One headteacher said, ‘We were already putting on training courses, with no money, previously.’

2.2 Identifying Areas of Good Practice

The ‘new’ case-study Beacon Schools were asked how they had identified their areas of expertise and, therefore, the activities they would wish to disseminate. The feedback they gave suggested that activities were identified on the basis of one or more of three factors:

internal discussion between Beacon School staff members;

external suggestions from OFSTED or a LEA adviser;

external discussions with the local community, parents, governors, etc.

The majority of the ‘new’ case-study Beacon Schools initially made choices about what they would disseminate from looking at the details of their OFSTED reports. Once initial ideas for activities had been decided upon, more often than not, these ideas were discussed with staff in the Beacon School. Usually teachers could make further suggestions on what to disseminate, and how they thought dissemination should be carried out, if they

7


thought it necessary. Many Beacon Schools also invited potential partner schools to indicate interest in the activities which were likely to be offered, and to suggest any further areas in which they would like some guidance. Some Beacon Schools were holding training sessions long before they gained Beacon status, and so continued to offer these as part of the Beacon programme.

The methods used for identifying areas of good practice, as described above, were similar to those identified by Beacon Schools in the evaluations carried out by the NFER in the previous two years. One Beacon School headteacher said, ‘I think that’s [deciding areas of expertise within the school] the most difficult thing, because how do you know what others see as our expertise?’ However, none of the Beacon Schools identified any major difficulties in deciding upon what activities to disseminate. In some cases LEAs were helping Beacon Schools to focus on their areas of expertise and also helping them to recognise that they cannot be good at everything.

There was a strong consensus among staff in partner schools and LEA personnel that Beacon Schools had been able to identify their strengths successfully. For example, one partner school teacher said, ‘They are very aware of their strengths and they know where they’re going.’ However, one LEA adviser reported that one Beacon School had put in a bid for Beacon status based on areas identified in their OFSTED report, but had experienced difficulties because the LEA had suggested that they disseminate alternative activities. Another LEA representative said, ‘It is difficult for schools to move forward if they are not the ones who identified what they are good at.’

The Beacon School initiative relies, of course, not only upon the identification of areas of strength, but also upon schools being able to transfer their good practice to other institutions. Beacon staff must be able to, and know how to, transfer the necessary skills and information to others, in both similar and different school environments. The issue of disseminating to schools in different circumstances and cultures is discussed in detail in Chapter 5.

2.3 Issues Surrounding the Identification of Beacon Activities

Comments made by interviewees at both Beacon and partner case-study schools suggested that, although Beacon Schools were very good at identifying their strengths, choosing areas of good practice was not always a straightforward matter. The following issues featured prominently in respondents’ comments on this area of their work.

One activity or focus, or several? Some schools focus on single areas of excellence, others on several areas. The case-study schools seem evenly divided between: those which choose one theme for their Beacon activities, e.g. writing, inclusion, INSET, and try to work in several (cross-curricular or

8

BECOMING A BEACON SCHOOL

managerial ways) with these themes; and those which identify several themes (usually about five) and work with those. Proactive or responsive? Some schools seem to pay more attention to responding to demand and develop new areas of activity accordingly (e.g. early years, cross-curricular work), whilst others identify their strengths and then proactively seek partners who might benefit from these. This raises the question that if schools are increasingly responding to demand, then how proactive can they be? Where is the thrust supposed to be – being proactive or responding? (See also Section 6.2).

Working with the LEA? In some schools seem to be operating in ways that support or fit with the LEA’s Education Development Plan (EDP), because the Beacon School is stronger or can complement the LEA in particular areas, e.g. ICT, pastoral care, curriculum planning (see Section 8.1 for more on this issue).

2.4 Renewing Beacon Status

At the time the evaluation was being carried out, some of the longer-established Beacon Schools were turning their attention to renewing their Beacon status and operating beyond the original three-year time span. The main requirement for schools wishing to renew their Beacon status is to show evidence of the impact that they have had in partner schools as a result of Beacon activity. The first indicator, according to DfES guidance provided on the Beacon Schools Website (DfES, 2002), will be the degree to which a school has successfully created such partnerships. Schools should provide details of how many partnerships have been established over the three-year period; how many came to a successful conclusion; and how many are ongoing. The sustainability of partnerships will be considered a clear measure of their success.

A school’s success as a Beacon will be judged on a combination of both quantitative and qualitative evidence. Quantitative evidence may include items such as the following:

the number of visits logged

the number of schools which have benefited from Beacon services

the number of students in those schools affected by changes.

Appropriate qualitative evidence will range from hard documentary proof to softer evidence in the form of the perceptions of partners, e.g.

the changes that have taken place in partner schools as a result of Beacon activity

feedback from LEAs, Excellence in Cities (EiC) partnerships or alternative sources of advice and support on input to training sessions

9


raised standards or other improvements in partner schools.

This evidence could be in the form of written evidence from partner schools, improved examination results in partner schools or reports from LEA advisers, EiC partnership representatives or others about the contribution made by Beacon activity to partner schools’ raised standards, and so on. In addition, schools will need to:

have completed their Annual Report Questionnaire each year within the deadline;

have maintained their own performance levels;

have the continued support of their staff, governing body and LEA for their reapplication;

outline how they intend to develop their Beacon activities;

have a satisfactory portfolio of evidence demonstrating that schools have developed good partnerships to the mutual benefit of all the parties concerned.

These requirements indicate that the renewal process is by no means easy, and the interviews conducted with Beacon School staff as part of this evaluation suggested that there were some difficulties with the reapplication process and with putting these sources of evidence together. Having said this, many respondents stressed how keen they were to continue as a Beacon School and to sustain their skills in, and the benefits of, sharing good practice with partner institutions.

10

BEACON ACTIVITIES

3. BEACON ACTIVITIES

3.1 Beacon Activities and Processes

Schools were asked in their Annual Report Questionnaire to provide details of the types of activities they were committed to providing, as defined in their letter of agreement with the DfES. For the purposes of analysis, schools were able to record up to eight areas of activity. The majority of schools reported that they were engaged in disseminating between four and eight areas of good practice, and the average (as was also the case last year) was six.

As in previous evaluation reports, in order to give as an accurate a picture of the diversity of Beacon work as possible, the research team has attempted, as far as has been practically possible, to keep to the terminology and the definitions used by the schools themselves. Further, and again as with previous evaluation reports, Beacon areas or activities have been divided into two categories: activities and processes. ‘Activities’ cover a range of aspects of school life and may, for example, include curriculum subjects or school management. ‘Processes’ often focus on the method of dissemination, such as providing consultancy or setting up a resource centre (see Table 2 below for details of identified Beacon activities and Table 3 for Beacon Schools’ reported processes).2

Table 2 below provides details of Beacon activities as reported by the full sample of 531 schools. This table illustrates the wide range of activities and areas Beacon Schools have been involved with. As shown, the most popular activities were leadership and literacy. ICT activities remained at the same level as in the previous year. Notably writing emerged as a new focus of activity in 2001 (in 35 per cent of Beacon Schools). This new emphasis on writing was at least partly the result of official encouragement in this area.

2 This approach clearly has the advantage of allowing schools to use their own terminology for describing their activities, but has the disadvantage that Beacon activities (or processes) are sometimes rather loosely defined, e.g. ‘partnerships with schools’ can take a multitude of forms. For future evaluative work the research team are looking at the possibility of using more structured (or ‘closed’) categorisations of Beacon activities, so that, as the number of Beacon Schools increases, responses can be summarised under more meaningful headings.

11


Table 2. Areas of Beacon Activity

Area of activity Number of schools Percentage of schools

Leadership 211 40Literacy 208 39Writing 185 35ICT 167 31Curriculum planning 155 29Assessment/monitoring 141 27SEN 118 22Parents/community 118 22Numeracy 107 20Target-setting/pupil tracking 81 15Gifted and talented 79 15Pastoral/behaviour 78 15Inclusion 70 13Early years/nursery 67 13School management 62 12School improvement 55 10Teaching and learning 54 10Extra-curricular activities 47 9Science 43 8School ethos 36 7Mathematics 33 6Social/moral/spiritual/PS(H)E 30 6Classroom organisation 30 6Self-evaluation 30 6Primary to secondary transfer 30 6Art 29 5Teaching subjects (general) 23 4English 20 4Sharing good practice 19 4Music 16 3Design and technology 15 3PE/sports/games 15 3Modern foreign languages 15 3Whole school planning 13 2Drama/performing arts 12 2Thinking skills 12 2Citizenship 11 2Religious Education 10 2Performance management 9 2EAL 9 2Working with governors 9 2Differentiation 8 2Financial management 8 2All other activities (each identified by six schools or fewer)

89

Number of schools 531

Percentages add up to more than 100 because respondents could give more than one response.

The most common ‘process’ was initial teacher training (ITT), which was mentioned by one in six of the responding schools. INSET/staff development

12

BEACON ACTIVITIES

and training for Newly Qualified Teachers were also notable, each of these being identified by more than one in ten schools.

Table 3. Areas of Beacon Activity – Processes

Process Number of schools Percentage of schools

Initial teaching training (ITT) 92 17Training for NQTs 59 11INSET/staff development 56 11Partnering schools on Spec Measures 28 5Partnerships with schools 26 5Training (general) 21 4Consultancy 14 3Tutoring/mentoring 13 2Support for new Headteachers 11 2Partnerships (general) 8 2Conferences 8 2Training for Adults other than Teachers 8 2Partnerships with HEIs 5 1Documentation/publications 4 1Resource centre/library 4 1Management of Beacon status 4 1Work-shadowing 4 1Number of schools 531Percentages add up to more than 100 because respondents could give more than one response.

Summary of Activities Information about Beacon activities and processes given in the 2001 questionnaire can be summarised as follows:

Beacon activity continues to be broad in nature, encompassing academic and pastoral provision, as well as organisational issues and teachers’ professional development.

Comparisons with the results from the previous year show that, on the whole, there have been few dramatic changes in the focus of Beacon activity between 2000 and 2001. This provides further evidence that Beacon work is being ‘consolidated’, rather than expanded in an ad hoc fashion.

Literacy was the most popular area of Beacon activity, mentioned by 40 per cent of responding schools. This was closely followed by leadership (also 40 per cent). The latter represents a significant increase since last year, when only 18 per cent of schools reported ‘leadership’ as being among their activities.

Writing, identified by 35 per cent of the schools, was the next most popular activity and numeracy was the fourth most popular activity.

13


ICT remains an important part of Beacon activity. This was the most popular activity in the 2000 survey (reported by 30 per cent of schools) and the figures for 2001 are similar (31 per cent).

In terms of processes, training for NQTs and staff development/INSET appear to be popular: these were identified by more than one in ten schools.

3.2 Frequency and Nature of Dissemination

As well as being asked to describe their Beacon activities, schools were also asked to report the frequency of a range of methods by which they may have disseminated their good practice. Table 4 below presents these frequencies for each of the main methods of dissemination.

Table 4. Frequencies of use of the main methods of dissemination (expressed as a percentage of all responses from Beacon Schools)

Daily

%

Weekly

%

Monthly

%

Termly

%

Annually

%

Once

%

Never

%

No respons

e %

Total number

of respons

esClassroom/lesson observation 1 17 23 19 2 8 26 3 2310

Consultation 1 16 33 26 3 9 8 2 2539Discussion group <1 10 23 24 3 11 25 3 2319Doc/Publications/Information pack 1 8 19 23 6 16 23 3 2331

INSET <1 5 13 24 5 13 35 4 2212Internet 3 5 5 5 2 10 59 9 2010Resource centre <1 4 6 8 2 9 61 9 2031Seminar/conference/lecture <1 5 12 25 5 16 33 4 2256

Visit from other school 1 13 30 25 3 12 14 2 2474

Visit to other school <1 10 19 26 3 13 26 3 2274

Work shadowing <1 4 6 9 1 8 62 9 2002Work placement <1 2 1 3 <1 6 74 13 1867N = 531A series of multiple response items. Due to rounding, percentages may not sum to 100 across the rows.

It is clear from the responses in Table 4 that, once again, on the whole, various face-to-face forms of communication were the preferred methods of dissemination. ‘Consultation’ was the most frequently reported means of dissemination, followed by ‘visits from another school’. ‘Visits to other schools’, ‘Classroom or lesson observation’ and

14

BEACON ACTIVITIES

‘Documentation/Publications/Information Pack’ (the latter possibly because of the amalgamation of categories in the 2001 questionnaire) were also frequent activities. The least popular methods were work placement (a new category in 2001) and work shadowing, possibly because these require a lot of organisation to set up and implement, using the Internet as a means of dissemination and providing partner schools with a resource centre.

Consultation between Beacon Schools and their partner institutions most frequently took place on a monthly basis (33 per cent), as did visits from other schools (30 per cent) and lesson observation (23 per cent). Beacon Schools have also been engaged in once-a-term activities: around a quarter have undertaken a visit to another school, have organised seminars, conferences and/or lectures, have held a discussion group or have conducted INSET.

None of the Beacon activities undertaken by schools were reported as being disseminated to partners on an ongoing, daily basis in great numbers. The most frequently reported weekly activities were lesson observation (17 per cent), consultation (16 per cent), and visits from other schools (13 per cent). However, in all of these examples, such activities were more likely, and to an increasing extent, to be carried out on a less frequent, monthly or termly basis.

15


16

THE CONTEXTS OF BEACON SCHOOLS

4. THE CONTEXTS OF BEACON SCHOOLS

4.1 Introduction: Contextual Dimensions of Beacon Work

This chapter considers the work of Beacon Schools in different geographical and socio-economic contexts. Such an analysis is necessary because the range of contexts within which Beacon Schools operate has now expanded alongside the increase in the numbers of these schools. In particular, the widening of the initiative to include more urban schools, following the incorporation of Beacon Schools into the Excellence in Cities initiative, has affected the planning and the nature of Beacon partnerships. For the purposes of discussion, ‘context’ can be broadly taken to include the following overlapping dimensions:

socio-economic context – as indicated, for example, by the proportion of students eligible for free school meals;

demographic context – including school catchment area and population density, proximity of other schools;

physical context – urban, rural, suburban catchment area, plus physical locality of the school;

administrative context – this includes relations with other schools and with the LEA (also LEA type: unitary, shire, metropolitan LEAs and so on).

During the course of fieldwork interviews it has become clear that the environment of a school, its locality, the nature of its LEA, and so on, does have an impact on Beacon work and partnerships. In this chapter we summarise what some of these impacts are and try to unravel further the ways in which context impacts upon Beacon work. (Chapter 7 discusses the role of the LEA in Beacon relationships and networks).

4.2 Taking Account of Cultural Differences

There is some evidence that Beacon Schools still have a tendency to work with schools that have similar profiles, circumstances and environments. Relationships or partnerships still tend, to an extent, to be with schools in the same sector, that are geographically close and have similar student intakes. Often these are based on previously-established personal connections or networks of the headteachers involved.

17


Having said this, however, many interviewees showed a strong awareness of the need to adapt relations according to the context and the culture of the participating schools. One LEA officer, linked to one of the new case-study schools featured in the evaluation, talked about precisely this kind of issue:

The LEA sees the partnership issue as being quite complex. [Beacon School] is a girls’ school and a Roman Catholic school, and also because of its entry requirements it can be selective, so the circumstances of other schools may not match its profile. Social class may also be an issue. However, there has been some work with other schools: the LEA area has fairly high levels of social deprivation and has ‘underachieving’ schools, so the existence of a Beacon School is helpful in terms of raising expectations and aspirations.

Furthermore, as was pointed out by another LEA officer (a ‘Beacon Adviser’), many Beacon activities tend to be connected to curriculum areas and so can be useful for any type of school. So, to date, in her city LEA, all Beacon activities could be delivered across all types of schools. But she also noted that no schools with high proportions of ethnic minorities (in her LEA) are Beacon Schools: ‘It would be interesting if Beacon Schools could focus on ethos or areas such as working with different cultures/citizenship issues, rather than traditional curriculum areas.’

There were a number of illuminative examples, illustrated in the case studies summarised below, of how Beacon Schools worked with, and had been directed towards, schools operating in very different contexts. In the first of these the LEA has used an educational initiative (in this case the Education Action Zone) to ‘pull’ schools together; in the second, the headteacher has consciously driven his school’s activities towards two-way Beacon partnerships with schools from inner city/urban areas outside the LEA; and in the third case study a deliberate ‘outreach’ Beacon activity has helped a partner school in a disadvantaged area within the LEA to come out of a ‘special measures’ situation.

Case Study: Beacon partnerships in an Education Action Zone

The headteacher, Beacon coordinator and link adviser of one of the case-study schools, a primary school located in a city LEA, talked in some detail about the cultural differences between schools and their involvement in a variety of initiatives and the ways that these might impact upon partnerships.

Within this city Excellence in Cities (EiC) has been used as a ‘strong mechanism’ for ‘pulling schools together’. As a primary school this particular school had not been involved in EiC, but it was an active member of one of two mini-Education Action Zones (EAZs) which had been subsumed under EiC. The LEA Senior Adviser reported that the aim had been to integrate EiC, EAZ and Beacon initiatives within an LEA structure, and not to have them as disparate initiatives.

The main partners of this school were seven primary schools and two secondaries, all located within the EAZ. It was more difficult to establish

18


relations with secondary schools, perhaps because they were unsure as to what a school from another sector might be able to do for them. Sectoral differences may be more important than cultural differences. Additionally, the link adviser stressed that school ‘culture’ can be defined in many different ways. One example is management culture: the leadership and management styles of different school headteachers may vary, but this does not stop them from working together.

Case Study: Two-way partnerships with urban schools outside the LEA

This case study provides an excellent example of how schools with different cultural contexts can work together. Although Beacon provision mostly relates to one-off training courses, this particular Beacon School has been working very closely with three partner schools on more intensive, two-way work. It has helped one school to come off special measures by assisting their needs related to recording and reporting systems. The ICT Coordinator from the Beacon School worked with the partner school for about ten days helping them in this way. OFSTED inspectors were then impressed with what the school had done and it contributed to them not being on special measures any more, ‘which is a real achievement for both schools.’

The Beacon School is also working in partnership with a ‘new’ school in a large city in the south of England, where the LEA has been looking to reorganise secondary schools. A third partner school, in another large town, has had a poor OFSTED report and is facing ‘challenging circumstances’. The Beacon School is helping this third partner in any way it can – ‘it is a different slant there’.

The headteacher described his school’s situation as unusual in that there are actually different models operating within their Beacon work. With some partners there is a consultancy/training model, but with these three schools there are intensive, ‘working together’ relationships. ‘We are getting a lot from those relationships…We are learning from each other. It is helpful for us to see how they are dealing with things. If the Beacon work stopped, those partnerships would continue. We have a mixture of delivery styles depending on the different needs.’

Case Study: Assisting schools in disadvantaged areas within the LEA

One of the case-study schools has been developing new partnerships by extending outreach work to more disadvantaged schools in other parts of the LEA, as well as to schools with more privileged intakes. This local education authority has great socio-economic variation within its formal boundaries. One disadvantaged partner school was previously said to have had problems and has now been identified as a ‘success’. Another partner school is now out of special measures.

The Beacon headteacher claimed to have (and demonstrated) an ‘holistic approach’ so that schools from disadvantaged areas did not feel ‘singled

19


out’. She also wanted to convey the facts that her school was ‘not delivering everything’ and that there was ‘mutual learning’ from the schools involved.A particular development was the Early Years partnership with ten schools, three in pre-school settings. The LEA wished to develop the school as a centre of excellence, resources and expertise for Early Years education. This will be part of a bid for the renewal of Beacon status. The LEA has been taking a leading role with this school, as part of an ‘exciting new venture’.

These case studies show that in at least some of the case-study Beacon Schools there was enthusiasm in terms of working with partners in different, usually urban, contexts. This aspect of Beacon work has, to some extent, been formalised, in the requirement for Beacon Schools to be a strand in the Excellence in Cities policy.

4.3 Beacon Schools in Excellence in Cities Areas

The national evaluation of Excellence in Cities (EiC), carried out by a consortium of the NFER, the London School of Economics and the Institute for Fiscal Studies, included a school survey, completed by senior managers at schools located in phase 1 or 2 EiC areas. Analyses of the findings from these survey responses attempted to identify, amongst other things, the key characteristics of the EiC schools with the highest levels of performance at key stages 3 and 4.3

Attainment at Key Stage 3 in EiC Schools

At key stage 3, across the 296 schools in the sample and without including the prior attainment of students, schools with high levels of student performance had:

high levels of active parental support… Beacon School status. This was positively associated with higher

average test scores at key stage 3; low levels of young people in receipt of free school meals (Morris, 2001).

Thus, at key stage 3 there is a statistically significant relationship between the status of being a Beacon School and achieving higher than average key stage 3 test scores. However, this analysis at key stage 3 did not take account of the prior attainment of students at key stage 2. When prior attainment data were included in the regression analysis, the impact of Beacon School status at key stage 3 was no longer evident: consequently, the ‘success’ of these Beacon Schools in EiC areas can at least partially be explained by the prior ability of

3 The analysis was based on 296 completed school questionnaires returned in the academic year 2000/2001, along with individual matched key stage 2, 3 and 4 student data, where this was available. Within the 296 respondent EiC schools there were 30 Beacon Schools.

20


their student intakes. An examination of the data for key stage 4, however, reveals a more interesting finding.

Attainment at Key Stage 4 in EiC Schools

At key stage 4…without including the prior attainment of students, the characteristics of the schools with the highest levels of attainment included those with:

Beacon School status. This was positively associated with higher average GCSE total scores…

High levels of active parental support. Low levels of young people in receipt of free school meals.

Once prior attainment at key stage 3 was included, the significant characteristics at key stage 4 were:

high levels of performance at key stage 3; Beacon School status… high levels of active parental support. (Morris, 2001).

Using key stage 4 attainment data, then, the positive significant relationship between schools having Beacon status and higher than average GCSE results, remains, even when the prior attainment of students is taken into account.

Caution must be exercised in relation to this finding because it is based upon data from only 30 Beacon Schools, but there is some evidence that students at these Beacon Schools (the evidence is not available for partner schools) are achieving better than expected GCSE results, in comparison with other schools in EiC areas. This is clearly an area that would merit further investigation.4

Beacon Schools, with Specialist Schools, constitute one of six strands of the Excellence in Cities policy: a separate evaluation (or ‘strand study’) is currently being carried out in order to evaluate the contribution of Beacon Schools to EiC.5 The strand study will draw upon the statistical and interview data developed during the course of the national evaluation of Beacon Schools and reported upon here. There will be eight additional Beacon School case studies (three in EiC Phase 1 areas, three in Phase 2 areas and two in Phase 3

4 The NFER research team has started to carry out further statistical analyses of all Beacon Schools’ and partner schools’ student outcomes in comparison to national averages. National value-added data sets are being used to make these comparisons – this work will be included in next year’s evaluation report.

5 The emphases of this strand evaluation will be on (i) the activities of the new ‘urban’ Beacon Schools and their partners; and (ii) how Beacon Schools assist or contribute to the overall aims of the Excellence in Cities policy. For example, one aim would be to identify some of the differences between Beacon activities and outcomes in EiC areas and non-EiC areas, i.e. what are Beacon Schools in urban areas doing differently?

21


areas). These will be secondary Beacon Schools featured in the EiC Partnership plan.6

Thus, the difficulties of, and the benefits arising from, partnerships between schools of different profiles and in different circumstances, is an area that is receiving considerable attention. The evidence from this year’s national evaluation of the Beacon initiative suggests schools still have some way to go in terms of learning from each other and in maximising the transfer of good practice, but also that there is already considerable awareness of the issues arising from cultural and contextual differences between schools.

6 Five strand case-study visits have already been carried out and the report arising from the strand evaluation of Phase 1 and 2 Beacon Schools will be sent to the DfES Excellence in Cities team by the end of June 2002, with the report on Phase 3 visits completed and updated by the end of March 2003. Full consideration of this study will be included in next year’s national evaluation report.

22

THE NATURE OF BEACON RELATIONSHIPS

5. THE NATURE OF BEACON RELATIONSHIPS

This chapter focuses on the nature and quality of the relationships that Beacon Schools have developed with their partners. Section 5.1 re-examines and updates the models of Beacon activity first presented in 2000 and 2001. Sections 5.2 and 5.3 present summary evidence from the eight 2000 case studies revisited in 2001 and from 12 new case-study schools visited for the first time in 2001. The final section examines, the types of relationship developed to date by the case-study schools.

5.1 Introduction: Models of Beacon Activity

Dissemination of good practice is at the heart of the Beacon initiative: The Beacon School scheme has been specifically designed to help raise standards in schools through the sharing and spreading of good practice (DfES, 2002).

At the heart of this dissemination is the notion of partnership:

It is based on the building of partnerships to foster a two-way exchange of knowledge between professionals. Beacon Schools represent examples of good practice that can be shared with others, enabling partners to reflect on whether principles and approaches can be adapted to achieve similar results in their own school (DfES, 2002).

It has been useful in looking at the nature of the work of Beacon Schools with their partners to utilise a number of conceptual models of activity. Three models, ‘dissemination’, ‘consultation’ and ‘learning together’ were first presented in the evaluation report in 2000. These models are now reassessed in the light of emerging evidence from the evaluation and the increasing maturity of the initiative.

Model A: ‘Dissemination’: a solution looking for a problem. This tends to be product-oriented, with an emphasis on written or electronic materials. However, material or support is not customised to the needs of individual schools, the relationship is mainly one-way and follow-up processes are not built in. Typical activities under this heading might include conferences, training workshops, long and short courses, or the promotion of the concept of the ‘open’ school. Such approaches are seen as appropriate in certain circumstances, for example, as a preliminary to the establishment of more substantial partnerships. One of the revisit Beacon Schools reported a shift in the attitude of partner schools towards their work as a Beacon School: ‘they don’t want Beacon Schools lecturing them on how to do their job. … they just want the meat…’. In this case, one-off events, such as

23


conferences are seen as a cost-effective way of meeting the demand for the information on offer. There is a concern that this method might be seen, in the words of one interviewee as, the handing down of a ‘holy grail’, and there is a danger that an emphasis on professional dialogue between practitioners may be diminished.

Model B: ‘Consultancy’: a customised approach to an identified problem. This is process-oriented and focuses on the policy or practice of the receiving school. The relationship, described as that of a ‘critical friend’, can be developed over time and may assist in capacity-building, but this is a more demanding approach for the Beacon School in terms of staff time and commitment. Other concerns are that in the current climate it may be difficult to find the (good) supply cover needed to release staff. It may also create dependency and be difficult to find an ‘exit’ strategy. This model does, however, appear to be the one that most closely reflects the ideal of the Beacon partnership as a two-way discussion between educational professionals.

Model C: ‘Improving together’: creating networks of mutual support for excellence. Here the focus is on a group of schools and the model is premised on the notion of reciprocal learning and capacity-building, rather than reacting to individual one-off requests. This model helps schools to share ideas and does not create dependency, but there is a danger that the initiative may dissipate into a number of disconnected activities. Some individual Beacon Schools have also established relationships with partner schools along these lines with an emphasis on a journey jointly travelled, but facilitated by Beacon funds. This model may be more a feature of the work of the more mature or confident Beacon Schools since, ‘it takes more confidence to admit that you don’t have all the answers’.

It is clear from the evaluation of the activities of the more mature Beacon Schools during 2001 that a further model or ideal type of activity might usefully be added. Model D presents a description of the role of the Beacon School as a ‘broker’. This role builds on Model C and has emerged as networks of contacts have been established and expanded.

Model D: ‘Beacon as Broker’: utilising Beacon networks. Some Beacons reported that they were unable to accommodate all requests for help from other schools because they were ‘over-subscribed’, ‘too busy’, felt that they did not have the relevant expertise, or that funding was insufficient to meet all requests. But over half of these schools were able to refer schools to other sources of support and expertise, usually another Beacon School. In some areas it is the LEA that takes on the role of ‘broker’ of Beacon activities.

As noted in the 2001 evaluation report, these models of Beacon activity are simplified, ideal-types of Beacon work: many Beacon Schools operate using a mixture of models, may not operate on the basis of any preconceived model, may adopt a type of model not covered here, or may carry out their Beacon

24


work as a kind of ongoing ‘spiral’ of activity. The type of model adopted by the Beacon School is a response to the need to be addressed as identified by the partner institution(s) and the way it perceives its role as a Beacon School; whether as an expert/pioneer in a particular area and able to pass on its experience (as in Model A or B), as a ‘fellow traveller’(as in Model C) or as an intermediary, able to connect seekers and providers (Model D).

There is considerable evidence that the more intensive work with partner schools (as described in Models B and C) is seen as somehow, more ‘genuine’ as a partnership. The key features are that the relationship is seen as two-way and egalitarian, i.e. the Beacon School is seen as an equal partner in the learning process, able to receive as well as to give. It is clear that the promotion of this type of model of working has arisen, to some extent, as a response to the perceived elitism some see as inherent in the initiative. Recent authors have, however, questioned whether ‘equal’ partnerships between Beacon and non-Beacon Schools can be achieved at all in an educational climate that has focused on competition rather than co-operation between schools, and the ‘unequal status’ of Beacon Schools and partner schools (Webster, 2001).

5.2 The Revisit Case Studies

Findings from the year 2000 case-study schools revisited during 2001 are presented below. These assist consideration of changes in the nature of Beacon relationships over time. A number of other developments for these schools are also explored in the light of their impact on the nature of Beacon relationships.

Increase in demand for Beacon provision. Half of the revisit schools reported an increase in demand for their expertise. This appeared to be particularly the case where the expertise being offered was very specialised and unavailable elsewhere in the system. In response to this increase in demand and in line with their increasing maturity and confidence in dealing with their Beacon status, a number of schools reported that they were becoming more proactive, formalised and focused in their approach to Beacon activities. In some cases there had been a concentration on a smaller number of areas than first offered which, in some cases, was a response to the demands of partners. Whilst schools reported a certain amount of ‘taming’ of the initiative to suit the schools themselves and to ensure the maintenance of their Beacon status, it was clear that some schools, were being led by the ‘market’ in terms of the expertise they were providing and so might arguably be seen to be responding reactively.

Moves towards ‘genuine’ partnerships. Despite the increase in demand, the revisit schools wanted to pursue more in-depth relationships with smaller numbers of partners. In attempting to address both needs, some schools had continued with an emphasis on the dissemination model, but ‘modified’ to working with smaller groups to enable the targeting of

25


need more closely. All revisit schools reported moves to more ‘genuine’ two-way relationships with a few schools or smaller groups. In some cases this was in addition to the various activities adopted under the dissemination model that they had adopted earlier in the initiative.

Links with schools in difficult circumstances. A number of the in-depth partnerships that were being developed were with schools in special measures, or difficult circumstances. These relationships were generally seen as extremely valuable (see Section 5.4 for a more detailed discussion).

Involvement in Beacon networks. The importance of personal and professional networking for establishing partnerships was emphasised in the 2000 report. This had continued in the revisit schools with the added dimension of the schools’ increasing involvement in Beacon-Beacon networks. Beacon Schools reported involvement in local and regional networks of Beacon Schools which were seen as valuable (see Section 5.4).

Increased involvement in ITT and INSET. For some Beacon Schools there was increased involvement with the LEA and with providers of teacher education in the provision of initial and in-service training.

In general, the findings from the revisit case-study schools show a great deal of similarity with the findings presented in last year’s report. In particular, a move towards more focused and sustained relationships, more work with schools in special measures or challenging circumstances, and indications of a move away from or an adaptation of the dissemination model. But this desire to move towards more genuine partnerships with (necessarily) fewer schools/partners is compounded, for some Beacon Schools, by the increase in demand for their expertise. How the individual Beacon Schools choose to resolve this conflict will continue to have an impact on the numbers and types of Beacon relationships developed.

5.3 The New Case Studies

The data presented here is drawn from the 12 new case-study Beacon Schools visited for the first time in 2001. Similarities with the findings from schools first visited during 2000 are as follows.

Emphasis on existing networks. As we reported last year, the majority of Beacon relationships were locally based initially, i.e. within the LEA. In these cases, local existing networks were important in providing Beacon Schools with an initial target for their activities. In one case, the partner schools were all part of the local, pre-existing Education Action Zone. For some types of schools however, the local area may not provide enough schools of a similar type and may drive schools beyond their own LEA in search of suitable partners. One of the special schools in the new sample, for example, had targeted all the special schools in England.

26


The importance of personal and professional networking. This finding also reflects the evidence from last year; that in establishing initial relationships, existing networks are extremely valuable. Headteachers remained key networkers; this is important because in the words of one headteacher, the Beacon initiative is ‘driven from the top’. Because these relationships are rooted in pre-existing arrangements, they may be less formal than arrangements between partners that are more distant.

A shift towards the consultancy model. Whilst the dissemination model of activity was well represented, and the dominant mode of delivery for a few schools, it did not appear to be as dominant as it was in 2000. From the outset some schools were keen to establish ‘substantial’ partnerships with a few partners and the consultancy model appeared to be more evident. For some schools, dissemination activities such as workshops, were seen as useful to the extent that they provided a launch-pad for more substantial relationships. So, again, there was evidence of a mixture of models – particularly of Models A and B.

Case Study: The development of partnerships

One of the new Beacon Schools visited was looking to establish long-term relationships from the outset rather than focus on ‘one-off’ events. A clear contract, and discussion of delivery and evaluation strategies, form the basis of relationships with partner schools which would be more difficult to establish in a one-off situation. The school is seeking to develop intensive relationships of a limited time span.

5.4 Types of Beacon Relationships

Whilst partnerships with other schools predominate in the initiative, it is evident that Beacon relationships extend beyond school boundaries. The section examines the range of types of Beacon partnerships using evidence from the Annual Report Questionnaire and from all case-study schools, partner schools and LEAs visited during 2001.

Data from the 2001 Annual Report Questionnaire indicates the existence of several types of partnership. The average number of partnerships of each type for the years 2000 and 2001 are shown in Table 5 below.

A) Beacon School – non-Beacon SchoolOf all types of partnership identified, those between Beacon Schools and non-Beacon Schools were predominant over the two years (though showing a slight decline in 2001). Both new and revisit case-study schools reported that dissemination to a large number of partners was being augmented with the development of more ‘in-depth’ work with a few schools.

A closer relationship with fewer partner schools has been an emphasis in more recent DfES policy statements. The evidence from the case studies would

27


indicate that these closer relationships are seen as valuable for both Beacon and non-Beacon Schools. However, there are challenges for some Beacon Schools attempting to add these more demanding partnerships to their existing dissemination work.

Case Study: The requirement for closer working

One headteacher was less than enthusiastic about the DfES emphasis on working more closely with partner schools, but stated that ‘the re-bid has concentrated the mind on fewer schools so next year we’ll run them together’, i.e. the school is adding this aspect to its existing Beacon School agenda.

It is clear that some Beacon Schools are successfully establishing relationships with schools that may be in very different circumstances to their own. Views on this vary from: ‘if you want to get fit you don’t go to a marathon runner’, to, the best way to raise standards is ‘to work with good practitioners and to see good practice’. On the whole, the fact that Beacon Schools may work in different contexts to their own is not seen as problematic. Beacon Schools appear to be sensitive to the different contexts of the schools with which they work and indeed value the experience of working in schools that face different challenges to their own (see Section 4.2). There is also evidence of links between schools of different types, e.g. special schools and mainstream schools, across schools in different phases, and between schools that are different in ethos. A number of Beacon Schools have reported increasing links with schools in special measures or challenging circumstances. The consultancy model appears to be particularly effective in these different contexts because it can be tailored to specific need. The breaking down of barriers between schools is seen to negate the tendency towards ‘parochialism’ and, whilst demanding for Beacon staff, these relationships are highly regarded and valued for the considerable learning opportunities and professional dialogue that they facilitate.

B) Beacon School-Beacon SchoolThere is some evidence of Beacon Schools being involved with other Beacon Schools in local partnerships of schools, and (but more rarely), for Beacon Schools to be drawing upon the expertise of other Beacon Schools in a partner school role.

As the number of Beacon Schools has increased, the opportunity for involvement in local and regional networks of Beacon Schools has increased. Revisit Beacon Schools in particular spoke of this involvement, and two of these schools reported having responsibility for regional network coordination. Benefits mentioned include the opportunity to talk to and share good practice with other Beacon Schools. The networks were felt to be good for morale and professionalism and they provided links for schools which might feel isolated within their LEA.

28


C) Beacon School-LEAThe relationship between the LEA and its Beacon Schools is, undoubtedly, a complex one, reflecting local and national issues (see Chapter 7). Influences on the relationship may include, the nature of the school’s pre-Beacon relationship with the LEA, the LEA view as to the role of the Beacon School within the LEA and the local political and administrative context. On a broader level, the relationship is influenced by the LEA’s perceived role in the initiative, the management of its other roles and responsibilities, and its infrastructure.

While the majority of Beacon Schools tend to have positive relationships with their LEA, there are sometimes a number of tensions. These include the balance the LEA offers to its Beacon Schools by way of ‘support’ and the ‘use’ it makes of the Beacon Schools under its remit, and whether the Beacon Schools within an LEA should be used primarily as a resource for other schools within that LEA.

It is clear that Beacon Schools, perhaps unsurprisingly, have expected more in terms of support from their local LEA than from others they may be involved with as part of the initiative (see Section 7.3). Schools that are now receiving more support than in previous years have commented that they would have liked help earlier when they were unclear about the initiative.

Some LEAs have or are beginning to develop strategies for promoting ‘best practice’, ‘school improvement’, etc., in which the Beacon Schools play an important part as a resource from which the LEA can draw expertise. Case-study evidence indicates that some LEAs are using their Beacon Schools in the process of sharing good practice, for various activities related to INSET, and involving staff members of Beacon Schools in LEA working parties.

In line with previous findings about the development of Beacon relationships, a number of Beacon Schools have expanded from a local base and established links with neighbouring LEAs and further afield. There were reports of visits from Scotland and Northern Ireland, and even France, the United States and Japan. Also, in some cases, schools reported better relationships with LEAs other than their own. Findings from the Annual Report Questionnaire indicated that 97 per cent of LEAs in England have at least one Beacon School, and there is an average (mean) of four Beacon Schools in each LEA. There are DfES plans to add to the pool of Beacon Schools in those areas which currently have few Beacons. It might therefore be legitimate to ask at this point in the development of the initiative whether Beacon Schools should be seen or used primarily as a resource within their own LEAs. Some LEAs and Beacon Schools feel that this should be the case, others do not.

D) Beacon – Providers of Teacher EducationA number of case-study schools reported new or increasing links with providers of teacher education, usually Higher Education Institutions (HEIs), e.g. universities. This is usually as placement schools for students on initial

29


teaching training (ITT), but one Beacon School reported involvement in the delivery of theory for teaching students on areas including assessment and marking and the use of performance data. Several Beacon Schools also reported visits by teachers registered on headship training programmes, for example, the National Professional Qualification for Headship (NPQH). For many of the case-study schools there had been prior relations with ITT providers, and the Beacon initiative provided an opportunity to build upon and to formalise this relationship.

E) Beacon – OthersAlmost one in five Beacon School relationships are with other organisations. Specific examples mentioned in the Annual Report Questionnaires were, DfES (Advanced Skills Teacher team), IBM, the Basic Skills Agency, the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA) and the Technology Colleges Trust. These links are many and varied and will be examined in greater detail during the next phase of the evaluation to ascertain the precise nature and focus of these relationships.

In summary, Beacon partnerships are continuing to develop as the initiative itself evolves. Whilst they are ideal types, the models of Beacon activity are continuing to be useful for gaining an overview of the types of relationship being established and for looking at the changing nature of Beacon relationships.

30

THE USE OF ICT IN BEACON SCHOOLS

6. THE USE OF ICT IN BEACON SCHOOLS

6.1 The Use of Information and Communications Technology

There is evidence that, although face-to-face forms of dissemination remain very popular, the use of information and communications technology (ICT) to disseminate Beacon activities is on the increase. Nearly one-third of Beacon Schools (31 per cent) identified ICT as an important part of their Beacon activity in their Annual Report Questionnaire (this compares with 30 per cent last year and 15 per cent in 1999 when the pilot stage of the initiative was evaluated). This chapter examines the ways in which ICT is being used for Beacon work and summarises what Beacon and partner school staff feel about this particular aspect of their work.

The evaluation included consideration of how ICT is being used generally within the auspices of the Beacon initiative (Section 6.2) and also of how specific ICT initiatives are contributing to the dissemination of good practice (Section 6.3). Particular initiatives investigated include the IBM Reinventing Education programme (Section 6.4), the Talking Heads project (Section 6.5) and use of the Beacon area of the Standards Site (Section 6.6).

6.2 The Use of ICT in General

The Annual Report Questionnaire completed by Beacon Schools by the end of March 2001 included a completely new section, with eight questions, on the use of ICT. The main interview schedule also included questions asking ‘How, if at all, has ICT been used in your Beacon work?’ and ‘What is the importance of ICT to your Beacon activity and to the initiative as a whole?’.

In general, ICT appears to be a successful tool for sharing good practice and seems to be central to some schools’ partnership work. Most of the school respondents made positive statements about the ICT strand, which is felt to be very useful in terms of setting up websites, for example, or for dissemination purposes. Many schools state that the use of ICT enhances communication between them and their partner institutions. Even if the technology is not in place yet, most of the schools have high expectations concerning the use of ICT.

A number of the case-study and revisit schools had not been able to implement the ICT technology yet, but were planning to develop this area and were

31


looking forward to using it. Some schools expect ICT to contribute to their management system and plan to use it, for example, for video conferencing. Others want to install video cameras on their website to be able to share good practice with other schools regionally, nationally and even internationally. Some schools plan to design websites to present or to advertise their Beacon activities. Many schools commented that ICT is one of their main priorities and some of them indicate that they had integrated it into their curriculum activities before joining the Beacon initiative. Most interviewees who mentioned ICT agreed that they probably require further training in this area. Some schools have ICT coordinators who offer training for teachers on software and hardware, or give advice on planning and assessment using ICT.

The use of ICT facilitates communication between schools and it is particularly enhanced by using e-mail programmes. Activities such as exchanges of lesson plans would be much more time consuming if other methods of communication were used. One school included e-mail training for gifted and talented students. The Internet is widely used by Beacon Schools, mostly for setting up a homepage or to present details of Beacon activities to interested parties. One school, for example, designed a website for their partner school, because they had greater technical capacity. Another school offered electronic transfer of a training module and a training certificate to partner institutions. A further school makes ICT equipment so that groups of Beacon and partner students can exchange their ideas via e-mail.

Case Study: The positive impact of ICT

In this Beacon nursery school ICT is important because it permeates all parts of the curriculum. It is vital not only for management and assessment purposes, but also for producing handouts, overhead projector diagrams and so on. ‘Staff use of ICT has come on in leaps and bounds. ICT is part of everything.’

All the teachers in this school have had training and this shows in their increased confidence when using computers. Each classroom has a computer and ICT is used regularly and throughout the school for dissemination.

The main problems with implementing and using ICT, reported by the surveyed schools, were to do with the hardware or were staff-related. In some schools staff were nervous about ICT activities and it seemed to be difficult to build up confidence. Most of the schools agree that staff’s expertise still has to be developed before ICT can be used effectively in the classrooms. One school mentioned particular problems of communication with an ICT company and another stressed that machines supplied to them had not been compatible with the school’s existing facilities.

32


6.3 The Use of ICT in Specific Initiatives

In their questionnaire responses, Beacon Schools reported varying involvement in specified ICT projects, as shown in Table 5 below. Around five per cent (27 schools) indicated that they had been part of the IBM Reinventing Education project: this closely reflects the participation level agreed between DfES and IBM. Just under one in five school respondents reported involvement in the Beacon area of the Talking Heads project. The Beacon area of the Standards Site was the most well-used electronic source of information, with nearly half of the schools indicating that they had made use of this site in the previous 12 months.

Table 5. Involvement in ICT projects

Number of schools responding

Percentage of schools

Yes No No response Yes No No response

Involvement in IBM Reinventing Education programme

27 482 22 5 91 4

Involvement in the Talking Heads project 92 413 26 17 78 5

Use of the latest developments in the Beacon Schools area of the Standards Site

247 249 35 47 47 7

Involvement in any ‘other projects’ aimed at disseminating good practice via the internet

197 302 32 37 57 6

Number of schools = 531Due to rounding, percentages may not sum to 100 across the rows.

Beacon School staff who indicated that they had taken part in these initiatives were also asked whether their involvement had ‘contributed to the dissemination of good practice’. Responses to this question, summarised in Table 6 below, suggest that school staff were fairly evenly divided on this issue. Over half of the respondents to this question – who were participating in the IBM project – felt that involvement in the IBM Reinventing Education programme had contributed to the dissemination of good practice, and 60 per cent of participating respondents felt that the Standards Site had helped in this respect. There was less satisfaction with the Talking Heads project, with only around a third of respondents (35 per cent) expressing a positive view about the value of this project as an aid to dissemination.

33


Table 6. Has involvement in ICT projects contributed to the dissemination of good practice?

Number of schools responding

Percentage of respondent schools

Yes No Yes No

The IBM Reinventing Education programme (n = 71) 39 32 55 45

The Talking Heads project (n = 108) 38 70 35 65

Participation in the Beacon Schools area of the Standards Site (n = 260)

157 103 60 40

Due to rounding, percentages may not sum to 100 across the rows.

6.4 The IBM Reinventing Education Programme

The IBM Reinventing Education project is part of an international initiative to support broad-based systemic change which aims to contribute to teacher professional development and improved student performance. The programme involves research and development and is operated in partnership with the DfES. The aim has been to encourage collaborative working and the creation of ‘knowledge communities’ via software entitled ‘Wired for Learning’. This scheme is specific to the Beacon initiative and the number of schools taking part is currently limited to around 25.7

6.5 The Talking Heads Project

‘Talking Heads’ is the website for the National College for School Leadership. The College provides school leaders with professional support in addressing current leadership issues. The website provides the opportunity for headteachers to engage in discussion and debate with national experts and policy makers and to talk freely to each other about leadership matters. Whilst it is intended that eventually all school leaders will have access to this site, the registration process is staggered. However, certain priority groups have been guaranteed early registration and a number of places have been offered to the headteachers of Beacon Schools.

6.6 The Beacon Area of the Standards Site

The Beacon Schools area of the DfES Standards Site offers specific information on the initiative as well as guidance and advice for existing and would-be Beacon Schools. Users of the site are encouraged to access

7 A separate evaluation of the IBM Reinventing Education programme, in the context of a variety of dissemination modes, is now underway.

34


information on the work of Beacon Schools and the types of activities they are involved in, and also to access particular areas of expertise. This site is available to all schools and currently includes the following information:

details of the numbers of Beacon Schools

Beacon Schools by region

case study index

information on how a school becomes a Beacon School

advice on being a Beacon School booklet

details of Beacon grants and allowances

the new Annual Report Questionnaire

advice on the role of the LEA in relation to Beacon Schools

details of the selection criteria for the September 2002 expansion

guidance for the renewal of Beacon status after three years.

6.7 Using ICT to Disseminate Good Practice

Further information on respondents’ views of the effectiveness of these ICT projects was available from a follow-up open question about the contribution of the project to the dissemination of good practice. Very few of the respondents who were involved in these ICT projects made overtly negative comments about the ways in which these projects contributed to the dissemination of good practice. Positive comments always outnumbered negative and neutral comments. ‘Other comments’ included statements such as ‘the school is developing its own website’, ‘we hope to be more involved in the future’, ‘we have used the internet to develop links with other schools’, ‘only recently acquired internet access’ and ‘this is all new ground for us’. The very fact that these respondents had taken the trouble to say something about the use of ICT suggests that they were interested in this area of dissemination.

The Use of ICT to Disseminate Good Practice From Table 7 below it can be seen that around a quarter of the Beacon Schools used the internet to spread good practice either daily or weekly, and around 30 per cent used e-mail communications with this degree of frequency. If the daily, weekly, monthly, termly figures are combined, to produce an indicator of ‘regular’ usage of these ICT applications, then it can be seen that 42 per cent of the schools use the internet ‘regularly’ to disseminate good practice,8 and 51 per cent use e-mails on a regular basis.

8 Note that this figure for Internet use is considerably higher than that reported in response to the general ‘methods of dissemination question’ (see Table 2 in Section 3.1), suggesting that, in general, there may be some under-reporting of the use of electronic forms of communication.

35


Secondary schools appear to be slightly more advanced than primary schools in terms of the frequency of use of these applications. For example, of the secondary school respondents to this question, 36 per cent said that they used the internet daily, compared to just 11 per cent of primary school respondents.

Some figures in this table suggest that there may still be some under-usage of electronic forms of communication. Nearly a third of responding schools said that they ‘never’ used the internet and around a quarter said that they never used e-mails to disseminate good practice. Also, the relatively high figures of non-respondents suggest that many of the Beacon staff completing the questionnaire were unsure as to how, and how frequently, these forms of communication were used, or if they were used at all.

Table 7. Use of ICT formats to disseminate good practice

To what extent does your school use ICT to disseminate good practice?Internet E-mail

Number of schools

Percentage of all responding

Beacon Schools

Number of schools

Percentage of all responding

Beacon Schools

Daily 85 16 59 11Weekly 48 9 97 18Monthly 35 7 74 14Termly 56 11 42 8Annually 29 5 17 3Never 166 31 130 25Invalid 6 1 4 1Non response 106 20 108 20Total 531 531This is a single response item. Due to rounding, percentages may not sum to 100.

In conclusion, electronic forms of communication are used, and they are often used to very good effect, but a considerable proportion of Beacon School respondents, probably around a half, have yet to be convinced that such communication methods are effective techniques for disseminating Beacon work. ICT appears to be seen by the other half as one tool, albeit a very important one, amongst a range of methods that can be used to complement teaching and learning and to disseminate examples of good practice.

36

THE ROLE OF THE LEA

7. THE ROLE OF THE LEA

This chapter focuses on the relationship between Beacon Schools and their own LEAs. In particular, the positive benefits of LEA involvement in the Beacon initiative are discussed, as are any difficulties Beacon Schools and their LEAs have encountered.

The Annual Report Questionnaires included questions on the role of LEAs, and the responses enable the interview data to be put into context. Two thirds (66 per cent) of the questionnaire respondents reported that their LEA had been either ‘very helpful’ or ‘helpful’ (three per cent higher than the previous year). Only 14 per cent thought that their LEA had been unhelpful. The responses to the questionnaire indicate that Beacon Schools’ activities are being supported and facilitated by LEAs, with 58 per cent using Beacon Schools as part of their school improvement strategies within their Education Development Plans (EDPs). New DfES guidance indicates that LEAs are expected to promote the role of Beacon Schools in their EDPs (DfES, 2002). However, the extent of this had declined since previous questionnaire surveys; 66 per cent of LEAs were using Beacon Schools in this way in 2000, and 73 per cent were doing so in 1999. The 2001 survey shows that around a fifth (22 per cent) of Beacon Schools did not know whether their LEA was making use of their status in the EDP.

This raises the issue of the role of LEAs in the Beacon Schools initiative, which was explored in greater depth during visits to case-study schools. LEAs, as part of their long-standing management responsibility for local school systems, and as part of their more recent school improvement remit, have a key part to play in bringing their schools and other partners together for mutual benefit. Further, the general role of the LEA in relation to a variety of initiatives and as a facilitator of school networks or partnerships is an area that is now receiving a good deal of attention in the policy field and is something which clearly merits further research.

Staff in Beacon Schools and LEA representatives were asked about the nature of their relationships, and the role of the LEA in the Beacon Schools initiative. To allow for comparison with the last round of case-study visits, the findings from the interviews carried out in case-study schools have been divided into two sections; the positive effects of LEA involvement, and the difficulties encountered.

37


7.1 Positive Aspects of LEA Involvement

Case-study schools mentioned a number of positive benefits of LEA involvement in the Beacon Schools initiative, as discussed below.

Providing general, on-going advice and support. A number of LEAs appreciated that the Beacon Schools initiative is school-led and thus wanted their own role to be ‘light-touch’, but were happy to offer schools on-going advice and support if required.

Building and sustaining partnerships. As was the case last year, LEAs were identified as being best equipped to broker partnerships between schools. It was felt that LEAs had the relevant knowledge to link schools that have particular areas of need with Beacon Schools who could support them (including schools on special measures). In some cases, LEAs helped to build and sustain partnerships by setting up meetings between schools and advertising Beacon activities in newsletters or brochures.

Developing Beacon applications. Similarly to last year, some schools valued the support from their LEA in completing their applications for Beacon status (see case study below). In some cases, LEAs had asked schools for permission to recommend them for Beacon status to DfES. In contrast, a small number of LEAs commented that the DfES had sent application forms straight to the schools and bypassed them, and thus LEA support could only be provided if schools asked for it.

Identifying a focus. A number of Beacon School staff mentioned that the LEA had been helpful at assisting schools to identify good practice which could be disseminated via Beacon School activities. LEAs described how schools sometimes ‘lacked confidence at saying ‘we are good at X’’. As one LEA representative commented, ‘the LEA role is to give schools the confidence to spotlight good practice’. Beacon Schools were also appreciative that LEAs helped them focus on certain aspects of their good practice, recognising that ‘you can’t offer everything’.

Case Study: LEA supporting a Beacon bid

In one case-study school, where the role of the LEA was viewed positively, the LEA had supported the school in its bid for Beacon status. The role of the LEA ‘is not charging in with their agenda, since it is the school which has Beacon status’. The Beacon School welcomed the LEA’s help and support whilst preparing their bid, and the on-going support they have since provided. The LEA helped to provide a focus for their Beacon work. The LEA representative commented that ‘we will facilitate the spread of Beacon practice and provide hands-on practitioner support for schools in need’.

In previous evaluations it was found that some case-study schools had experienced difficulties with their LEAs. However, this year’s revisits to case-study schools revealed that some LEAs have become more supportive and helpful. This could possibly because, over time, LEAs have become more

38

THE ROLE OF THE LEA

aware of the initiative and what it involves. However, a minority of case-study Beacon Schools were encountering difficulties with LEAs, as discussed in the following section.

7.2 Difficulties with LEA Involvement

Although there were many benefits of LEA involvement in the Beacon Schools initiative, as discussed in the previous section, a minority of case-study schools and LEA representatives mentioned difficulties that they had encountered. These are discussed in turn below.

Uncertainty about the role of the LEA. In a context where the roles of LEAs in general have been changing (and have therefore been subjected to a degree of uncertainty), some LEA interviewees were unsure about what their authority’s role in relation to the Beacon initiative should be. On one hand, LEAs appreciated that the Beacon Schools initiative should be school-led and that their role should be to simply facilitate and offer informal support. On the other hand, some schools complained that they were not offered enough support. Some LEAs expressed concern about the fact that, in the earlier stages of the initiative, their role was not made clear, and suggested that further clarification from the DfES would be helpful.

The LEA agenda. Although LEAs were praised by Beacon Schools for helping them to decide upon a focus for their Beacon activities, there was some concern among Beacon School staff that the LEAs were imposing a pattern of activity that met local needs which had been pre-defined by the LEA, rather than leaving it up to schools to choose activities that matched their own expertise. In some cases, where the relationship between schools and the LEA had not always been positive, Beacon Schools and their partners felt it was preferable to hold meetings without an LEA representative present, as ‘it is important that the school sets the agenda. You need an openness and this is difficult with the LEA present’. This raises the question of the appropriate role of the LEA, as discussed above and in the next section.

The use of Beacon activities. Some Beacon School staff were concerned that LEAs had taken advantage of them and used them as the main source of training provision in the LEA. One headteacher who was unhappy about this described it as ‘INSET on the cheap’. However, in other cases it was expected that the LEA would use Beacon School activities in this way, and this was considered to be a pragmatic and sensible use of resources. This suggests that LEAs and Beacon School headteachers need to agree on how the work of Beacon Schools will be used most effectively and strategically to support the work of LEAs, without causing discontent.

An example of a school which has valued the role of the LEA, yet still experienced some difficulties, is provided in the following case study.

39


Case Study: LEA as broker and scrutineer

In this case, there is a long-standing positive relationship between the case-study Beacon School and the LEA. The LEA has taken on the role of marketing the Beacon School activities, and suggesting to certain partner schools that they should participate in activities that meet their needs. The LEA has produced a directory of Beacon activities which is disseminated to possible partner schools. Otherwise, the role of the LEA is ‘more informal’, which is appreciated. However, the headteacher of the Beacon School was concerned that ‘the LEA are very conscious of the Beacon finances…and seem to want to become a scrutineer of Beacon activity and finances’, a role or potential role which was quickly rejected by herself and the other local Beacon School headteachers.

7.3 A Typology of LEA Roles

The findings, as in previous years, suggest varying relationships between Beacon Schools and their LEAs, and it might be useful at this stage of the evaluation to take stock of what these relationships are. These relationships can be categorised as follows:

no relationship

neutral relationship

light-touch relationship

positive and active relationship.

Each of these categories is discussed in turn below.

No Relationship. There was not always an established role for LEAs, or the role was yet to be defined. In some cases this was because the Beacon School did not want the LEA to be involved, possibly because they had experienced negative relationships in the past (see case study below). However, in other cases Beacon Schools were disappointed that they had not even been acknowledged and felt the LEA had negative views of the Beacon initiative. For instance, the headteacher of a well-established Beacon School said ‘the complete lack of acknowledgement and support from the LEA continues’.

Case Study: No relationship

The headteacher of one Beacon primary school was concerned that involving the LEA in Beacon activities would result in a disadvantageous steer in the direction of the LEA’s own agenda. Thus, the LEA had not played any role in the Beacon initiative and was not present at any Beacon-related meetings. The headteacher stressed, ‘it is important for the Beacon and partner schools to meet without the LEA or others so that the schools can set their own agenda – this is difficult if the LEA is there’.

40

THE ROLE OF THE LEA

Neutral relationship. Some LEAs were reactive rather than proactive in response to Beacon Schools, and this could be seen as a stance of ‘neutrality’. LEAs would help and support Beacon Schools, but only if asked.

Case Study: Neutral relationship

The headteacher of one of the revisit Beacon secondary schools explained how the role of the LEA had been neutral. He said, ‘we were the only Beacon School in the LEA up until now. When we’ve asked, they [the LEA] have been very supportive’. Support had been provided by the school’s link adviser, but only when the school had requested it.

Light-touch relationship. When LEAs took a ‘light-touch’ approach to their involvement in the Beacon initiative, it meant that they were more involved than would be the case in a ‘neutral’ relationship, as described above, but were not considered to be completely active. In some cases, this was because the LEA did not want to appear heavy-handed, as they recognised the Beacon initiative should be school-led, but made it clear their support was available. However, in other cases, support was offered but the Beacon Schools simply did not feel they needed help.

Case Study: Light-touch relationship

According to the headteacher in one Beacon School, ‘there is already a well-established network of heads – heads are not strangers’, and thus help from the LEA in brokering partnerships between schools was not required. However, the LEA had offered to help advertise Beacon activities, which was appreciated by the Beacon School. The LEA representative commented, ‘it [the Beacon initiative] is a school-led initiative. The LEA has facilitated, enabled and supported, but they [the Beacon School] didn’t need a lot of help’. In the LEA’s view, ‘it is important to maximise the potential of Beacon Schools without intruding on schools’ rights to run the initiative themselves’.

Positive and active relationship. In a minority of cases, LEAs had an active involvement in the Beacon School initiative. In particular, Beacon Schools were the main source of professional development and INSET in the authority, or the LEAs were actively and repeatedly brokering partnerships between Beacon Schools and their partners.

Case Study: Positive and active relationship

This Beacon primary school had an extremely positive relationship with the LEA, which was actively involved in the Beacon initiative. The LEA had helped the school to develop its bid for Beacon status. The LEA had then ‘given the [Beacon] school confidence to spotlight good practice… and help us to focus and recognise ‘you can’t do everything’’.

41


In addition, ‘the LEA has detailed knowledge of local and national needs and concerns or issues and seems to be using the [Beacon] School to address these’. The LEA helps the Beacon School match its expertise with schools in need, and thus brokers partnerships. ‘The LEA knows its schools well, so is in a good position to promote sharing of good practice and act as information broker’. The Beacon School did not think the LEA had ‘charged in with its own agenda’. Rather, the fact that the LEA was using the Beacon School for professional development purposes was viewed positively by the Beacon School staff.

7.4 Conclusion: Clarifying the LEA role?

It is clear from this discussion that the role of LEAs in the Beacon initiative varies considerably from area to area, and is often dependent on the pre-existing relationship between the LEA and schools. There were many indications that both Beacon staff and LEA officers would like clarification on the role of the LEA in relation to the initiative, though it is also clear that neither side would wish for heavily prescriptive guidance. The provisional typology of patterns of LEA involvement outlined above might provide a starting point for further investigation of these matters.

42

RESOURCES AND VALUE FOR MONEY

8. RESOURCES AND VALUE FOR MONEY

A picture seems to be emerging, at least on the basis of the qualitative research, that Beacon work, in the eyes of both participants and recipients, provides very good value for money. This is largely based on the fact that the Beacon initiative is school-led and allows for professional development by teachers for teachers. But as with many initiatives of this type, it is very difficult to quantify the notion of ‘value for money’. This chapter looks again at resourcing and value for money issues and sets out some of the detail of how a more detailed investigation of these issues will be carried out as part of the ongoing long-term evaluation of the initiative.

8.1 Beacon Grants Awarded

The grant awarded to Beacon Schools for the year 2000–2001 ranged from £1,500 to £45,000, as shown in Table 8 below. On average, according to the questionnaire returns, schools received £28,049.9 This is a substantial increase on the average grant of £21,922 reported for the previous year, 1999–2000. It can be seen that more than two-thirds of Beacon Schools (68 per cent) were operating with a Beacon grant of between £20,000 and £34,999 for the year 2000–2001.

Table 8. Grants awarded to Beacon Schools: April 2000 – March 2001

Range of expenditure Number of schools Percentage of Beacon Schools

£1,500 – £9,999 6 1£10,000 – £14,999 36 7£15,000 – £19,999 19 4£20,000 – £24,999 90 17£25,000 – £29,999 192 36£30,000 – £34,999 79 15£35,000 – £39,999 76 14£40,000 – £45,000 24 5No response 9 2

Total number of schools 531Due to rounding percentage does not sum to 100

9 Note that the actual amounts received may have been higher because many Beacon Schools completed their questionnaires before the end of the financial year (March 2001).

43


8.2 Beacon Grant Expenditure

Beacon Schools were also asked in their questionnaires to provide information relating to the numbers of partner schools for which they had made Beacon funds available. Table 9 below summarises the numbers of Beacon Schools that had allocated resources to their partner schools for a variety of forms of expenditure. It can be seen that the large majority of Beacon Schools (85 per cent) reported having spent money on providing supply cover for their partner schools, while 43 per cent had contributed towards meeting the costs of equipment and resources.

Table 9. Numbers of Beacon Schools that have allocated expenditure to partner schools

Area of financial expenditure allocated to partner schools

Numbers of Beacon Schools

Percentage of Beacon Schools

Supply cover 449 85Equipment/resources 228 43Administration 85 16Salaries 83 16Allowances 55 10Bonus payments 54 10

A multiple response question. Respondents could tick any number of items.

Schools were then asked to specify the amounts of their grant spent on a range of activities, both within their own school and monies that they allocated to their partner schools. Table 10 below illustrates schools’ expenditure on Beacon activities both within their own school and on partner institutions. As might be expected, payment of salaries accounts for the greatest area of expenditure within Beacon Schools.

Table 10. Schools’ expenditure on Beacon activities

Area of financial expenditure

Average amount spent within Beacon Schools

(£)

Average amount spent on partner schools

(£)

Supply cover 3,788 3,811Salaries 9,178 3,482Allowances 2,907 787Bonus payments 2,215 1,075Equipment/resources 4,071 2,628Administration 1,423 582

For the most part, the cost of schools’ Beacon activity has been met by their DfES grant. However, a quarter (25 per cent) reported that they had also

44

RESOURCES AND VALUE FOR MONEY

allocated extra funds from their own school budget, most frequently to meet the costs of equipment, salaries in their own school and administration.

8.3 Value for Money: Further Investigations

The NFER team has begun work with consultants from the London School of Economics (Centre for Educational Research) to further investigate the cost effectiveness and value for money aspects of the initiative.10 As has been indicated previously, the main, but not the only, input is the Beacon grant as recorded on the Annual Report Questionnaire: the outputs, however, are much more difficult to ascertain. This is because (a) it may take some time, possibly years, for the benefits of Beacon activity to become apparent; (b) improvements in student performance may be due to a range of factors, of which Beacon work will only be one; and (c) the impact of Beacon work may often be indirect and therefore very difficult to assess or quantify.

These complexities have made it difficult to plan a rigorous cost-benefit analysis. Having said this, as can be seen from the previous sections, there are other sources of data relating to this aspect of the initiative:

firstly, the case-study interviews provide information about the perceived cost-effectiveness of the initiative from the point of view of Beacon School staff, partner school staff and LEA personnel;

secondly, a section of the Annual Report Questionnaire (six questions) provides information on Beacon activities and associated activities; this includes information on expenditure on supply cover, salaries, allowances, bonus payments, equipment/resources and administration for both Beacon and partner schools;

thirdly, the team has begun to look at the performance data of Beacon and partner schools to make a provisional assessment of any possible associations or links between Beacon spending and school performance (though it will not be possible to attribute causality for the reasons mentioned above);

fourthly, the NFER team has already constructed some ‘models’ of Beacon activity (see Chapter 5) and these could be used as a basis for grouping Beacon and partner schools so that judgements could be made about the most cost effective models of dissemination.

Further investigations in this area will consider issues such as the following:

10 Colleagues at the London School of Economics have done similar ‘value for money’ and ‘cost effectiveness’ work on Specialist Schools and are working in a consortium with the NFER on the Excellence in Cities evaluation. The cost effectiveness investigations will be linked in with the further statistical analyses of student outcome data for Beacon and partner schools which are now underway.

45


Additionality: what has been achieved which would not have happened without the initiative? What have been the net additional costs and the net additional outputs and outcomes?

Displacement: is there evidence of other work being displaced by the initiative?

Hidden costs: are these additional resources recognised and ‘up-front’, or do they constitute hidden costs to Beacon Schools, non-Beacon Schools, LEAs and/or teacher training providers?

Continuation: what evidence is there that the work will continue and be embedded in mainstream structures and processes? To what extent do the benefits of Beacon work extend beyond the three (or more) years of official Beacon work?

This latter issue will be particularly important as the initiative progresses into maturity; what has the initiative told us, what lessons have been learned about dissemination and good practice, that will benefit schools and partnerships of schools in succeeding years?

46

BEACON DEVELOPMENT OVER TIME

9. BEACON DEVELOPMENT OVER TIME

This chapter focuses on the ways in which the nature and context of Beacon work has evolved in Beacon Schools over the three years of the initiative. It draws particularly on data emerging from the eight revisit schools, which comprise seven Phase 2 Beacon Schools (started September 1999) and one Phase 3 school (started January 2000). There was also one Phase 1 Beacon School (started September 1998) within the sample of new case-study visits for this year; insights emerging from this school are included in this chapter.

9.1 Patterns in the Evolution of the Beacon Initiative

Looking across the interview and documentary evidence from the more mature Beacon Schools, it is possible to detect a number of similar patterns in terms of changes in Beacon development over time.

These changes can be seen to occur in three main areas:

within Beacon Schools – changes here include widening staff involvement, an increasing prominence of certain areas of Beacon activity, and the emergence of a more managed, proactive approach to Beacon work;

beyond Beacon Schools – prominent trends are greater LEA involvement and support, decreased resistance from non-Beacon Schools, and increasing requests for Beacon work;

in Beacon partnerships – developments are characterised by the emergence of closer, more two-way partnerships, and the establishment of Beacon Schools networks.

9.2 Changes Within Beacon Schools

Widening staff involvementWhen asked about the staffing of Beacon work, interviewees in several schools reported an increased number of teachers participating in Beacon activity during their second or third year as a Beacon School. The headteacher of one Beacon secondary school, for example, described how they ‘started out with four Beacon staff, but now 26 staff are actively involved’. A similar pattern was seen in a Beacon Nursery School which reported that staff involvement had ‘snow-balled’ during its second year to a point where Beacon work now involves all 23 staff in the school in some way.

47


In some cases this reflected the emergence of new areas of Beacon work, which brought about the involvement of new members of staff, while in others a wider staff involvement was due to a greater number of visitors observing lessons in a larger number of teachers’ classrooms. As one Beacon headteacher explained, ‘there is a much better staff team now and so I am happy for visitors to go and see any teacher’s lessons’.

The general trend, then, seems to be of Beacon work involving a greater number and a wider range of staff over time. This accompanies a pattern, reported in the second year of the evaluation, of Beacon responsibilities devolving down from the headteacher to other staff grades.

Increasing prominence of certain areas of Beacon ActivityA second change evident in the revisit schools is that the foci of Beacon activities are not static over time. Indeed, a pattern apparent in several schools was a growth in prominence of one or two areas of Beacon activity amongst those identified in their original application. Where this took place, it always seemed to relate in some way to factors external to the Beacon School. Examples include certain kinds of Beacon work being fostered by:

national policy developments – at one Beacon secondary school, for example, national policy developments and growing interest in the Private Finance Initiative (PFI) had contributed to a dramatic growth in this area of its Beacon work. The Beacon coordinator explained that this aspect of the school’s Beacon work had taken off despite it originally being included in their Beacon bid only as an afterthought.

increasing demand for certain areas – the experience of another Beacon secondary school had been that its Beacon activities had changed over the course of the year ‘because of a need to respond to certain requests’. As the headteacher explained: ‘we have backed off in some areas [e.g. numeracy and literacy and Gifted and Talented] and moved towards others [e.g. ICT training and leadership and management courses]’.

the success of particular areas of work – several schools reported an increased focus on certain areas due to experiencing some kind of success with this area of work. Examples included receiving ‘positive feedback’ from participants about INSET courses for deputy heads (Beacon secondary school) and gaining an enthusiastic response from partner school staff and students for a technology project (Beacon special school).

It seems, then, that there is a tendency for certain areas of Beacon work to emerge over time, often as a result of external influences such as policy developments, patterns of demand, and partner school feedback.

48


Emergence of a more managed, proactive approach to Beacon workAnother change commonly reported by more mature Beacon Schools is an increasing emphasis on the management of Beacon work. One headteacher in a Phase 1 Beacon School felt strongly that: ‘You have to manage it, rather than letting it manage you’. A growing awareness of the need for a carefully managed approach to the initiative was evident in most revisit schools. This manifested itself in many different ways, but commonly included one or more of the following strategies:

monitoring and managing the workload of Beacon staff – one headteacher, for example, explained ‘You can’t let everyone do it all the time, my difficulty is how to keep everyone motivated and interested. We manage it by rotating phases of involvement’.

controlling the structure and timing of Beacon work, particularly school visits – the advice of one Beacon coordinator to other Beacon Schools was to ‘do it when it suits you and stop when it doesn’t’; another Beacon headteacher explained that ‘It wasn’t unusual to get requests every week for help … now we can plan for it and structure our provision’.

maintaining a tighter focus and if necessary being willing to decline requests for help – while few schools reported having to say no to other schools’ enquiries, a number did emphasise the importance of adopting a clear focus on certain Beacon areas and being realistic about what kinds of demands can and can not be met.

tailoring dissemination strategies to partner schools’ needs – several of the more mature Beacon Schools had developed a variety of different ways of sharing their practice with other schools and partner organisations. The headteacher of one Beacon School spoke of having ‘a mixture of delivery styles depending on different needs’, while another explained how their Beacon work encompassed ‘a mixture of proactive [i.e. setting up conferences and courses] and reactive [i.e. responding to enquiries as and when they come] dissemination’.

Overall, these changes might be characterised as Beacon Schools becoming more proactive and confident with respect to Beacon work as their experience of the initiative grows.

9.3 Changes Beyond Beacon Schools

Greater LEA involvement and supportNot surprisingly given the findings reported in Chapter 8, a number of the revisit schools reported having experienced an improvement in LEA support for their Beacon work during their time as a Beacon School. One headteacher spoke of ‘a complete shift in thinking’ from the early stages when the LEA had been seen to be against the initiative. Another Phase 2 Beacon School described their LEA as having ‘got its act together a bit more’ in terms of

49


producing a Beacon directory for local schools. Others saw their LEAs as having a better understanding of ‘what Beacon Schools can offer’, which meant they were in a better position to use Beacon Schools as INSET providers, and were less likely ‘to send schools to us for every little thing’. In contrast to these examples, there was one school that reported a continued lack of acknowledgement and support from its LEA. In the Beacon coordinator’s eyes, this was leading some staff to feel a lack of recognition: ‘We’re a Beacon School, but so what?’ Overall, though, the general picture was one of more positive attitudes on the part of LEAs towards Beacon Schools and more effective use of Beacon Schools’ designated areas of expertise.

Decreased resistance from non-Beacon SchoolsA difficulty reported by some Beacon Schools in their 2001 Annual Report Questionnaires was that of non-Beacon Schools holding negative or sceptical views of the initiative and its purposes. In the words of one Beacon coordinator quoted in an earlier report (Rudd et al., 2001, 33), ‘those schools who have not yet achieved Beacon status are suspicious of our motives in offering to share good practice, and their opinion is often “So why are you better than we are?”’

It would appear, however, that these kind of difficulties have become less evident over the last 12 months. Interviewees in two revisit schools emphasised this as a feature of their Beacon work. The headteacher of a Beacon secondary school described how ‘the more outreach work we do, the less resistant schools have become’, while the headteacher of a Beacon primary school explained that their concerns about local hostility had been ‘minimised’ by the provision of various kinds of support to local schools (e.g. resources and equipment, and a place for meetings) which had helped to ‘sweeten the pill’.

The experience of the more mature Beacon Schools, then, would suggest that difficulties associated with misunderstanding or misgivings about Beacon status can be expected to decline (rather than increase) over time.

Increasing requests for Beacon workIn the light of the aforementioned increased support from LEAs and decreased resistance from local schools, it is not surprising that another change experienced by mature Beacon Schools has been an increase or at least a maintenance in the number of Beacon enquiries. None of the mature Beacon Schools had seen a fall in the frequency of requests from external organisations.

This suggests that the number of schools taking an active interest in the initiative is increasing, in spite of (or perhaps because of) the fact that there is now a greater number of Beacon Schools to approach. This, of course, underpins the point made above about Beacon Schools needing to develop a more managed, proactive approach to their Beacon work.

50


51


9.4 Changes in Beacon Partnerships

Development of closer, more two-way partnershipsA definite trend reported by several of the more mature Beacon Schools was the evolution of closer and more collaborative relations with certain of their partner schools (see also Section 6.4). One Beacon coordinator, for example, spoke of a ‘firming up’ of their Beacon partnerships. These ‘firmer’ partnerships tend to involve:

working with a small number of schools (often in special measures) – one school explained how its Beacon work now not only involved providing one-off training courses, but also encompassed working very closely and intensively with three partner schools in challenging circumstances;

more reciprocal ways of working – a key dimension distinguishing a Beacon primary school’s ‘new partnerships’ from those formed earlier in the initiative was that they were ‘friendlier and more two-way’, in terms of involving reciprocal visits and genuine ‘learning from each other’;

a longer-term time commitment – links between mature Beacons and their partners were often seen to be long-term in nature so that, as one Beacon headteacher asserted, ‘If the Beacon work stopped, these partnerships would continue’.

While the evolution of these kinds of partnerships was reported positively by several of the mature Beacon Schools, it is worth noting that there were two Beacon headteachers who raised questions about the perceived requirement to develop partnerships with schools in areas of disadvantage. One expressed concern about the level of mutual sharing that was possible in such partnerships, while the other noted ‘the challenge of trying to identify partners and the issue of going out to other schools and maintaining standards here’. These views, however, were in the minority amongst the revisit schools which were generally more likely to be in favour of working closely with a small number of partners.

Establishment of Beacon Schools networksThe final type of change over time that was evident amongst the more mature Beacon Schools related to the emergence of a new dimension to their Beacon work. This concerned their role as advisers to other more recently-formed Beacon Schools. Several schools, for example, had become coordinators of a local network of Beacon Schools. This typically involved organising conferences, giving presentations on Beacon School matters, and discussing issues with individual schools or headteachers on a more informal basis. One Phase 2 Beacon headteacher reflected ‘If I added it up I have probably had contact with 375 teachers since becoming a Beacon School head’.

52


53


10. SUCCESSES OF BEACON WORK

Staff in Beacon Schools and partner organisations were asked about the beneficial impacts that had arisen from their Beacon activities. Responses suggest that there have been a variety of positive outcomes in the Beacon Schools themselves, and in their partner schools. In comparison with previous evaluation phases, strong similarities were found in the kinds of achievements being reported.

10.1 Successes for Beacon Schools

In the Beacon Schools, staff identified five main areas of benefit:

staff development

improving practice and (in a few cases) standards

increased staff and student morale

enhanced external links and local profile

increased resources and flexibility.

Staff developmentThe most frequently-mentioned positive impact for Beacon Schools was the professional development of their staff, particularly those involved directly in Beacon activities. Typical comments about this included:

It gives wider professional experiences for our staff.

[As headteacher] I see staff slightly differently when they are leading a workshop. It is part of their professional development.

It engages staff in new discussions, which are developmental.

It has been more powerful than any other professional development this term.

Interviews with Beacon staff indicated that Beacon work had contributed to their professional development by providing them with:

opportunities to work in new professional roles such as INSET provider, mentor, advisory teacher, and conference organiser/presenter;

opportunities to develop new professional skills such as management skills, presentation skills, and whole-school teamwork skills;

54

SUCCESSES OF BEACON WORK

the chance to interact with colleagues in different institutional contexts;

the incentive to scrutinise and develop one’s own practice in order to be able to share it with others.

Case Study: Beacon work contributing to staff development

This special school was undertaking Beacon work in a number of curriculum areas including design and technology, performing arts and physical education. The coordinators of these subjects were carrying out a wide range of dissemination activities with schools locally and nationally, the LEA, Initial Teacher Training providers, and national agencies.

It was clear from interviews with these Beacon teachers that this work was affording them considerable opportunities for professional growth and development:

It focuses you constantly on re-appraising what you do and developing new skills, inventing things and being creative.

It’s given me opportunities to improve again and again. It has allowed me to say “Yes” to so much more.

[It has given me] more confidence, and an increased feeling of self-worth through recognition of my achievements, i.e. what I do is valued. And appreciative comments give me tremendous encouragement.

This was also well recognised by the headteacher who spoke positively about the way in which the Beacon initiative ‘values people and allows them to grow beyond the school without leaving the school.’

Furthermore, interviewees in some schools reported that the Beacon initiative had supported the development of particular skills amongst the staff, such as ICT skills. These benefits moreover were not restricted to the teachers directly involved in Beacon work, but were reported as benefiting the staff more generally. This often included support staff: the head of a Beacon nursery school, for example, emphasised how their Beacon work had been particularly good for the nursery nurses who had been ‘given extra responsibility and enhanced status’.

Improving practice and possibly standardsStaff in several Beacon Schools felt that their Beacon activities had brought about improvements in certain aspects of their practice. Some examples from a range of schools were developments in:

lesson planning

target setting

55


literacy teaching across the curriculum

use of ICT in lessons

special needs students’ participation in mainstream physical education.

Looking across the case-study schools, there appear to be two main ways in which the Beacon initiative has facilitated improvements in teachers’ practice. One way, reported particularly by schools whose Beacon work involved receiving large numbers of external visitors, was that being observed by colleagues from partner organisations provided a positive incentive to maintain high standards of practice within one’s own institution.

Case Study: Beacon work providing an incentive to maintain high standards

This was seen in a Beacon Primary School which was sharing good practice with other schools by (i) holding open mornings for groups of 20-30 interested local teachers on themes such as their environmental education provision; and (ii) hosting ongoing visits from individual teachers from their nearby partner school, which was in special measures.

When asked about the impacts of this Beacon work on the school, the headteacher explained that ‘it raises professional dialogue and keeps us on our toes, especially when visitors come’. In addition, it ‘makes you focus on your own practice more than normal and more able to celebrate strengths, but also it makes you question what you’re doing’.

Interviewees in several other schools commented in similar ways. One deputy head reported that observation by visitors had ‘focused minds and encouraged self-evaluation’, with positive consequences for the quality of teaching and learning in the school. A teacher in a Beacon nursery school described their Beacon work as ‘opening up the process of educating’, explaining that because ‘people look to us as examples of good practice, [it] spurs you on to do better and maintain standards’.

A second way in which Beacon work has helped to improve practice has been through Beacon staff benefiting from the ideas and resources of their non-Beacon partners. As found in last year’s evaluation, this was more common in Beacon Schools that were working closely with a small number of partner schools, as opposed to those which had contact with a large number of staff from many different schools. This may well reflect a greater emphasis within the former on the two-way exchange (rather than one-way transfer) of ideas between Beacon Schools and their partner institutions.

56


Case Study: Beacon work providing opportunities for an exchange of ideas

Examples of this were found in three case-study schools.

A Beacon secondary school that was providing ICT training courses for staff in a number of local partner schools reported benefiting from the ‘collegiate atmosphere’ that had developed. This had enabled a sharing of resources and worksheets between the partner schools and the Beacon School.

Interviews with Beacon teachers at a special school working with mainstream schools on the development of inclusive practices in design and technology and physical education, revealed how they had ‘gained ideas from other schools’. Examples included new teaching resources, and new ways of using particular pieces of equipment. As one of these teachers stressed, ‘[Through Beacon work] we ask ourselves questions and we gain from others’ ideas. In education you can’t know it all and there is never only one answer’.

One of the Beacon teachers at a Beacon primary school that was working with a partner primary school in special measures, stressed how she welcomed the ‘opportunity to link with other schools and their practice’.

Increased staff and student moraleAnother positive impact of Beacon work in several schools has been in raising staff morale and confidence. One way in which this has occurred is through Beacon work bringing external recognition for the school and its staff. Senior staff in a Beacon primary school, for example, described how an open morning at their school for some 30 external visitors had ‘increased staff morale’ because ‘peers [were] valuing what they do’ and ‘their hard work [was] being recognised more widely’. One teacher involved spoke of the experience being ‘good for your own kudos – we rarely get praise, especially in Early Years’. Similarly, staff in a Beacon nursery school felt that their ‘hard work and commitment is acknowledged’, and one likened it to ‘a gold star for the work the staff have done over the years – a pat on the back’.

As well as gaining external recognition for their work, Beacon staff have also benefited through coming to realise, and have more confidence in, the quality of their own practice. One Beacon nursery teacher reported that ‘It makes you realise what you’ve got in place. Staff say it makes them feel safe as they know our systems work’. From the perspective of an LEA Beacon Adviser, such acknowledgement of teachers’ hard work ‘in a way that is not patronising’, is all too important ‘in a world perceived by teachers as harsh in terms of the monitoring systems of OFSTED’. A Beacon headteacher made a somewhat similar point in welcoming the fact that the initiative raises the profile of teaching along with the confidence levels of teachers, after ‘years of bad press for teaching generally’.

57


In some schools these developments in self-esteem and morale amongst staff appear to have extended to students as well. A Beacon teacher in a special school, for example, reported that their Beacon work with mainstream schools had not only enhanced the self-esteem of the staff but had also had a similarly beneficial effect on the students.

Enhanced external links and local profileAs well as various positive outcomes within the school, an important feature of Beacon activity for many schools has been the opportunity to work beyond the confines of their own organisation. This has brought about a number of benefits for Beacon Schools including:

improved links with other schools, both locally and further afield, bringing about ‘more openness’, ‘a new willingness to share’ and ‘less rivalry’;

greater awareness of the work and contexts of colleagues in often quite different partner organisations, such as special school staff gaining experience of mainstream practices or vice versa.

This increased openness and awareness between schools was celebrated by several interviewees as ‘breaking down school isolation’, ‘opening up schools to joined-up thinking’, and providing a facility whereby teachers can visit schools without it being considered intrusive. A teacher in a Beacon nursery school commented that her Beacon work had made her ‘feel like part of a real group’.

As well as facilitating links with partner schools, some case-study schools also reported that the Beacon initiative had helped enhance their local profile. One of the main benefits identified by the headteacher of a Beacon special school, for example, was increased credibility as a contributor to mainstream education, due to the support work they had undertaken with their local mainstream partners.

Increased resources and flexibility A further positive aspect of the initiative highlighted by a small number of schools was the extra financial resources that it provided. A headteacher in one school made reference to the opportunities for training that this had enabled, while the ICT Coordinator in another school felt that her school had benefited financially from the initiative. Perhaps more important than this, though, was the flexibility associated with schools’ Beacon grants. A teacher in one school emphasised the fact that ‘it is not prescriptive in terms of focus or spending’, while the LEA representative linked to another Beacon School felt that the scheme’s ‘flexibility is a huge advantage’ because ‘tailor-made provision is such a huge luxury and a powerful tool’.

58


10.2 Successes for Partner Schools

Interviews with staff in the case-study schools and their partners, suggested three areas of positive impact in the partner institutions:

improving practice and (in a few cases) raising standards

enhanced staff confidence

increased external links.

Improving practice and (in a few cases) raising standardsThere were several reports of positive impacts in terms of improved practice in partner schools, and in a few cases reference was also made to increased attainment. With respect to improvements in practice, these were reported in a variety of realms, including curriculum delivery, inclusive practice and school management. With respect to curriculum delivery, developments were reported in a range of subject areas such as food technology, ICT and religious education (RE), as well as in some cross-curricular areas like the teaching of writing and the delivery of environmental education.

Case Study: Beacon work helping to improve curriculum deliveryin partner schools

A good example of this was seen in two infant schools that had been working with a Beacon primary school. Staff from both of these schools had participated in a 10-day RE course set up and provided by the Beacon School. The focus of the course was RE and its connections to other aspects of the curriculum, such as literacy. From the partner schools’ perspectives, this was a timely initiative as it coincided with the new RE strategy and ‘teachers were struggling and insecure’ as there had been very little previous guidance on raising attainment in this subject. Interviews with staff who had participated in the training indicated positive effects in terms of:

RE curriculum planning – one teacher explained how it had led to the implementation of a new school-wide strategy for RE, which is ‘a difficult subject for a faith school’;

RE teaching – another interviewee reported that it ‘gave us confidence to try new strategies, we were inspired to put it all into place …it enhanced practice’;

students’ learning in RE – a colleague in the same school said ‘it has brought life to RE lessons …children are enthusiastic and have become engaged [instead of] passive receivers – the impact is immense’;

staff development – for another participant, the course had not only helped to improve her own practice and understanding, but had also given her ‘the confidence to advise other people’ .

59


Similar kinds of positive responses from partner schools were also seen in relation to: a Beacon School open morning about teaching environmental themes through the whole curriculum and the school grounds; collaborative work between a Beacon performing arts teacher and a non-Beacon drama teacher on the teaching of movement and dance; a Beacon School-initiated programme of ICT training for Learning Support Assistants (LSAs) in several partner schools; and Beacon School courses and observation days provided for local Education Action Zone (EAZ) schools on various strategies for teaching writing.

Another area of practical improvement in partner schools was that of developments in inclusive practice, in terms of enhanced provision for, and understanding of, the needs of particular groups of children. There were several cases of this in a variety of areas of provision, often (but not always) as a result of collaboration between Beacon special schools and their mainstream partners.

Case Study: Beacon work facilitating inclusive practice in partner schools

Three examples of inclusive developments in partner schools were:

new strategies for SEN students’ Individual Education Plans and PE in two partner primary schools as a result of visiting and working with a local Beacon special school;

use of new CD-ROM programmes by Learning Support Assistants working with students in need of literacy support, or with hyperactive and attention deficit needs in a primary school partnered with a Beacon secondary school;

successful integration (social, physical and curricular) of a student with cerebral palsy from a Beacon special School to a partner primary school through a process of INSET, staff exchanges and ongoing support and collaboration between the two schools.

An interesting point that emerged from the third example in the case-study box above was that the Beacon work associated with the integration of the student with cerebral palsy led to a number of school-wide improvements in teaching and learning practices. For example, as a result of greater understanding of children’s fine and gross motor skills the school now uses sand and water (rather than handwriting exercises) to help develop fine motor control in Reception, and different kinds of balls in PE in order to help those with poor gross motor skills. This underlines the wider benefits that can stem from Beacon activities focused on particular areas of school practice.

Finally, changes in partner schools’ management procedures were mentioned by some case-study schools in connection with Beacon work.

60


Case Study: Beacon work leading to improvements in partner school management

One example of this came from staff in the nursery unit of a primary school who had been working with colleagues in a local Beacon nursery school. Prior to this work, the nursery unit was described by the headteacher as having ‘poor teaching, poor routine and [poor] structure’ and being in need of ‘real vision and ongoing consultancy’.

The situation now, however, after a period of sustained collaborative support from a Beacon nursery school, is one where ‘the planning and assessment has improved and routines and timetables have been established’. Coupled with considerable investment to improve the unit’s physical environment, the nursery teacher feels ‘there has been a dramatic change in the children’s learning’. This was seen in ‘the ease with which we got through our OFSTED [which] would never have happened without the Beacon School’.

Another example came from a primary school in special measures that had been working with a local Beacon primary school for about a term. While it was too early in this partnership for strong evidence of impacts, the headteacher did say that the Senior Management Team (SMT) had benefited from a new system of colour coding planning programmes for school improvement. He reported ‘we’ve used that idea to help us as an SMT for monitoring systems and there may well be more to help this’.

In connection with these various improvements in practice, there were some partner schools that reported an impact in the realm of student attainment and school standards. It is important to emphasise that this was only in a small number of schools.11 The majority were unable to say due to it being ‘too early in the process’, or there not being enough evidence to know whether staff development had impacted on student attainment and/or whether improved school standards were due to Beacon activities as opposed to other initiatives. That said, there were three partner schools which did report a link between involvement with a Beacon School and increasing student attainment. One example relating to attainment in GCSE Food Technology is given below.

Case study: Beacon support leading to improved Food Technology GCSE results in a partner secondary school

In response to a clear need for improved staff expertise in teaching GCSE Food Technology, an approach was made to a local Beacon School with a good reputation in this subject. This led to a member of staff from the Beacon School coming into the school for half a day each week over two terms and working with partner school staff on the development of the course and its delivery.

11 The NFER research team has started to carry out statistical analyses of student outcomes for Beacon and partner schools, in comparison to national averages, and should be able to produce some quantitative data on this for the next steering group meeting and for next year’s evaluation.

61


As a result of this focused input, the partner school now reports having ‘established a very practical approach to curriculum development with clear aims and objectives’ and being in a position to offer the Food Technology course by itself. Moreover, the headteacher reported seeing a direct impact on academic standards in terms of GCSE results. Sixteen students had taken the examination and had achieved better than expected results – one grade A, one B, three Cs, two Ds, seven Fs and two Gs. In the headteacher’s view, ‘these students would not have achieved these results without the support’ from the Beacon School. This was echoed by the headteacher of the Beacon School who said that she knew ‘for a fact that the partnerships formed by the Technology department have had an impact on standards’.

Enhanced staff confidenceAs well as providing opportunities to gain new ideas and practices, another positive outcome of Beacon work has been increased staff confidence in partner schools. This was seen with staff in a nursery unit that had been working with colleagues from a Beacon nursery school. Reflecting on the experience, the partner school staff described how ‘morale has increased’ through them gaining ‘a sense of ownership and responsibility’. In a similar way, teachers in a primary school that had participated in Beacon School courses about Gifted and Talented and RE spoke not only of learning new skills, but also of gaining new confidence. One said ‘it gave me confidence to challenge the Gifted and Talented students and to look at Gifted and Talented in other subjects, e.g. numeracy’. Furthermore, the headteacher of a primary school that had worked closely with a Beacon Special School said that she was ‘now more confident speaking to prospective parents of children with physical disabilities’. The Special Educational Needs Coordinator (SENCO) in this school added that ‘eventually we will become the trainers of other mainstream schools’.

It was clear in a number of partner schools that such benefits were not only experienced by the teaching staff, but also by support staff such as nursery assistants and Learning Support Assistants (LSAs) (see below).

Case Study: Beacon work enhancing the development and confidence of support staff

An excellent example of this kind of development was a Beacon School-initiated programme of ICT training for LSAs in a partner primary school. In response to a need for this partner school’s LSAs to have a basic level of ICT competence, the Beacon School set up an after-school training course involving sixth form students as ‘ICT prefects’.

The outcomes of this training appear to have been very positive. From the perspective of the partner school headteacher, the training had made the LSAs competent to do things using ICT which they previously would have felt were beyond them. This was backed up by one LSA who said she was terrified at the idea of using a word processor, but now felt confident to use

62


different programs, to support students in ICT-based lessons, and to produce worksheets on the word processor. The SENCO in the school added that she thought the ICT training had empowered LSAs to take their own learning forward in terms of undertaking further ICT courses or the LEA Special Teaching Certificate.

The capacity for Beacon work to enhance teachers’ confidence seems to stem from a number of factors. Of particular importance are the ways such work can enable partner school staff to:

work with Beacon teachers ‘who know where we’re coming from and realise what we need’, i.e. focused support as opposed to external criticism;

visit other schools and through this become better able to ‘see our own strengths and [how] we need to use these more’;

develop new skills and competencies such as ICT skills, inclusive practices, and RE teaching strategies;

realise ‘that all schools [i.e. even Beacon Schools] have difficulties and have to keep improving’.

Enhanced external linksIn a similar way to the Beacon Schools themselves, partner schools also seem to have enjoyed and benefited from enhanced connections with other schools as a result of Beacon activities.

Case Study: Collaboration and links through Beacon work

Staff at a primary school who had participated in an RE training course provided by a nearby Beacon School spoke positively not only in terms of gaining new ideas and skills for RE teaching (as discussed previously), but also in terms of stronger connections between local schools. The training was praised for:

‘opening the door to communication with other schools and teachers in the area’;

‘giving an opportunity for RE coordinators to get together’, which would not have been possible without Beacon funds.

Similar sentiments were reflected in a number of other interviewees’ comments, who, for example, stressed the value of the ‘professional liaison and co-operation’ associated with the Beacon initiative. One partner school headteacher added that this was particularly valuable in the light of the departure of LEA subject advisers. The Beacon initiative was providing new mechanisms and opportunities for collaboration and mutually-beneficial school and staff development.

63


11. ISSUES AND CHALLENGES

As with previous evaluations, Beacon School staff were asked about any issues or challenges that they had encountered in being involved in the Beacon Schools initiative. The findings are discussed in this chapter, along with the possible strategies identified by interviewees to overcome any challenges faced.

Table 11 below illustrates the most frequently identified difficulties associated with the Beacon Schools initiative, as described by headteachers in the Annual Report Questionnaires.

Table 11. Most frequently identified difficulties

Difficulties Number of schools

Developing relationships with partner schools 64Finding supply teachers / supply cover 55Experiencing negative responses from non-Beacon Schools 49Pressure and workload on Beacon staff 42Staff changes, e.g. new headteacher or Beacon Coordinator 37Setting up systems 35Releasing staff from classrooms 25Maintaining standards in school while disseminating 23Lack of support from LEA 21

Number of schools 531

Conducting interviews with staff in case-study Beacon Schools enabled any issues and challenges to be explored in more detail. Most of the issues raised confirm the findings from the 2001 Annual Report Questionnaire and visits to case-study schools undertaken in previous years. The main findings from this year’s visits to case-study schools are discussed in turn below.

11.1 Negative Responses from Non-Beacon Schools

A number of new Beacon case-study schools had experienced resistance from non-Beacon Schools. One Beacon headteacher described this as ‘professional jealousy’, resulting from, in his view, confusion about why some schools had been selected for Beacon status and why others had not. There appears to be a lack of understanding about how Beacon Schools are selected. However, as

64

CONCLUSIONS

one headteacher said, ‘Beacon School staff don’t want to come across as pompous. They don’t want to suggest “this is the only way to do things”, they want to share ideas’. Resistance also resulted from the misconception among non-Beacon Schools that Beacon funding goes solely to Beacon Schools for their own purposes, rather than to disseminate good practice to other schools. Negative responses had made it difficult for some Beacon Schools to build and sustain partnerships with other schools (see Section 6.4 for further discussion of the nature of Beacon relationships).

To overcome any negative feelings, Beacon Schools and LEAs had tried to make clear to potential partner schools that the Beacon initiative is about sharing good practice and that it is a ‘two-way process’, rather than Beacon Schools simply saying ‘this is the way to do it’. Schools had overcome resistance by ‘feeding’ their partners – ‘They [partner schools] never bite the hand that feeds them’. Moreover, one headteacher strongly recommended that ‘They [DfES and the media] need to make it clear to everybody that the Beacon School does not get loads of money, but it is to share with other schools’. On a positive note, according to interviewees in revisit case-study schools, resistance appeared to have diminished over time once the Beacon initiative had been up and running and schools had gained an understanding of its purpose.

11.2 Managing Workload

As was the case last year, one of the main concerns among Beacon School staff was how to manage increased workloads which had resulted from involvement in the initiative. Fitting in Beacon activities alongside other pre-existing pressures was a challenge many schools had encountered. This issue was still being faced in some well-established Beacon Schools, suggesting that the additional workload associated with being a Beacon School does not necessarily reduce over time. Moreover, headteachers in two Beacon Schools were worried that the additional workload associated with being a Beacon School would prevent teachers from applying for jobs at their school, at a time when recruitment was already difficult.

However, as one headteacher stressed, the additional workload was not necessarily a Beacon issue specifically, rather a general issue which might apply if any other initiative was being implemented in a busy school. It was also considered that any additional work or responsibility incurred by Beacon School staff was compensated for by the benefits in terms of staff development (see Section 10.1).

Schools in which ‘any fears about workload have not come true’ had carefully planned and organised their involvement in the initiative (see case study below). As one interviewee commented, ‘It [organising Beacon activities] makes you more organised as you have to plan in advance…I have become very good at setting boundaries’. The further in advance activities were scheduled, the easier it was for staff to organise and manage them. Moreover,

65


interviewees advised that the responsibility for organising and running Beacon School activities should not fall on one person’s shoulders, rather responsibility should be shared among all relevant members of staff.

Organisation at Senior Management Team (SMT) level was considered crucial. In many cases, headteachers were ensuring that workloads were not too demanding for staff – ‘The headteacher kept it [additional work] to a minimum for those in the classroom, which is important’. This sometimes meant that senior managers were devoting their own time to Beacon work, rather than placing additional burdens on their staff (see case study below).

Case study: Managing workloads

This Beacon primary school was involved in disseminating good practice in relation to gifted and talented students, science, environmental education, early years and numeracy. The headteacher had involved the whole school in organising and running Beacon activities, including other members of the SMT. She commented, ‘We try to balance the impact on staff by making it a whole-school initiative’. Moreover, ‘the deputy headteacher is an excellent manager, is very well organised and has a really good relationship with staff – this is crucial’. The deputy said ‘It is important to manage [Beacon] visits by setting aside one morning or afternoon a week so that we can arrange cover for any staff and then people can fit it in’. The SMT was careful to ensure that Beacon work did not impact too much on any particular staff ‘as it can be stressful’.

11.3 Managing Disruption

The potential disruption to Beacon Schools, resulting from time spent disseminating good practice to other schools, was a concern of Beacon staff. This issue was particularly related to external partners visiting Beacon Schools to observe lessons and discuss practice with staff. Teachers in two Beacon Schools said that having so many visitors in school was like teaching in a ‘goldfish bowl’, meaning they felt they were always on show.

Most Beacon Schools did not like to refuse requests for support. As one headteacher said, ‘There is a tendency to say yes [to demands for activities] too often. We haven’t said no yet, but it could get out of control’. Beacon Schools were worried that disruption might have a negative effect on their own students’ achievements, as discussed below in Section 11.4, though there was no evidence that this was happening.

Strategies adopted to overcome the problem of disruption were similar to those used to manage increases in workload, such as organising and planning in advance – ‘We need to be aware of who is coming and what they want in advance’, commented one class teacher (see also the case study below). The issue of disruption was still a concern of the headteacher in one of the well-established Beacon Schools, who stressed that ‘the key is long-term planning

66

CONCLUSIONS

and looking ahead’, which could help to limit disruption. In some cases, schools were careful to avoid scheduling Beacon activities during ‘pressure points’ in the school year, such as exam time, in order to minimise disruption.

The headteacher of one revisit Beacon School was hopeful that the level of disruption would decrease as more schools received Beacon status, meaning that work could be shared among schools.

Case Study: Managing disruption

Staff in this Beacon nursery were disseminating good practice in relation to Early Years education. The demand for their support and advice was very high, and the nursery staff were asked to disseminate in a variety of different ways, including one-off training courses and ad-hoc advice. In particular, the school had received numerous requests from people wanting to visit the nursery to observe lessons and talk to members of staff, including people from abroad who had accessed information about the nursery via its website.

To combat any disruption, the nursery staff were careful to plan visits in advance, always making sure they were clear about the aims of the visit. Staff feared that allowing too many visitors into school would make them feel like they were teaching in a ‘goldfish bowl’, so ‘we make sure it isn’t a burden. We manage it so it isn’t too onerous and disruptive’. The headteacher was also careful not to allow visitors to observe teachers who would not be comfortable with it. ‘The philosophy of the school is to never say no’, although staff recognised the importance of planning lessons which would be observed in advance in order to minimise disruption to classes.

11.4 Maintaining Standards

One of the main concerns of Beacon headteachers (in both old and new case-study schools) was the added pressure of being a Beacon School. It was perceived by some Beacon School staff that other schools held the view that their schools were ‘whole schools of excellence’. As the headteacher in one of the revisit Beacon Schools said, ‘Will people be looking for us to fail?’ One interviewee in a partner school agreed with this and commented, ‘They [Beacon Schools] put themselves up for criticism’. The general view was that Beacon Schools were under considerable pressure to maintain their standards and live up to expectations, alongside having to deal with all the other pressures that schools have to contend with. One Beacon School headteacher reported that the results in his/her school were likely to fall due to an increase in the number of SEN students in Year 5, and expressed concern that ‘the true story behind the statistics’ was reported, to avoid being labelled as a ‘failing Beacon School’.

Staff in Beacon Schools stressed that their top priority was the academic achievement of their own students, and were concerned that taking teachers out of lessons to run Beacon activities could have a derogatory effect on this.

67


As one headteacher commented, ‘My only concern would be that we must remember that we are a school and we are appointed to teach and we must not deflect from that’. This view was mirrored by a teacher in another Beacon School who said, ‘Too much is being asked of you…you have to learn to say no because if you don’t you’re out of school and you can’t develop your students. We must ensure we don’t dilute the quality of what we are doing here [in the Beacon School]’. However, two well-established Beacon Schools had recently received excellent OFSTED reports, suggesting that, in these cases at least, being a Beacon School had not had a negative effect on teaching and learning.

11.5 Relationships with the LEA

The role of LEAs in the Beacon Schools initiative varied considerably. In the majority of cases the LEA was considered to have a positive role in supporting these schools. However, in some cases it was not clear what the role of the LEA should be, and clarification was required. In addition, a few Beacon Schools had encountered difficulties in building relationships with their LEA. Given that the issues related to the role of the LEA are so important, they are discussed separately (see Chapter 8).

11.6 Financial Issues

Partner schools were extremely appreciative of the funding given to them for supply cover ‘which is a huge issue’. However, a minority of interviewees in Beacon Schools had some concerns regarding funding. Some Beacon Schools had used money from their own school funds to cover the costs of administration and meetings, and although the amount spent was not considered unreasonable, additional Beacon funding would be welcomed. In some cases, headteachers would have appreciated additional funding to employ a member of staff to reduce the workloads of existing staff which resulted from being involved in Beacon work.

The revisit case-study schools were in the process of re-bidding for Beacon status, and commented that they underestimated the amount of funds required when they put in bids at the outset. As one headteacher commented, ‘We have been victims of our own success’, as the number of requests for support had been over and above what was originally anticipated. A number of Beacon School headteachers expressed concern about ‘What happens when the money runs out?’, as they were worried about the long-term sustainability of Beacon activities. In particular, schools which were in the process of re-bidding for Beacon status said ‘It would be a disaster not to get the status’.

Although there are perhaps no immediate solutions to the issue of funding, there was, however, a perceived need for guidance from the DfES on what Beacon funds could and could not be used for.

68

CONCLUSIONS

11.7 Evaluation

As has been the case in previous years, evaluation seemed to have been under-developed. Some of the more established Beacon Schools, however, were evaluating the impact of activities strategically. This year, the headteacher of a new Beacon case-study school had commissioned a university to undertake an independent evaluation of their work, and suggested that ‘evaluation is crucial’. However, this was the exception. The majority of schools were preoccupied with organising partnerships and putting their activities into action, rather than thinking about evaluation. Furthermore, as one Beacon headteacher suggested, ‘It is extremely difficult to assess impact’. In the main, evaluation was informal and any evidence of impact was largely anecdotal.

Where evaluation was undertaken, ‘it is incorporated into project organisation’ and was used to make practical changes to Beacon activities. However, there was a perceived need for guidance from the DfES on how schools could self-evaluate their achievements and assess the impact they were having on other schools – ‘We need to think about evaluation more seriously’.

11.8 Reapplying for Beacon Status

The schools hoping to renew Beacon status were in the process of re-bidding, which had caused some anxiety (see also Section 2.3). For instance, comments from two headteachers who made specific reference to their concerns about the re-bidding process included: ‘The process of re-bidding is imminent, which is time consuming. The process should be simplified’, and ‘The bidding for renewed Beacon status has been hard work…’ Having re-bids accepted was considered crucial for the long-term sustainability of Beacon work already in progress.

11.9 Conclusions

The successes of the Beacon Schools initiative are evident from the previous chapter. However, this chapter has highlighted a number of issues and challenges that Beacon Schools – old and new – have encountered in attempting to disseminate good practice. The majority of issues have also been evident in previous evaluations.

A number of possible solutions to challenges were put forward by Beacon School staff. In particular, there was a perceived need for guidance from DfES on how funding could be allocated and how Beacon Schools can effectively self-evaluate their achievements and their impact on other schools. Moreover, DfES could help to overcome the resistance from potential partner schools by advertising and publicising the aims of the Beacon initiative on a wider scale, with particular emphasis on the fact that funding is used to disseminate good practice to other schools, not to benefit Beacon Schools

69


alone. There is some evidence that such resistance has diminished over time, but that ‘It still exists in small pockets’.

70

CONCLUSIONS

12. CONCLUSIONS

12.1 Summary: Consolidation and Change in the Beacon Initiative

This report details the findings of the NFER evaluation of the Beacon Schools initiative carried out in 2001-2002 on behalf of the DfES.12 This independent evaluation has been based on both quantitative data - analysis of the Annual Report Questionnaire completed for the period April 2000 to March 2001 – and qualitative data – in-depth interviews with Beacon and partner school staff in twenty case-study schools.

There is much more evaluative work to be done – particularly on the quantitative impact of Beacon work on student outcomes in Beacon and partner schools – and this work will be central to the evaluation next year. The evaluation findings thus far show that, after about three and a half years of implementation of the initiative, Beacon activities and partnerships embrace both consolidation and change.

Consolidation is evident in both the questionnaire returns and in the interview findings. Many of the findings of this year’s evaluation, as summarised below, are similar to those reported for previous years.

There was a strong consensus amongst respondents that Beacon Schools continue to be good at identifying their strengths and areas of good practice – this process is also handled well within the Beacon Schools themselves so that, usually, the whole staff are ‘on board’.

The most common areas of Beacon activity (and processes), with a small number of exceptions, remain similar to those identified in previous years – these include literacy, numeracy, the use of ICT and a focus on Special Educational Needs.

Face-to-face methods of dissemination, such as consultation, visits to and from schools and lesson observation, continue to predominate, though other methods – such as publications/documentation and the Internet – are also in use.

On the whole, Beacon Schools continue to find their relationships with their LEAs ‘helpful’ – they particularly appreciate LEA advice and support and assistance with building and sustaining partnerships.

On cost-effectiveness, the view of practitioners involved in the initiative continues to be that it provides ‘good value for money’. Beacon

12 This is the third year in a total of five years planned evaluation (and the first year of the three-year longer-term evaluation to be carried out in the period 2001-2004).

71


and partner school staff broadly see this as an efficient and effective school-based form of professional development. Furthermore, a large proportion of the Beacon grant continues to be used to the direct benefit of partner schools, so that Beacon funding is probably actually more widely dispersed than is commonly acknowledged.

The development of Beacon relationships with a variety of institutions continues: Beacon School staff have used their experience of assisting other institutions to refine and improve their provision and they continue to stress the importance and the benefits of the two-way nature of partnerships.

The 2001-2002 evaluation findings have also indicated that there are changes and adaptations taking place as Beacon and partner schools mature and build upon their experience of the initiative. The changes are not generally dramatic, but they may be of some significance for the further development of the initiative (see Chapter 9 for more detail on these changes). They tend to be carefully considered adaptations, based upon the professional experience and knowledge of those who have been working in Beacon partnerships for some time. The main developments or changes in Beacon activity identified during the course of this evaluation include the following:

There appears to be a general trend of Beacon work involving a greater number and wider range of staff over time, with Beacon responsibilities being passed down from the headteacher and senior managers to other grades of staff.

As would be expected as the initiative expands, some areas of activity are receiving increased prominence: factors influencing the growth in importance of certain activities include national policy priorities, increasing demand and the receipt of positive feedback from partners. There is also some evidence that greater numbers of Beacon Schools are taking on new types of Beacon activities: for example, this year, more have been concentrating on the areas of writing and leadership.

Some changes in the nature of Beacon relationships are taking place, though it is not always easy to identify these, partly because the nature of the relationship depends upon the type of activity at the heart of the institutional exchange. As with last year’s evaluation, there is some evidence of the continued development of more intensive, more sustainable relationships: the key feature of these is that they should be two-way and egalitarian in nature. There is a commonly-reported emphasis on the development of more managed, proactive approaches to Beacon work.

Beacon staff are showing increasing awareness of the sensitivities of working with schools in differing cultural and physical contexts. In particular, there were signs that Beacon practitioners in rural or suburban schools were enthusiastic about, and benefiting from, relations with urban schools or schools in disadvantaged areas.

72

CONCLUSIONS

The development of networks, first identified in last year’s evaluation report, continues apace for many Beacon Schools. Schools are thinking very hard about the best ways of working together and sharing good practice: in some cases LEAs are involved in initiating or overseeing partnerships within networks. The numbers of Beacon-Beacon partnerships and networks appear to be on the increase, with the more mature Beacon Schools acting as advisers to newly-formed or aspiring Beacon Schools.

12.2 Recommendations for Beacon Schools

Beacon Schools are, on the whole, very good at identifying their areas of strength, but much thought needs to be given to the question of how many activities to focus on. New and aspiring Beacon Schools need to consider very carefully the issues of which activities to focus on, and how many activities to pursue, in order to maximise the benefits for themselves and their partner institutions.

Beacon activities are multifaceted and cover many aspects of schooling, from curriculum planning to classroom organisation, from SEN provision to school self-evaluation: but there may yet be further scope for diversification. New Beacon Schools may wish to consider activities in educational areas that are possibly ‘underdeveloped’ within the initiative, e.g. community activities or lifelong learning projects?

The extra workload which schools encounter as a result of Beacon status continues to be an issue, though workload is a general issue too. Careful planning and organisation, via regular but efficient meetings or reviews, are required, along with a sharing out of responsibilities, if Beacon Schools are to maximise the benefits of their work and minimise workload stresses on their staff. The timing and frequency of Beacon dissemination activities also need to be considered carefully.

Professional development was the most frequently-mentioned positive impact for Beacon Schools. In many cases this is an inherent characteristic of the work being carried out: but some Beacon Schools may wish to look at how their activities can be more closely linked in with professional development opportunities – what new professional roles and skills could be developed via Beacon work? Could these opportunities and benefits be extended to teachers beyond the Beacon and partner schools?

Evaluation of a school’s Beacon work – whether this be by the Beacon School itself, by partner schools, or by external bodies – continues to be an underdeveloped area, though there are some notable exceptions. Evaluation is difficult, partly because there are already extra time demands on staff, and also because there is no standardised way of evaluating diverse activities, but schools should give serious thought to (i) how they can evaluate their Beacon work; (ii) how they can actively collect feedback from partners; and (iii) how they can act upon the information received, so as to improve and refine their provision.

73


12.3 Recommendations for Action by DfES

Although guidance is available about the role of the LEA from the Beacon area of the Standards website, many of our respondents suggested that there is a need for further clarification of the roles of the LEA in relation to Beacon and partner schools, particularly the ‘brokerage’ role. It might be useful to hold a conference or workshops relating to this area. Examples of LEA involvement of different degrees and in different contexts would be useful.

Many Beacon respondents seemed to be asking for feedback – feedback about how they are doing and whether they are doing the right things. There are a already a number of support mechanisms for schools provided by the DfES (see Appendix C), but it may be that the time is right for consideration of other possible methods for giving more detailed guidance or school-based feedback.

Now that the regional networks are in place, the DfES and Government Regional Offices may be able to further facilitate and support existing and new networks of Beacon and partner schools. With LEAs, they may be able to provide further guidance on types of partnerships and on how to establish effective links between schools (but should also avoid being over prescriptive in this respect). A further consideration and review of the geographical and socio-economic distribution of Beacon and partner schools might be worthwhile at this stage of the initiative.

The DfES may wish to consider further how the Beacon initiative can be linked to, and made compatible with, other national initiatives, such as Excellence in Cities. For LEAs, as well as the DfES, there may be a need to look at how local initiatives can be ‘joined up’ with the overall aim of school improvement in mind.

To a large extent the Beacon Schools initiative and the Specialist Schools programme have been implemented independently of each other, though they now constitute a common strand in Excellence in Cities (and there are some schools that have both Beacon and Specialist status). It would be useful to ask what the two types of school could learn from each other, and the DfES might be able to play a useful role in bringing programme policy teams, managers, researchers and practitioners together for this purpose.

These recommendations are made with the aim of encouraging constructive dialogue between all the organisations and institutions involved in the Beacon initiative. The initiative is now at a very interesting and critical stage, with a three-year cycle being completed by some participating schools and with certain patterns of activity emerging. There is much evidence, particularly qualitative evidence from interviews, to suggest that, despite some difficulties, Beacon Schools are making good progress in terms of passing on their strengths to partner institutions, and also that Beacon Schools themselves are benefiting from participation in the initiative, especially in terms of professional development and improved staff morale.

74

CONCLUSIONS

But educational circumstances, contexts and cultures are changing and the next phases of the initiative – which will see the further expansion of the numbers of Beacon Schools and partnerships – will create new issues and challenges, new networks, new and adapted forms of dissemination and a new set of achievements. Some questions remain about the impacts of Beacon work in partner schools, and the future phases of the evaluation will include a stronger and more quantitative focus on this aspect of the initiative.

75


76

APPENDIX A

Interview Schedules

Appendix A contains the interview schedules for:

Beacon Headteachers/Coordinators/Staff in ‘Revisit’ Schools; Headteachers/SMT/staff in Beacon Schools; Headteachers/SMT/staff in partner schools; LEA personnel; Staff in Beacon schools, not involved in Beacon activities.

APPENDIX A

Interview Schedule for Beacon Headteachers/Coordinators/Staff in ‘Revisit’ Schools (Schedule A)

The school’s areas of expertise

1. Can you please remind me what the areas of expertise/successful practice that you identified for Beacon activity are? Has there been any change of emphasis over the past 12 months? Have you taken on any new areas of Beacon work? Why?

2. How have you been sharing this expertise/successful practice with other schools in the last 12 months? (prompt: school visits, lesson observations, conferences, documentation, electronic communications?)

3. Has staff involvement in Beacon activities changed over the last 12 months. Are all, most or only some staff in your school involved? Who? What are their roles exactly?

4. In what ways have you ‘marketed’ yourselves to new potential partner schools/institutions? Has this changed since you started being a Beacon School? Why?

5. Have there been any significant changes in patterns of Beacon finances and expenditure?

Working with other institutions

6. Are you still working with schools/institutions you became partners with during your first year of Beacon work? How has your partnership with them changed in the last year?

7. Have you developed new partnerships this year? Do these follow a different model than your earlier partnerships? How? Why?

8. What model(s) of partnership have evolved as your Beacon work has progressed? Has this changed since your first year as a Beacon school? How? Why? [suggest models?]

9. What are the factors which facilitate the process of building partnerships? What are the things that help you to set up and sustain partnerships?

10. Are the number of requests for help increasing or decreasing? Have you changed the way that you respond to such requests?

11. In what ways (if at all) has your relationship with your LEA developed since you first became a Beacon School? How are they using you?

i


12. How, if at all, has ICT been used in your Beacon work and Beacon relations? What is the importance of ICT to your Beacon activity and to the initiative as a whole?

Impact of the Beacon initiative

13. In your partner schools:

(a) in what ways have Beacon activities impacted upon teaching and learning in the classroom? Can you give any examples of this?

(b) have Beacon activities raised academic standards? Can you give any examples of this?

14. In your own school:



15. Is there any evidence, in your view, to suggest that Beacon activities will impact upon the continuing professional development of your staff? How? Can you give any examples?

Difficulties and self review

16. Have the difficulties you experienced during your first two years of being a Beacon School been overcome? How? [RESEARCHER: Check last year’s notes]

17. What evaluation approaches are built into the development of your Beacon work? How is such evaluation information being collected? How is/will this information be used?

18. In what ways have you made use of information you have collected from your evaluation activities.

Conclusions/Recommendations

19. What, in your experience, are the positive aspects/benefits of (1) being a Beacon School; and (2) the Beacon initiative in general?

20. What, in your experience, are the negative aspects/difficulties of (1) being a Beacon School; and (2) the Beacon initiative in general? How have these been resolved?

ii

APPENDIX A

21. Do you think that the Beacon initiative provides, or will provide, value for money in terms of public expenditure to raise standards?

22. Transferring good practice appears to be central to this initiative. How effective do you feel you have been in sharing your good practice?

23. Do you have any further recommendations to make to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the initiative?

24. [Summing up/concluding ‘customised’ question – to ensure that we have got the overall picture]. A year ago you seemed to be in this situation [brief statement from researcher] regarding being a Beacon School. Is there anything more you would like to say about where you are now and what has changed?

iii


Interview Schedule for Headteachers/SMT/staff in Beacon Schools (Schedule B)

Documents to be collected:

- Any weekly logs, files etc pertaining to Beacon activity- Written agreement or contract with partner organisations- Evaluation schedule, plus evidence, if any- Any other relevant documents

Becoming a Beacon school

1. What motivated you to bid for Beacon status?

2. How did you, and other staff, identify what you are good at and what makes you good at it?

3. What kind of ‘market research’ if any, has been undertaken to identify the potential level and type of need for Beacon activities? If this has not been possible, on what basis have support/activities been developed?

Beacon activity

4. What are the areas of expertise/successful practice that you identified for your Beacon activity?

5. How have you been disseminating your good practice? (lesson observation/INSET/conferences/stand alone documentation etc - see Annual Report Questionnaire for starting point)

6. How, if at all, has ICT been used in your Beacon work? What is the importance of ICT to your Beacon activity and to the initiative as a whole?

7. How is your Beacon activity staffed? (are all/some staff ‘Beacon teachers’, how is this decided?)

8. Have you and your staff/colleagues found themselves with a realistic and/or manageable workload?

9. How, roughly, have you allocated your Beacon grant (see Annual Report Questionnaire as a starting point).

Developing partnerships

10. Who are your partners? Are they non-Beacon schools, LEAs or universities/colleges?

iv

APPENDIX A

11. Have your Beacon activities been marketed/advertised by yourselves or brokered by another organisation, for example an LEA?

12. How far have you actively attracted potential partners and how far has it been a question of making information available? What has been the take-up of the activities you offer?

13. Please describe how one of your typical partnerships works. What kinds of activities are involved?

14. Have the activities been relevant to the needs of different audiences/schools? (have they taken account of cultural differences?) Have you worked with any schools in Excellence in Cities areas? [If so, what have these partnerships been like?]

15. What are the factors which facilitate the process of building partnerships? What are the things that help you to set up and sustain partnerships?









19. What evaluation approaches are being built into the development of your Beacon work? How is such evaluation information being collected? How is/will this information be used?



v





24. Do you have any recommendations to make to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the initiative?

vi

APPENDIX A

Interview schedule for Headteachers/SMT/staff in partner schools (Schedule C)

Getting involved in the Beacon initiative

1. What made your school want to participate in the Beacon initiative?

2. What areas did you most want to work on with the Beacon School?

3. How did you identify these areas within your school and who was involved in the process?

4. For staff: was it your idea, or someone else’s to participate in the Beacon initiative?

Working with the Beacon School

5. Do you feel the Beacon School staff have been able to clearly identify what they are good at? Has the Beacon School been able to design a programme of training and/or materials that is relevant to your particular needs?

6. How did you negotiate with the Beacon School regarding the type of work/amount of time you would work with them? How formal was this process [contracts/ verbal agreements]?

7. How, if at all, has ICT been used in your Beacon work? What is the importance of ICT to your Beacon partnership?

8. Which members of staff have been involved in Beacon work? Whole-staff, senior staff? Will/was the information ‘cascaded’?

9. How are you funding working with the Beacon School? Are you receiving any funding from the Beacon School?

10. To what extent do you feel that the Beacon School has taken account of the cultural/organisational differences between their school and yours? [Note: especially relevant if the partner school is in an Excellence in Cities area]

11. Have any requests been made to the Beacon School that have not been met?

Developing partnerships

12. Please describe/summarise the nature of your Beacon partnership. What kinds of activities are involved?

13. Do you see yourselves primarily as a partner, as a consumer, or in some other role?

vii


14. How long are you intending to work with the Beacon School? (one-off, medium term, on-going). Why?

15. What are the factors which facilitate the process of building partnerships and sharing good practice? What are the things that help you to set up and sustain partnerships?


16. Do you have any explicit objectives for undertaking Beacon activities?

17. How have you used the information/training/materials from the Beacon School in your own school?





20. What evaluation approaches are you building into the development of activities? If it is too early, what steps have you taken to ensure that benefits can be measured in the future?

Conclusions/recommendations

21. What, in your experience, are the positive aspects/benefits of (1) being involved in the initiative for your school; and (2) the Beacon initiative in general?

22. What, in your experience, are the negative aspects/difficulties of (1) being involved in the initiative for your school; and (2) the Beacon initiative in general? How have these been resolved?


24. Transferring good practice appears to be central to this initiative. How effective do you feel the Beacon School has been in terms of sharing good practice?

viii

APPENDIX A


ix


Interview schedule for LEA personnel (Schedule D)

Perceptions of and involvement in the initiative

1. At what point did you become involved with the Beacon School(s) in the LEA?

2. What was your impression of the Beacon initiative when it first started? Has this changed? If so, please explain how and why your view has changed.

3. Have you been involved in brokering partnerships between the Beacon School(s) and potential partner schools? How has this been managed? How are you planning, as an LEA to make use of Beacon activities?

4. How, if at all, does your involvement in the Beacon initiative relate to your work more generally (for example school improvement strategies)

5. Have you or your staff had any anxieties or concerns about Beacon Schools as an initiative?

Beacon activities

6. In your view, have staff in Beacon Schools clearly identified what they are good at, and how they achieve this?

7. How clear, appropriate and realistic are the objectives of non-Beacon Schools for their uptake and use of Beacon activities and/or materials?

8. How, if at all, has ICT been used in Beacon work? What is the importance of ICT to Beacon Schools in this LEA?

9. To what extent do you think that the activities/training/materials have taken sufficient account of the possibility of cultural differences between the Beacon Schools and partner schools? [Check if LEA is involved in Excellence in Cities]


10. In your LEA’s partner schools:



x

APPENDIX A

11. In your LEA’s Beacon Schools:



12. What evidence can non-Beacon Schools provide that their students are benefiting or are likely to benefit either directly or indirectly from Beacon activities?

13. Is there any evidence, in your view, to suggest that Beacon activities will impact upon the continuing professional development of staff? How? Can you give any examples?

14. How well do you think that feedback and evaluations of Beacon activities are incorporated into the development of Beacon Schools’ future work?

15. In what way(s) has the Beacon initiative impacted on the LEA?


16. What, in your experience, are the positive aspects/benefits of the Beacon initiative?

17. What, in your experience, are the negative aspects/difficulties of the Beacon initiative? How have these been resolved?

18. How do you see the role of the LEA in the Beacon initiative developing in the future?

19. Do you think the Beacon initiative provides, or will provide value for money in terms of public expenditure to raise standards?

20. Transferring good practice appears to be central to this initiative. How effective do you think Beacon Schools have been in your area, in terms of sharing good practice?


xi


Interview schedule for staff in Beacon schools, not involved in Beacon activities (Schedule E)

Becoming a Beacon school

1. How did you (as a school) identify what you are good at and what makes you good at it? Were you involved in this process?

2. Has there been any disagreement amongst staff about Beacon areas of activity? How has this been managed?

3. How was it decided who would be involved in Beacon work in your school?









Conclusions/recommendations




xii

APPENDIX A



xiii


xiv

APPENDIX B

The Annual Report Questionnaire

BEACON SCHOOLS - ANNUAL REPORT QUESTIONNAIRE April 2000 - March 2001

Under the terms of your letter of agreement with the Department, you are required to provide an annual report on your Beacon activities, indicating the expenditure on each of the activities set out in your letter. The purpose of this report is to enable the Department to satisfy itself that the objectives of this grant are being met, that expenditure is linked to the promotion of good practice and represents good value for money in terms of both quality and quantity of provision.

You are therefore asked to complete this questionnaire which will form your school’s annual report for the period from 1 April 2000 to 31 March 2001. All questions refer to this period of time only. The results from this questionnaire will be used as the basis for further evaluation work of the Beacon schools initiative. This may involve independent researchers visiting your school and further questionnaires being sent to you so that the Department can gain more in-depth information on the Beacon school initiative. Section A: Background Information

A1 Name of School

A2 School Type (please tick one box)Nursery

Primary

Middle

Secondary

Special

A3 Local Education Authority

A4 Name and position of person(s) completing this form

A5 Contact telephone number

A6 Date became a Beacon school

A7 Area of Beacon activity the school is committed to provide (as shown in letter of agreement)

Areas of Beacon activity (e.g. ICT, Literacy and Numeracy, ITT, SEN support)Activity 1.Activity 2.Activity 3.Activity 4.Activity 5.Activity 6.Activity 7.Activity 8.

xiv

Section B: Beacon activities and associated expenditure

B1 For each Beacon activity, please indicate in the table below the number of times each method of dissemination has been undertaken between April 2000 and March 2001. For ease of completion in indicating frequency, please refer to the coding grid provided:

Method of dissemination Area of Beacon activity school committed to provide (as shown in table A7)1. (e.g. ICT) 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Classroom/Lesson observationConsultationDiscussion groupDocumentation/Publications/Information PackINSETInternetResource CentreSeminar/Conference/Lecture/WorkshopVisit from other schoolVisit to other schoolWorkshadowingWork PlacementOther (please specify)Other (please specify)Other (please specify)

Code Number of times the dissemination method was used

7 Never6 Daily5 Weekly4 Monthly3 Termly2 Annually1 Once

For example, if for Area 1 you had weekly classroom observations, you would write 5 in the first cell.

B2 Total Beacon grant in financial year 2000/2001 £

B3 Please provide details of how you spent your Beacon grant for April 2000-March 2001 by completing the following table, indicating whether expenditure was spent within your school or on your partner schools:

Area of financial expenditure Amount (£)spent within own school

Amount (£)spent on partner schools

Supply cover

Salaries

Allowances

Bonus payments

Equipment /Resources

Administration

Other (please specify)




xvi

B4 Have you allocated any expenditure to Beacon activities apart from your Beacon grant? (Please tick one box)

Yes Please complete table B5 below.

No Please go to question C1.

B5 Please complete the table below for all non Beacon grant money that you have spent on Beacon activity. Please detail where you have spent the money, the amount and the source of the non-Beacon funding, eg school budget, school fund, other Standards Fund grant, private sector funding etc.

Area of financial expenditure Amount (£) spent within own school

Amount (£) spent on partner school

Source of non-Beacon funding (please specify)

Supply cover

Salaries

Allowances

Bonus payments

Equipment/Resources

Administration




B6 In what way has the transfer of resources affected your school? (Please tick all boxes that apply)

Reduced frequency of extra-curricular activities

Reduced range of extra-curricular activities


……………………………………………………….

xviii

Section C: Staff involvement in Beacon activity

C1 Please state the total number of teachers in your school:

C2 Please state the number of teachers in your school involved in Beacon school activities:C3 Please state the number of non-teaching staff in your school involved in Beacon school activities:(Note: ‘1’ should be written as 01)

C4 Please estimate in the table below the total number of hours each staff member (as shown at C2 and C3) has spent on Beacon-related work between April 2000 and March 2001. Please also indicate how many of these hours have been worked outside the staff member’s contracted hours and whether or not classroom contact time has been reduced for this person to cover Beacon school activity.

Position (eg Headteacher; Deputy; school secretary; classroom assistant etc)

Total number of hours on Beacon activity over the period April 2000 to March 2001

How many of these hours have been worked outside the staff member’s contracted hours?

Has classroom contact time been reduced for this person to cover Beacon school activity?(tick appropriate box) No Yes

Please continue overleaf if necessary

C4

Position (eg Headteacher; Deputy; school secretary; classroom assistant etc)

Total number of hours on Beacon activity over the period April 2000 to March 2001

How many of these hours have been worked outside the staff member’s contracted hours?

Has classroom contact time been reduced for this person to cover Beacon school activity?(tick appropriate box) No Yes

C5 Do you in any way restrict the amount or frequency of Beacon activity your school undertakes? (Please tick one box)xx

Yes Please answer question C6 below.

No Please answer question D1.

C6 Have you had to decline any requests for Beacon activity from another school/institution? (Please tick one box)



C7 If yes, how many schools?

(Note: ‘1’ should be written as 01)

C8 Why did you feel unable to offer assistance to the school/schools in question? (Please tick all boxes that apply)

Too busy

Lack relevant expertise

Over subscription for activities


……………………………………………………………..

C9 Were you able to refer the school/schools to an alternative source of expertise? (Please tick one box)



C10 Was the alternative source of expertise (Please tick all boxes that apply):

Another Beacon school?

Non-Beacon school?

Higher Education Institution?

Further Education Institution?

Initial Teacher Training Institution?

Standards Site

Other (please specify)?

……………………………………………………………………

xxii

Section D: Partnerships/links with other Beacon and non-Beacon schools and other organisations

Maintenance/development of existing partnerships

D1 As a result of your Beacon school activity have you maintained or developed existing partnerships with any of the following: (please complete the table below)

School(s)(Please put a * if this is a Beacon)

LEA(s) Provider(s) of teacher education

Other organisation(s)/group(s)

Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No

If Yes please provide name(s) and postcode(s) of the school(s) below


If Yes please provide name(s) and postcode(s) of the institution(s) below

If Yes please provide name(s) and postcode(s) of the other organisation(s)/group(s) below

Name(s) and postcode(s) of existing partnership(s)

Name(s) and postcode(s) of existing partnership(s




D1







If Yes please provide name(s) and postcode(s) of the institution(s) below

If Yes please provide name(s) and postcode(s) of the other organisation(s)/group(s) below


Name(s) and postcode(s) of existing partnership(s



xxiv

Development of new partnerships

D2 As a result of your Beacon activity have you developed new partnerships with any of the following: (please complete the table below)






If Yes please provide name(s) of the LEA(s) below

If Yes please provide name(s) and postcodes of the institution(s) below

If Yes please provide name(s) and postcodes of the other organisation(s)/group(s) below

Name(s) and postcode(s) of new partnership(s)

Name(s) of new partnership(s) Names and postcode(s) of new partnership(s)



D2

School(s)(please put a * if this is a Beacon)





If Yes please provide name(s) of the LEA(s) below

If Yes please provide name(s) and postcodes of the institution(s) below

If Yes please provide name(s) and postcodes of the other organisation(s)/group(s) below


Name(s) of new partnership(s) Names and postcode(s) of new partnership(s)


xxvi

D3 How helpful to you as a Beacon school has your LEA been? (Please tick one box)

Very helpful

Helpful

Neither helpful nor unhelpful

Unhelpful

Very unhelpful

D4 Please comment further if you wish:

D5 Is your LEA using you as part of its school improvement strategy within its Education Development Plan? (Please tick one box)Yes

No

Don’t Know

D6 If ‘Yes’, please provide details below:

D7 To what extent does your school use ICT to disseminate good practice? Internet: E-Mail:DailyWeeklyMonthlyTermlyAnnualyNever

D8 Are you part of the IBM Reinventing Education project?Yes

No

D9 Has your involvement in this project contributed to the dissemination of good practice?Yes

No

If yes, in what way: (tick as many boxes as apply)Adoption/creation of new methodologiesAdoption/creation of new plansAdoption/creation of new activitiesChanges in operation or staffing

If you answered yes, please expand on your answer below:If no, please explain:

D10 Are you involved in the Beacon area of the Talking Heads project?Yes

NoD11 Has your involvement in this project contributed to the dissemination of good practice?

Yes

NoIf yes, please provide details below:If no, please explain:

xxviii

D12 Have you made use of the latest developments in the Beacon schools area of the Standards Site?Yes

No

D13 Has your participation in this project contributed to the dissemination of good practice?Yes

NoIf yes, please provide details below.If no, please explain.

D14 Are you involved in any other projects aimed at disseminating good practice via the internet? Yes

NoIf yes, please provide details below.

Section E Evaluation

E1 Please describe your planned or current evaluation:

Section F Other

F1 a. What impact have you had on your partner schools?

b. How do you know whether you are making a positive impact?

c. Please detail or attach any supporting evidence.

F2 What have you learned so far about disseminating good practice?

xxx

F3 Were there any aspects of your Beacon role which proved particularly difficult? (Please tick one box)

Yes Please answer question F4.

No Please answer question F5.

F4 If yes, please give details:

F5 If you wish to provide any more details about your Beacon activities, then please give details below:

Thank you for completing this annual report questionnaire. Please return by 11 April 2001 to Keith Andrews, Beacon Schools Team, 4a Sanctuary Buildings, Great Smith

Street, Westminster, London SW1P 3BT.

APPENDIX C

Support Mechanisms for Beacon Schools

APPENDIX C

APPENDIX C: Support Mechanisms for Beacon Schools

Information supplied by the Department for Education and Employment, January 2001 [N.B. Needs to be updated by DfES Beacon Team]

Beacon Schools have access to support and guidance from a number of different sources. In the first instance, there is central support from eight members of the Beacon Schools team who are available on a daily basis to respond to telephone and written enquiries. In addition, the following mechanisms are in place or under development.

Beacon area on the Standards SiteThe Beacon area of the Standards Site holds information in the way of advice for Beacon Schools and some answers to frequently asked questions. It also provides a search facility to enable easy location of Beacon schools and the services they offer, and hyperlinks to individual school websites where they exist. This provides a sort of ‘dating’ service, enabling schools to search the database to find a school which is offering particular advice or expertise. There is an ‘open’ discussion forum where anyone who has registered can ask for advice and help on a topic. This is able to promote the exchange of good practice between Beacon Schools and non-Beacon Schools. There is also a ‘closed’ area accessible only to Beacon Schools that enables teachers in Beacon Schools to share experience amongst themselves and to discuss issues of interest. This area is to host a monthly newsletter from the Department, to inform schools of developments within the initiative and provide them with examples of good practice that we are picking up. In addition, the area provides schools with their own pages on which they are free to place whatever they want in the way of general information, expertise in their Beacon subjects/areas, case studies and advertisements for forthcoming events. Several Beacon Schools are already developing model schemes of work in different curriculum area or other forms of documentation, including lesson plans, assessment plans, pupil tracking models etc containing advice on good practice in particular areas. The Beacon site will have direct links to these documents.

Workshops for Beacon SchoolsAll new Beacon Schools have the opportunity to attend a workshop to introduce them to the scheme. These offer the chance to network with other new Beacons and be updated on how the initiative is developing and to learn from the experience of existing Beacon Schools.

Regional NetworksAs the national network expands it has become necessary to consider how else to provide support for the increasing number of Beacon Schools in the future. The Department is in the process of establishing regional networks that will help to

xxxiii


improve communications between Beacon Schools, increase the mutual support they offer one another and assist the Department in learning more about the most cost effective models of spreading good practice.

The Beacon NewsletterA regular monthly newsletter has been launched which enables the Department to inform the Beacon Schools of policy developments relevant to them and generally keep them up to date on the Beacon initiative as a whole.

Visits to the SchoolsMembers of the Beacon Schools team have now visited around 85 Beacon Schools, including all 75 of the initial pilot group. These visits provide an opportunity to find out how schools are managing the Beacon initiative – the range of their activities, their specific methods of dissemination and the impact on their school – and to give them some feedback on how they are doing and to respond to any concerns or questions they may have.

xxxiv

Support Mechanisms for Beacon Schools

xxxv

Beacon School

Standards Site Website

Regional NetworksDfES Office available to answer questions

Meeting other Beacon Schools

Regular newsletter

Workshops

APPENDIX D

Numbers and Types of Beacon Schools

BEACON SCHOOLS as at 31 March 2002

Date joined initiative

Phase Primary Secondary Nursery Special Total

September 1998 First 36 23 3 13 75

September 1999 Second 52 66 2 5 125

January 2000 Third 19 23 2 6 50

September 2000 Fourth 221 66 6 7 300

January 2001 Fifth 37 0 0 0 37

September 2001 Sixth 253 105 24 31 413

Total 618 283 37 62 1000

xxxvi

xxxvii

APPENDIX E

APPENDIX E: Bibliography and References

BRUNDRETT, M. and BURTON, N. (2000). The Beacon School Experience: Case Studies in Excellence. Norfolk: Peter Francis.

BURTON, N. and BRUNDRETT, M. (2000). ‘The First Year of Beacon School Status: maintaining excellence and sharing success’, School Leadership and Management 20, 4, 489-498.

DAVIES, D. (2001). ‘Learning from Beacon Schools: findings from the evaluation of pilot Beacon Schools,’ Education Journal, 52, 22-24.

DAVIES, D., JOHNSON, F., RUDD, P. and FELGATE, R. (1999). Evaluation of Pilot Beacon Schools: Analysis of Annual Report Questionnaires. Unpublished report.

DAVIES, D., RUDD, P., RICKINSON, M., JAMISON, J., FELGATE, R. and JOHNSON, R. (2000). Beacon Schools: Further External Evaluation of the Initiative. Analysis of Annual Report Questionnaires. Unpublished report.

DEPARTMENT FOR EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT (1999) Excellence in Cities. London: DfEE.

DEPARTMENT FOR EDUCATION AND SKILLS (2002). The Standards Site: Welcome to Beacon Schools [online]. Available: http://www.standards.dfes.gov.uk/ beaconschools [28 March, 2002].

MORRIS, M. (2001). Paper 7, Schools, in NATIONAL FOUNDATION FOR EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH, LONDON SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS and INSTITUTE FOR FISCAL STUDIES. Evaluation of Excellence in Cities Policy (Annual Report, December 2001). Unpublished report. Slough: NFER.

RICKINSON, M. and RUDD, P. (2001). ‘The Successes of Beacon Partnerships,’ Education Journal, 57, 30-32.

RUDD, P. (2002). ‘Pointing the Way?’. Professional Development Today. 5, 1, 57-62.

RUDD, P., DAVIES, D., JAMISON, J., RICKINSON, M. and JOHNSON, R. (2001). Beacon Schools: Further External Evaluation of the Initiative. Final Report. Slough: NFER.

xxxviii


RUDD, P., JAMISON, J., SAUNDERS, L., DAVIES, D., JOHNSON, F. and ASHBY, P. (2000). Evaluation of Pilot Beacon Schools (DfEE Research Report 223). London: DfEE.

RUDD, P., RICKINSON, M., DAVIES, D., TAYLOR, M., McMEEKING, S. and BLENKINSOP, S. (2001). Long-term External Evaluation of the Beacon Schools Initiative. Analysis of Annual Report Questionnaires. Unpublished report.

WEBSTER, D. (2001). ‘Beacon Schools: New Labour education policy in a nutshell’. Forum. 43, 3, 127-130.

xxxix

· Web viewOne headteacher who was unhappy about this described it as ‘INSET on the cheap’....

Documents

Transcript of · Web viewOne headteacher who was unhappy about this described it as ‘INSET on the cheap’....