Conference Agenda

Creating education systems that are both equitable and excellent has become a preoccupation for many systems internationally. A recent UNESCO Global Monitoring Report (UNSECO, 2020) concluded that inequality in education has increased, with the poorest and most disadvantaged shouldering the heaviest burden. One approach to addressing this issue is through collaborative approaches to school improvement. This involves strengthening relationships between schools to increase support and challenge (Armstrong & Ainscow, 2018), while also eliminating system-level practices that inhibit inclusivity. This symposium will draw lessons from five distinct country contexts (China, Austria, Scotland and England) to throw light on how collaborative activity between schools can be used as a mechanism to build capacity and facilitate knowledge mobilisation between classrooms and schools to promote equity and inclusion. At the same time, it will explore the challenges in establishing and sustaining collaborative practice between schools. Such challenges should not be underestimated. School collaboration requires building a shared purpose and common understanding and not just securing ‘buy in’. It involves driving collective work through common interest despite, and often within, cultures that promote competition, personal incentive, and introspection. In this way it entails confronting the tension between collective responsibility and individual accountability. This does not necessarily mean schools doing more, but it does imply partnerships beyond the individual school, where partners multiply the impacts of each other’s efforts. The cases we present here will explore these issues whilst also paying attention to the dangers of placing too much faith in such activity as a solution to the many and complex problems facing education systems (Kerr et al, 2014).

To align with the conference theme, the papers in this session will individually and collectively speak to the Sustainable Development Goals 4 (Quality Education) and 10 (Reduced Inequalities). In doing so, the symposium builds on evidence suggesting that collaboration between schools has potential for fostering the capacity of education systems to respond to learner diversity (Ainscow, 2010) and help to reduce the polarisation of schools within a local area, to the particular benefit of marginalised children whose performance and attitudes to learning cause concern (Muijs et al, 2011). There is also research which suggests that the development of education systems that are effective for all children will only happen when what happens outside as well as inside a school changes (Raffo, 2011). Indeed, there is encouraging evidence of what can happen when what schools do is aligned in a coherent strategy with the efforts of other actors within a locality. In short, context matters. This might be the context of the system, the network, and/or the neighbourhood to which a school belongs, or it might be the institutional context of the school itself. Indeed, it is probably a combination of all these elements. However, it is also important to understand the ways in which context matters, by which we mean the challenges and opportunities, the culture(s), beliefs and values, the demographics, and geographies in a particular setting and the ‘niches of possibility’ with these settings where purposeful activity is most likely to happen (Hatch et al, 2021).

The papers within this symposium will explore these issues from different vantage points of the four contexts within which each is set including the school (micro) level (Austria), the state/regional (meso) level (England and Scotland) and the system (macro) level (China). In so doing they will reveal the importance and multifaceted nature of context in furthering our understanding of collaboration as a mechanism to address inequity and support development in education.

The last twenty years have seen two significant strands of education-policy reform in England: an increased emphasis on the power of market forces as a strategy for school improvement and the development of new governance structures that may not be based around local areas or communities (Ainscow et al, 2020). These policy moves are both positioning schools in a competitive market and loosening the links between schools and their local communities. Various forms of area-based partnerships have emerged, where schools are encouraged and enabled to work together with neighbouring schools and community partners (Armstrong & Ainscow, 2018). In this paper, we report on the Area-Based Partnerships Project (ABPP), which investigates examples of collaborative working in eight regions in England. Our case-study research is framed by the following questions: What are the conditions that facilitate the establishment and sustainability of area-based school partnerships? What are the features and benefits of these partnerships? What barriers do they face and how are these being addressed? And, what are the implications for the creation of effective forms of local coordination within education systems? Data were generated through documentary analysis followed by interviews and focus-group seminars with key actors, including governors and Trust members, Chief Executive Officers, local-authority representatives and school principals. We identify key factors underpinning the purposefulness of such partnerships, including the establishment of strong professional networks, often led by experienced school leaders; the contribution of local-authority officers; a commitment to collaborative working; and a clearly-articulated statement of principles. Our findings underline the importance of context, specifically the histories, demographics, cultures, and conventions that characterise local systems and communities in which each case is situated. This serves to highlight the importance of localised policy enactment and decision (Braun et al, 2011). Notably, these partnerships have no formal status or mandate, instead drawing their influence from soft power and the social capital of the collective capacity of local educational leaders and professionals. While the extent to which these partnerships can be seen as ‘successful’ and/or sustainable is variable between different regions, there are lessons we can draw from this project that will inform thinking around how we structure our school systems in ways that promote equity and excellence. This paper addresses the role of partnerships in improving the quality of education in order to alleviate disadvantage and reduce inequalities (Sustainable Development Goals 4 and 10; see Kerr et al, 2014).

Ainscow, M., Chapman, C. and Hadfield, M. (2020). Changing education systems: a research-based approach. Abingdon, UK: Routledge. Armstrong, P.W. & Ainscow, M. (2018). School-to-school support within a competitive education system: Views from the inside. School Effectiveness, School Improvement, 29(4), 614–633. Braun, A., Ball, S. and Maguire, M. (2011). Policy enactments in schools introduction: towards a toolbox for theory and research. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 32(4), 581-583. Kerr, K., Dyson, A. & Raffo, C. (2014). Education, disadvantage and place: Making the local matter. Bristol, UK: Policy Press. Raffo, C., Dyson, A., Gunter, H.M., Hall, D., Jones, L. and Kalambouka, K. (2007). Education and Poverty: A Critical Review of Theory, Policy and Practice. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation

In school systems with early tracking of pupils, such as Austria or Germany, the transition to lower secondary school (age 10) is often a critical life event (Filipp, 1995). In addition to the pressure to perform well in order to transit to, for example, a Gymnasium, pupils are often confronted with other changing factors such as longer distances to the new school, unfamiliar new classmates, teachers and subjects. Studies show that these changes can cause anxiety and concerns (Koch, 2006). Cooperation between different types of schools, for example, can help to ensure that the coordination and management of transitions is sustainable (Benz, 2007). A study conducted by van Rens et al. (2018) show that a positive relationship between different stakeholders can help to better address transition challenges. This can include sharing information about students' academic progress as well as coordinating activities. For example, primary schools may invite secondary schools to visit (Cauley & Jovanovich, 2006). Against this background, this paper examines the expectations and experiences of students from two different contexts. While cohort A experiences the transition in a rural region where only one form of secondary school (middle school) can be chosen after primary school and where primary schools cooperate closely with secondary schools, cohort B experiences the transition in an urban environment. In this particular urban area, there is strong segregation and little institutionalised cooperation between primary and secondary schools, especially at the interface. In order to map the two environments, qualitative data from school leader interviews (n=13) as well as documents on the cooperative measures (trainins, networking initiatives, etc.) were analysed. Furthermore, analyses are based on survey data from pupils in the fourth grade (prior to transition) in both rural (n=295) and urban (n=412) areas. All data were collected in the school year 2020-2021. The survey was conducted using paper-pencil questionnaires, including scales on social integration in class (Eder, 2007), teacher support (based on OECD, 2004), parents’ responsiveness (Fend & Prester, 1986), and anxiety regarding the future school (based on Sirsch, 2000). The data were analysed using SPSS (version 27). First results show that pupils from urban contexts are more worried about their future school than pupils from the networked rural contexts (t(675.1) = 1.96; p<.05). A linear regression (F(675)=18.05; p<.001; r²=.14) points at students’ migration background to have an increasing influence whereby higher levels of social integration and parental responsiveness moderate anxieties regarding the future school.

Cauley, K. M., & Jovanovich, D. (2006). Developing an effective transition program for students entering middle school or high school. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 80(1), 15-25. Eder, F. (2007). Das Befinden von Kindern und Jugendlichen in der österreichischen Schule. Befragung 2005. Innsbruck: StudienVerlag. Fend, H. & Prester, H.-G. (1986). Dokumentation der Skalen des Projekts "Entwicklung im Jugendalter". Universität Konstanz. Filipp, S.-H. (Hrsg.) (1995): Kritische Lebensereignisse. Weinheim: Beltz Psychologie Verlags Union. Koch, K. (2006). Der Übergang von der Grundschule in die weiterführende Schule als biographische und pädagogische Herausforderung. Jahrbuch Jugendforschung, 69-89. OECD (2004). Learning for Tomorrow’s World. First Results from PISA 2003. OECD. Sirsch, U. (2000). Probleme beim Schulwechsel. Die subjektive Bedeutung des bevorstehenden Wechsels von der Grundschule in die weiterführende Schule. Waxmann. van Rens, M., Haelermans, C., Groot, W., & Maassen van den Brink, H. (2018). Facilitating a successful transition to secondary school:(how) does it work? A systematic literature review. Adolescent Research Review, 3, 43-56.

Place-based approaches including the Harlem Children’s Zone, City Connects in Boston and Strive Partnership in Cincinnati in the USA and Children’s Communities in England and other similar approaches in Europe and elsewhere have attempted to create a pipeline of support from birth to adulthood in the most challenging communities and to achieve collective impact (Henig et al., 2015). This paper articulates well with ideas, developments and concerns across the European context where persistent regional inequality is increasing social division, reducing acceptance of diversity and promoting mistrust of conventional political processes. Such inequalities reduce people’s substantial freedoms or capabilities (Sen 2009) in three general domains: economic: income, labour quality and private wealth; social: access to and quality of essential services and common wealth, and recognition: of one’s values, norms, role and aspirations. The paper explores the development and use of the Capabilities approach (Sen, 2009; Nussbaum, 2011; Burchardt and Vizard, 2011) to frame the key issues and opportunities related to children and young people growing up in high poverty neighbourhoods. This strikes a balance between locally developed, participative and grounded definitions of capabilities and capabilities derived from the academic literature. This paper will also draw out the lessons learned, challenges and opportunities from the design, implementation and legacy of the design-based research programme Children’s Neighbourhoods Scotland (CNS). Research undertaken with young people as co-researchers and professionals during the build up to, widespread lockdown and subsequent aftermath of the pandemic provide the contexts for exploring the impact of the pandemic on communities and professional practice, the legacy of the pandemic and ultimately the lessons learned including the challenges and opportunities faced in the design, implementation and sustainability during and beyond the lifespan of the funding. The paper concludes by reflecting on potential of adopting a capabilities framework in order include children and young people’s voices at the centre of a strategy to promote their wellbeing and achievement (Biggeri, 2007) and the potential for capabilities to support and empower young people to play a meaningful role in democratic decision-making processes. It explores the challenges and potential of the model including: importance of collaborative and distributed leadership, the role of reticulists (Sullivan & Skelcher, 2002); the need for actors from both academic and practice backgrounds to work across complex political, professional and geographical boundaries, and the time required to build authentic and trusting relationships within and across neighbourhoods.

Biggeri, M. (2007) ‘Children’s Valued Capabilities’ in Walker, M. and Unterhalter, E. (Eds.) (2007) Amartya Sen’s Capability Approach and Social Justice in Education, 1st edn, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke; New York, NY. Burchardt, T. & Vizard, P. (2011) 'Operationalizing' the Capability Approach as a Basis for Equality and Human Rights Monitoring in Twenty-first-century Britain. Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, 12(1): 91-119. City Connects (2014) The impact of City Connects: Progress report 2014. Chestnut Hill, MA: Center for Optimized Student Support Henig, J. R., Riehl, C. J., Rebell, M. A., & Wolff, J. R (2015) Putting collective impact in context: A review of the literature on local cross-sector collaboration to improve education. New York, NY: Teachers College, Columbia University, and Department Nussbaum, M. C. (2003) Capabilities as fundamental entitlements: Sen and social justice, Feminist Economics, 9:2-3, 33-59, DOI: 10.1080/1354570022000077926 Nussbaum, M. C. (2011) Creating capabilities: the human development approach. Cambridge: Belknap Press Sen, A. (2009) The idea of justice. London: Penguin Sen, Amartya (1985). Commodities and capabilities. Amsterdam New York New York, N.Y., U.S.A: North-Holland Sole distributors for the U.S.A. and Canada, Elsevier Science Pub. Co. ISBN 9780444877307. Sullivan, H. & Skelcher, C. (2002). Collaborating Across Boundaries. London: Palgrave.

“Equity” and “Quality” have been mentioned many times in this reform of China’s education system (Yu, 2020; Qian and Walker, 2020). However, there has been an increasing recognition that it is hard to achieve these two goals only by relying on a school’s individual strength. Policymakers, therefore, turned their eyes on the whole “system” changes (Qian and Walker, 2020). The reform of the entire system involves the improvement of all schools in the system, usually focusing mainly on narrowing the gap between high-performance and low-performance schools (Hopkins et al., 2014). School-to-school collaboration is regarded as an effective way to raise the standard of regional education systems, reduce the gap between schools and facilitate the redistribution of resources in Chinese context (Du and Duan, 2020), and education collectivisation is one of the widely practiced forms of school-to-school collaboration. Many scholars have conducted research on the purposes and achievements of education collectives (see Wu, 2013; Gu et al., 2017; You, 2021; Liu, 2021 et al.), yet there is little acknowledgment about its differentiated forms, thereby it is important to unpack this complexity. To fully map the education collective’s terrain, I first answer the question that what do education collectives in China look like and how can they be conceptualised? I then elucidate a description of the typology of education collectives. I employ the metaphor of Chinese landscape painting to inform my overall approach and methodology. Further, I borrow the concept of three distances in Chinese landscape painting to structure this typology. The different dimensions of typologising education collectives mainly concern legal status, power relations and external engagement. This research innovatively uses metaphor of Chinese landscape painting and its characteristics to reveal the complex terrain of Chinese education. This typology helps to place education collectives within the broader landscape of Chinese compulsory education and system reform, provides a foundation for understanding network and partnership diversity among inter-school collaboration, and offers insights about classifying education collectives of other education systems.

Du, L., L. and Duan, P., Y. (2020). Review and Prospect of Basic Education School District System and School Group in China: Forum on Contemporary Education, 12 (3), pp.1-11. Gu, M., Y., Ma, J. and Teng, J. (2017). Portraits of Chinese schools. Singapore: Springer. Hopkins, D., Stringfield, S., Harris, A., Stoll, L. and Mackay, T. (2014). School and system improvement: A narrative state-of-the-art review. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 25(2), pp.257-281. Liu, J. (2021). ‘Building education groups as school collaboration for education improvement: a case study of stakeholder interactions in District A of Chengdu’. Asia Pacific Education Review, pp.1-13. Qian, H. and Walker, A. (2020). System Reform in China: Mobilising and Sharing Resources Across Schools. In Leading and Transforming Education Systems. Singapore: Springer. Wu, Y. (2013). A study on the collectivization of running a School in basic Education. Masters level. Shaanxi Normal University. You, Y. (2021). Run by others: school autonomy in Shanghai’s entrustment management reform. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 41(3), pp.594-608. Yu, M., Y. (2020). Practical dilemmas and strategies for cracking the problem of group schooling in basic education — A Research Analysis in Jiangsu Province. Journal of The Chinese Society of Education, 12 (11), pp.13-19