Conference Agenda

Topic

Schools identified as being in 'challenging circumstances' face multiple and often interwoven challenges. This means, for example, that low levels of student achievement are not due to one factor alone, but are the result of the interaction of, for example, external contextual conditions and internal processes (Bremm, Klein & Racherbäumer, 2016). In line with the conference theme (‘The Value of Diversity’), it is particularly important to provide schools with support that is appropriate to their needs (Ainscow & Southworth, 1996).

Since the late 1960s, school effectiveness studies have investigated how schools succeed in influencing student learning (e.g. Scheerens, 2000). They have identified several characteristics of effective schools, such as high-quality teaching and school leaders who are responsible for creating a positive learning culture (Leithwood, Harris & Strauss, 2010). Especially for schools serving disadvantaged children, leadership styles that help teachers to feel responsible for their student success and reduce deficit thinking play an important role (Klein & Bremm, 2019). However, despite being aware of these characteristics, schools often fail to take action. To address this issue, educational policy initiatives in many countries have provided schools with external support, usually in the form of school improvement consulting (Meyers & Murphy, 2007, Dean et al., 2021).

Objectives

Examples from three European countries will be analysed, where school leaders have experienced the support of consultants. In particular, different interventions will be described and compared, and the consultancy approaches discussed.

The symposium will address the following questions:

• What are the similarities and differences between the programmes for external advisory support?
• At which level do the interventions operate?
• What was the impact?

Theoretical framework

As a theoretical framework, the organisational capacity model (Marks, Louis & Printy, 2000) proved to be empirically useful. The approach identifies different capacities, such as a participatory organisational structure, collaborative approaches, knowledge and skills of school actors, that schools need to have in order to develop. A central capacity in the model is attributed to school leadership. This model serves as a reference to reflect the different approaches and areas of improvement addressed by the consultants.

Methodology and methods

The research teams used a variety of methods to explore the research questions. The contribution from Austria analyses interviews with school principals (n=26) and discusses the perspective of the principals. The contribution from Germany uses a mixed method approach, where findings from a quantitative survey of school leaders are triangulated with data from qualitative interviews with school improvement consultants. The contribution from England focuses on the perspective of consultants within a national improvement strategy (Ainscow, 2020). These were collected through observations and informal focus group discussions.

By taking the perspectives of different stakeholders in the context of school improvement consultancy, the symposium will give the opportunity to critically reflect the on dynamics of counselling in education and the assumed vs. the actual need for support in this context.

Conclusions, expected outcomes

Preliminary findings indicate that the programmes differ in their approach to school support in terms of whether school leaders participated voluntarily or were required to do so. This had an impact on the acceptance of the measures proposed. It was also observed that the issues addressed by the consultants were both at the individual level (i.e. the actions of the school leaders) and at the organisational level (analysis and change of processes at the school level). However, initial data using the capacity model shows that the consulting addresses often only selected areas. In all settings, it became clear that without the commitment of school leaders, transformation processes could not be initiated in schools. The implications of these findings will be discussed.

In 2017, the Austrian Ministry of Education launched an initiative called "securing basic competences" (SBC), which targeted a total of 500 schools in which at least 20% of students did not achieve the basic competences in several cycles of the national educational tests (Altrichter, Kemethofer, Soukup-Altrichter, 2021). The educational policy measure "SBC" provided for these schools to receive compulsory counselling from a multi-professional team (school development consultant, subject expert, school psychologist; MPT) over a period of two years. The role of the MPTs is to support school leaders and teachers in analysing the reasons for their pupils' underachievement and to advise them on an individual improvement process. While the design of the SBC required schools to focus on issues related to their students' performance based on their standard results, preliminary studies (Jesacher-Roessler et al., 2021) show that other topics were often addressed. To this end, this paper examines the consultation processes from the perspective of school leaders, analysing which actions were addressed together with the MPTs. In a further step, we discuss these actions in the context of effective leadership practices for 'turnaround' schools (Duke, 2014; Klein, 2017, Brauckmann & Böse, 2018). In addition, we assess the perceived impact of the MPT on the school development process from the perspective of school leaders. As a reference model for key leadership practices that influence student achievement, we refer to Hitt and Tucker (2016). Based on a systematic review, the study defines 28 action areas in five domains (establishing and communicating the vision, facilitating a quality learning experience for students, building professional capacity, creating an organisation that supports learning, and connecting with external partners). To answer the questions, we conducted interviews with school principals (n=26) from one Austrian province. The interviews were semi-structured and were analysed using content analysis (Kuckartz, 2018). The formation of categories was deductive on the basis of the framework used. Preliminary findings show that many school leaders are looking at instructional processes for the first time and that the consulting helps them to address effective actions. However, there are also examples of school leaders choosing actions that are not related to the five domains. In these schools, the external consultancy and the SBC-project are often given a low priority.

Altrichter, H., Kemethofer, D., & Soukup-Altrichter, K. (2021). Grundkompetenzen absichern–Hintergrund und Programmlogik eines evidenzbasierten Entwicklungsprogramms. D. Kemethofer, J. Reitinger & K. Soukup-Altrichter (Hg.), Vermessen, 177-193. Brauckmann, S., & Böse, S. (2017). Picking up the pieces? Zur Rolle der Schulleitung beim Turnaround–Ansätze und empirische Erkenntnisse. Schulentwicklungsarbeit in herausfordernden Lagen, 85-103. Duke, D. L. (2014). A bold approach to developing leaders for low-performing schools. Management in Education, 28(3), 80-85. Hitt, D. H., & Tucker, P. D. (2016). Systematic review of key leader practices found to influence student achievement: A unified framework. Review of educational research, 86(2), 531-569. Jesacher-Rößler, L, Altrichter, H., Kemethofer, D. & Wölbitsch, L. (2021). Schulische Entwicklungsbegleitung durch Multiprofessionelle Teams [School development support through multiprofessional teams]. Journal für Schulentwicklung, 25 (3). Klein, E. (2017). Bedingungen und Formen erfolgreicher Schulentwicklung in Schulen in sozial deprivierter Lage. Eine Expertise im Auftrag der Wübben Stiftung. In SHIP Working Paper Reihe, No. 1. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17185/duepublico/44384 Kuckartz, U. (2018). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Methoden, Praxis, Computerunterstützung. 4. Aufl. Beltz Juventa.

School improvement consultancy becomes increasingly important for schools in challenging circumstances, and a growing number of schools in Germany seek the help of external coaches in their school improvement efforts (Dedering et al., 2013: 13). Researchers have, however, only recently begun to systematically study the specific conditions under which schools serving disadvantaged communities (SSDC) can improve. From the perspective of school ‘capacity-building’ (Marks et al., 2000), leadership plays an important role for schools to successfully initiate change (Leithwood et al., 2006; Sun & Leithwood, 2015). Such associations have also been documented for SSDC (e.g. Muijs et al., 2004). However, it remains largely unclear how external consultants can best help schools, and particularly their leaders, achieve their goals and become professional learning communities (Giles & Hargreaves, 2006). Extant research points out that the combination of teams from inside and outside the school system is particularly promising (Dedering, 2017), while being sensitive towards the schools’ unique structural and cultural conditions (Ainscow & Southworth, 1996: 247). We seek to answer the following research questions with specific reference to a model project that is currently conducted among 60 SSDC in one federal German state: (1) How and with what goals is school improvement consultancy designed and implemented at the schools? (2) How do school leaders and external consultants perceive their collaboration with each other at the start of the project?, and (3) How do school leaders evaluate the effect of the external consultancy one year later? Data were collected by 19 guideline-based interviews with external consultants and 15 interviews with school leaders that were conducted at the beginning of the project. In addition, we conducted a standardized online survey among the school leaders at the start of the project and in the following year. The interviews were analyzed using qualitative content analysis and typifying structuring of the interview material (Mayring, 2003). First results show that the consultants initially did not feel welcome at the schools, which may partly be attributed to the obligatory nature of their work in the project. As they showed only little orientation towards the specific situation of the SSDC, school leaders were overwhelmingly convinced that they could not be sufficiently supported by the external consultants. The contribution aims at a better understanding of the role of external consultants for improvement activities at SSCD, and sheds more light on how collaboration with school leaders may affect longer-term processes of school improvement.

Ainscow, M., & Southworth, G. (1996). School Improvement: A Study of the Roles of Leaders and External Consultants. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 7(3), 229–251. https://doi.org/10.1080/0924345960070302 Dedering, K. et al. (2013), Wenn Experten in die Schule kommen. Schulentwicklungsberatung – empirisch betrachtet, Springer VS, Wiesbaden. Dedering, K. (2017), “Externe Schulentwicklungsberatung als Unterstützungsansatz”, Manitius, V. and Doppelstein, P. (Ed.s), Schulentwicklungsarbeit in herausfordernden Lagen, Waxmann, Münster, pp.159-175. Giles, C. and Hargreaves, A., 2006. The sustainability of innovative schools as learning organizations and professional learning communities during standardized reform. Educational administration quarterly, 42 (1), 124–156. doi:10.1177/0013161X05278189 Leithwood, K., R. Aitken, and D. Jantzi. 2006. Making Schools Smarter. Leading With Evidence. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press. Marks, H. M., K. Louis, and S. Printy. 2000. “The Capacity for Organizational Learning. Implications for Pedagogical Quality and Student Achievement.” In Advances in Research and Theories of School Management and Educational Policy: v. 3. Understanding Schools as Intelligent Systems, edited by K. Leithwood, 239–265. Stamford, CT: Jai Press. Mayring, P. (2003), Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Grundlagen und Techniken, Beltz, Weinheim. Muijs, D., Harris, A., Chapman, C., Stoll, L., and Russ, J. (2004). Improving schools in socioeconomically disadvantaged areas – a review of research.

Promoting equity is a challenge facing education systems throughout the world, not least in England where there are continuing concerns about the progress of learners from disadvantaged backgrounds. This paper draws on the experience of a large-scale improvement initiative to address this agenda. A key feature of the project was the presence of what were known as challenge advisers. Gathering evidence City Challenge began in 2003, first of all in London and later in two other cities. A distinctive feature of the project was the particular attention given to schools in challenging circumstance, with advisers providing them with support. As the project developed over a period of eight years, evidence was collected about the work of the advisers. This included attendance at their fortnightly team meetings. It was also possible to shadow some of them as they visited their ‘Keys to Success’ schools; that is, schools designated as requiring more intensive support. There was evidence of an overall pattern of activity to these interventions. This involved the development of a bespoke improvement package for each of the schools, often with an element of support from other schools. Important here was the skill of the challenge adviser in working with a school’s senior staff to assess the context. What was also important was the freedom the advisers were given to act quickly and decisively, albeit within a context in which they were held accountable for their schools’ progress. Key tasks These experiences point to the importance of three tasks: Task 1. Knowing the schools – Whilst this starts with a thorough scrutiny of statistical data, it has to go much deeper. Specifically, it requires advisers to work with head teachers in reviewing their schools regularly, through observation, scrutiny of pupils’ work, and by listening to the views of different stakeholders. Task 2. Brokering partnerships – These same review processes also enable advisers to develop a deeper knowledge of the schools. In this way, they can pinpoint areas of concern, as well as human resources that can be drawn on to address these challenges. Task 3. Monitoring the impact – As these interventions develop, advisers monitor what happens, since there is a danger that they lead to the proliferation of meetings that result in no actions being taken. It is important to recognize that these tasks are likely to require significant changes in the thinking and practices of all those involved.

• Ainscow, M. (2010) Achieving excellence and equity: reflections on the development of practices in one local district over 10 years. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 21 (1), 75-91 • Ainscow, M. (2016) Towards self-improving school systems: lessons from a city challenge. London: Routledge (particularly Chapter 3) • Ainscow, M., Chapman, C. and Hadfield, M. (2020) Changing education systems: a research-based approach. London: Routledge • Ainscow, M. and Howes, A. (2007) Working together to improve urban secondary schools: a study of practice in one city. School Leadership and Management 27, 285–300