Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy, Issue #15, April 13, 2000. © by CJEAP and the author(s).

Successful School Improvement in the United Kingdom and Canada
Alma Harris
School of Education, University of Nottingham

Introduction

The characteristics of improving schools have been widely documented and disputed within the international research field of school improvement (Hopkins et al, 1994; Stoll and Fink, 1996; Harris, 1999). Successive studies have shown that there are a number of factors that support positive school change. These include purposeful leadership, teacher collaboration and a central focus upon learning outcomes (Fullan, 1992). Yet, despite a good deal of research describing schools once they have improved, there is surprisingly little known about how they get there. The existing literature provides a range of descriptions of different types of school improvement projects. There are however, relatively few detailed studies of successful school improvement projects in action and even fewer studies of a comparative nature.

This article considers two school improvement projects that have been shown to have a positive effect upon teaching and learning outcomes. The Improving the Quality of All Project (IQEA) in the United Kingdom and the Manitoba School Improvement Project (MSIP) in Canada have both demonstrated considerable success in their work with schools (Earl and Lee, 1998; Hopkins and Harris, 1997). These projects are well known within the international research community and provide a basis for comparing ėwhat works' in different countries and in contrasting educational contexts.

The Improving the Quality of Education For All Project (IQEA)

The Improving the Quality of Education For All Project (IQEA) was established ten years ago, initially based at Cambridge University. Since then it has operated in over fifty schools across England and Wales and additionally has incorporated schools in Iceland, Puerto Rico and South Africa into the programme. The project is currently led by staff at two universities in the United Kingdom, Cambridge and Nottingham. Both these universities provide the academic leadership and vision for the programme and represent the focal point for IQEA schools.

The IQEA model of school improvement is based upon a fundamental belief in the relationship between teachers' professional growth and school development. It is the project's view that schools are more likely to strengthen their ability to provide enhanced outcomes for all pupils when they adopt ways of working that are consistent both with their own aspirations as a school community with the demands of external change. The research evidence consistently demonstrates that successful schools use external change agendas for internal purposes. In other words they harness the possibility for internal change through external pressure. Its central premise is that without an equal focus on the development of capacity, or internal conditions of the school, innovative work quickly becomes marginalised.

The IQEA project is self-funding and therefore totally financially dependent upon schools joining the project. On average schools pay $3500 for a three semester involvement with the possibility of extending this at a reduced cost. Entry to the project is limited; consequently schools have to agree to a set of conditions prior to joining the project. First, they have to gain support from at least 80% of the staff prior to entering the project. Second, they have to commit their staff development time to IQEA over the three semesters. Third, they have to recruit a ėcadre group' who will be charged with the responsibility of leading school change. Finally, schools have to be committed to internal and external evaluation processes.

On the other side of the partnership, the University provides a programme of staff development events and a link adviser for each school. The role of the link adviser is to provide support for the school during the change process but to also be a source of feedback on progress made. In many respects the link adviser is a ėchange agent' providing a mixture of advice, support and pressure. While their role within different schools may vary their responsibility remains one of supporting and promoting the change process within schools.

Typically, an IQEA school will focus upon one aspect of teacher development as the central focus for the project. Most recently, schools in the Nottingham University cohort have considered 2models of teaching as the catalyst for change and development within schools. Following training input from the IQEA team, schools select one or two models of teaching for exploration and training. Supported by staff development activities, teachers are encouraged to try out different models of teaching and to partnership teach and to observe this teaching in action. The net result of this type of teacher development activity has been shown to be firstly, an3 expansion of the teachers' repertoire of teaching models and secondly, the establishment of a dialogue about teaching across the whole school.

Essentially, the IQEA project seeks to support school improvement efforts by developing a critical and self critical but supportive school culture. Much of the IQEA work is taken up in enhancing schools' "capacity for development". It has been shown that where this is ignored the opportunity for school development is greatly impeded (Hopkins et al. 1996). Essentially IQEA is a model of school change that is premised upon facilitating cultural change within schools. It is not prescriptive in terms of what schools actually do but does tightly define the parameters for the development. It provides an over-arching model for school improvement which schools subsequently adapt for their own purposes and to fit their particular ėgrowth state', or context. In addition, the model is research driven and encourages schools not only to engage in their own internal enquiry but also to utilise the external research base concerning effective teaching and learning.

The Manitoba School Improvement Program

The Manitoba School Improvement Project dates from 1991, when it was established as a result of the vision of the Walter and Duncan Gordon Foundation, a Canadian charitable foundation. The Foundation chose Manitoba as the pilot site for a Canadian high school improvement project based upon a number of considerations: they were interested in enhancing education for "students at risk"; they were looking for a province with an educational community that would welcome and support their involvement; and they wanted to start in a location that was manageable within the constraints of its budget allocation. Manitoba met these criteria and was willing to take part in the innovative programme (Earl and Lee, 1998). Established initially with a very definite urban focus, the program has in recent years expanded to include some of the province's rural and northern schools within its network.

The Manitoba School Improvement Programme (MSIP) differs from IQEA in a number of important respects. Firstly, it pre-dated government reform aimed at school renewal whereas IQEA is very much part of the national school improvement agenda. Secondly, it originated from an independent charitable foundation and has not derived its leadership primarily from a university context. Thirdly, it draws more upon the professional knowledge of teachers than on the expertise of academics. Finally, its focus is exclusively on high school reform in the province in contrast to IQEA's national and international activity.

The basic approach of MSIP has been to provide funding directly to schools for school improvement projects and then to provide ongoing pressure and support throughout the life of the projects. With central professional support team built around a MSIP Coordinator and an Evaluation Consultant and a budget of $5 million until the year 2000, the programme has substantial funding power directed to individual schools.4However, accessing the funding is procedurally simple but practically complex. Each school has to prepare a pre-application plan which includes developmental aims, objectives, resource implications, and budget and evaluation methodology. This is undertaken in conjunction with the MSIP co-ordinator and evaluator who advise schools on their proposals. Prior to even reaching the formal application stage, the MISP team work in conjunction with schools to ensure that their plans are coherent, robust and practicable.

Each MSIP school is assessed on a common set of criteria, and projects have to:
 

* be school based and teacher initiated,

* focus on the needs of the adolescent students,

* address fundamental issues of educational improvemen and student learning for at risk students,

* have the potential for long term impact on the school,

* be designed or developed to incorporate a collaborative and participatory approach within the school and include an appropriate evaluation component (Earl and Lee, 1998, p.5).

Like IQEA, MSIP is not prescriptive as to the specific focus that any school will take in its improvement program. Rather, this is defined locally by the school improvement team. Some schools have focused on curriculum reforms (for example, improving participation rates and marks for girls and young women in mathematics and science) others on personal and social development (for example, personalizing the high school through models of ėschools within schools', and teacher advisory groups), while others have focused on school improvement processes. Whatever the focus, attention is given to the potential of the project to engage the whole school community in a dialogue on improvement and to pay particular attention to supporting "students at risk".

Once a school plan has been approved schools had access to substantial multi-year funding -- generally in the range of $10,000 - $30,000 per year for three to five years -- subject to the submission of annual reports that documented their work over the previous year and demonstrated their engagement with the improvement initiative. These funds provided support for a teacher to take on the role of project coordinator or team leader and allowed teachers time during the school day to work together in teams, to visit other schools, and engage in other related professional development activities. Each school had access to the Manitoba-based MSIP staff who provided a readily available source of expertise on school-based change and the measurement of improvement as well as an external source of accountability. In addition all schools participated in a provincial MSIP network of educators that provided a support structure for professional growth and risk-taking.

Just as internal and external evaluation processes are a key element of each MSIP school's program, it has been as central part of the whole MSIP endeavour. A comprehensive evaluation of the program in 1998 (Earl and Lee, 1998) cautions that the MSIP approach has not offered a panacea for improvement in Manitoba and, not surprisingly, the effectiveness of different initiatives has varied from school to school. Nonetheless. The assessment confirmed significant levels of school improvement within many of the participating schools, leading Michael Fullan to comment:

At the secondary level, I know of no other strategy which has taken
20 or more schools and shown this level of success in this short amount
of time. We can now show how secondary schools can move quickl
even more quickly than we thought possible -- and in a cost efficient
way. MSIP is in the vanguard of stimulating lasting system change
through starting with schools (Earl and Lee, 1998, p.iii).

Comparing MSIP and IQEA: The Process of Improvement

The process of school improvement still remains a 'black box' for many school improvement projects. Clearly, this is a difficult area to traverse, as there are no universals, no recipes for success. However, both IQEA and MSIP are able to articulate the process of change and to provide concrete examples of what the improvement process looks like in action. From this analysis emerges some common features of effective school improvement:

  • External Agency: An essential component of both IQEA and MSIP is the emphasis upon pressure and support for school-based change. Both projects demonstrate that school improvement projects cannot progress very far on their own without "agency" both external and internal. As teachers become more knowledgeable and the direction that improvement is to take in their school becomes clearer, they come to see themselves as active players who have the necessary skills and authority to tackle the problem.
  • A focus upon specific teaching and learning goals: In both programmes the emphasis is upon teaching and learning developmental goals. In the MSIP programme teachers spend a great deal of time refining their goals and developing a related evaluation strategy. Each of the projects has a set of related goals that are directly related to improving student learning outcomes and have systems in place for recording change and progress in these areas. In IQEA also, the emphasis is upon developing teaching thus positively affecting pupil learning.
  • A commitment to teacher development and professional growth: Schools in both projects demonstrate a high level of commitment to teacher development and professional growth. In the MSIP programme staff development is guided by a 'just in time' principle of pressure and support. Attention is given to ensuring that training is offered that directly meets each school's specific needs. Much of the training is not externally provided but rather sought from within the network of MSIP schools. Similarly, within IQEA staff development is one of the key conditions that schools are encouraged to develop as part of the programme. Evaluation evidence suggests that in both programmes teachers readily engage in their own development and the development of their colleagues.
  • Professional interchange, collaboration and networking: Both IQEA and MSIP establish professional communities through their work with schools. In MSIP schools are not just isolated entities but are part of a network of schools in Manitoba linked by a common requirement, a small infrastructure and shared professional development opportunities. The schools that make the most dramatic changes within the programme have been shown to be those which learned how to use this framework to their advantage (Earl and Lee, 1998). Similarly, the IQEA network provides schools with the opportunity to learn from each other and to solve problems collectively. This professional trust has been shown to be fundamentally important for schools to move forward.
  • Devolved leadership and temporary systems: Schools in both programmes put in place groups of teachers to act as catalysts for change within the school. Within MSIP there may be many such groups depending on the range and scope of the goals identified. In IQEA the ėcadre group' is a deliberately franchised to lead innovation and change. In both cases, these groupings are temporary and do not reflect existing structures within the schools.
  • Formative and Summative evaluation: The twin processes of formative and summative evaluation are evident and transparent within all IQEA and MSIP schools. The feedback loop provided by formative evaluation mechanisms enables teachers to take stock of innovation and development. This allows changes to be made using data to inform development. Similarly, external evaluation procedures allow for a check on the programme as a whole and provide data that allows judgements to be made about the impact of the programme as a whole. The emphasis placed on internal and external evaluation in both projects establishes enquiry and reflection as central to school development and growth.
Final Comment

The evaluation findings concerning IQEA and MSIP demonstrate the potency of their respective approaches to school improvement. As one dissects the core components of each approach similarities inevitably emerge. The area of greatest synergy between the two programmes lies in a pattern of activity encapsulated by Earl and Lee (1998) as urgency, energy, agency and more energy. Both IQEA and MSIP have successfully prompted this chain reaction of improvement in the majority of their schools. While some schools may have been more successful than others, the majority of MSIP and IQEA schools have begun the journey of school improvement. The challenge remaining for each programme is to ensure that they can continue on that journey.

Correspondence: Dr Alma Harris (Co-Director) Centre For Teacherand School Development, School of Education, Jubilee Campus, Wollaton Road Nottingham NG8 1BB: alma.harris@nottingham.ac.uk

References

Earl, L. and Lee, L. (1998). Evaluation of the Manitoba School Improvement Program. Winnipeg: Manitoba School Improvement Program.

Fullan, M. (1992) Successful School Improvement. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Harris, A. (1999) Teaching and Learning in the Effective School. London, Arena Press.

Hopkins, D., Ainscow, M. and West, M. (1994). School Improvement in an Era of Change. London: Cassell.

Hopkins, D, Ainscow, M and West, M (1996). Unravelling the Complexities of School Improvement: a case study of the Improving the Quality of Education for All (IQEA) Project. Open University Course E838 reader, Organisational Effectiveness and Improvement in Education.

Hopkins, D. and Harris, A. (1997). 'Improving the Quality of Education for All', Support for Learning, Vol. 12, 4, 147 - 151.

Stoll, L. and Fink, D. (1996). Changing our Schools: Linking School Effectiveness and School Improvement. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Young, J. and Levin, B. (In Press). School Reform in Canada. In Coulby, D, Coewen, R. and Jones, C. (eds.) Education in Transition. World Yearbook: 2000, London: Kogan Page.

Acknowledgement

The comprehensive evaluation of MSIP by Earl and Lee (1998) greatly assisted the writing of this article. We wish to acknowledge their work and their contribution.

Endnotes

1 See Hopkins et al (1996) Improving The Quality of Education For All London David Fulton Press for a full account of the project. The project is currently managed at the Centre For Teacher and School Development, University of Nottingham, UK. For more information contactdavid.hopkings@nottingham.ac.uk , or alma.harris@nottingham.ac.uk

2 Joyce, B.Calhoun, E and Hopkins, D. (1997) Models of Teaching: Tools for Learning' Milton Keynes, Open University Press.

3 The Manitoba School Improvement Program is located at Suite 1005, 401 York Avenue, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada, R3C 0P8, and can be accessed at its website:www.sunvalley.ca/msip]

4 Footnote.MSIP is now in the process of moving from being a pilot project funded primarily by a single charitable foundation to become a self-sustaining educational partnership.