In some respects, poor performing (“stuck”) schools seem surprisingly similar to businesses with stuck productivity. And, significantly, Ofsted’s report reveals how some poor schools raised their performance to become “unstuck”. So, maybe we’ve a bit to learn from the inspectors [1]!
In a careful and comprehensive piece of research Ofsted compared…
● “Stuck” schools whose poor performance hadn’t improved in the last 13 years with...
● “Unstuck” schools whose performance had been poor, but had improved to be consistently good in that period.
Isolation means stuck; for both schools and businesses
Ofsted describe “stuck” schools as tending to …
a) “Have a resistant and embedded culture”, the same leadership team for 5+ years, staff who have been working for the school for a long period of time, often decades.
Or be…
b) “Chaotic and change fatigued”, with frequent leadership (i.e. Headteacher) changes, an inexperienced workforce, and a high turnover of staff.
“Stuck” schools were geographically and economically cut off; “disproportionally located in towns and small cities”, and “located in wards that are identified as ‘left behind’”. They were usually outside London and outside the South East.
So, “stuck” schools seem to share some of the characteristics of businesses where productivity is stuck. It seems, both schools and businesses remain stuck for reasons of geography, leadership, culture, size, ownership and innovation. In a word, Ofsted’s word, they are “isolated”.
Partnerships work, programmes don’t
The really significant part of Ofsted’s report is how poor performing schools turned things around. And, the report challenges us to think a bit differently about improving the UK's productivity.
A great deal has been invested in improving our schools for the last 20 years. Ofsted’s report lists 17 big programmes, and recognises there may have been more. All the “stuck” and “unstuck” schools Ofsted researched “had been involved in multiple forms of school improvement initiatives”.
However, Ofsted found “there was no evidence to suggest that any of the school improvement initiatives were important”. “Stuck” or “unstuck”, there was no indication of initiatives’ working consistently well. I suspect ambitious, large-scale programmes have rarely improved schools. And, maybe big programmes rarely improve businesses too? (See "Fixing training...")
All the schools Ofsted studied, both “stuck” and “unstuck” schools, had been sent consultants; often they had had quite a few advisors and experts over the years [2]. But, the impact of those consultants was iffy. The Ofsted report concludes…
“Schools told us that they received too much advice and that this advice was ‘thrown’ at them without enough thought. They found that the quality of those providing advice and support was too variable. When it was seen to work, the advice was tailored to the problems within the school and the individuals involved spent time working with staff. When it was seen to fail, there was too much general, one-size-fits-all advice, with individuals spending too little time and giving too little thought to the priorities of the school.”
It seems to me, the only thing that works for struggling schools is careful support from someone who…
● Really knows their stuff
● Works closely with the organisation throughout its journey
● Provides a local support network [3].
In a word, what works is “partnership”.
If it’s short-term, generic, prescriptive, stand-alone, or someone else’s solution, then it just makes things worse. I bet that’s also true in business.
Just one thing matters
The Ofsted report suggests (to me) that schools improved when they focused on one key thing - individual staff performance. Those improved schools…
● Defined new standards of teaching (and pupil behaviour too).
● Flagged poor staff performance.
● Provided effective staff development.
● Replaced inadequate teachers.
● Encouraged those with potential.
None of that is rocket science, it cost almost nothing, and it really doesn’t need much HR at all. But, it does need courage. Crucially, “unstuck” schools, those who improved, tended to see “high turnover or temporary understaffing as a price worth paying” to get things right.
A final thought. It’s interesting that improved schools delivered greater value with the same old technology. Sure, some businesses desperately need new technology, but maybe they ought to look at what their people do too?
There's a quick "Contact me" form on the left. It would be good to hear from you.
Peter
There's a quick "Contact me" form on the left. It would be good to hear from you.
Peter
© Copyright Peter Goodge, 2020
Notes
1] Ofsted can conduct research no one else can. They have accurate contextual and performance data on thousands of organisations (schools) all producing the same thing (educated students). And, they can get more data, as they did to construct their new report.
2] The “consultants” were Local Authority Advisers, and/or National/Local/Specialist Leaders of Education.
3] A wide, local network seems particularly helpful. For many schools that network is their Multi Academy Trust (MAT). Ofsted writes…
“Most unstuck schools that were part of a MAT considered the influence of the MAT as crucial to their recent success. Teachers and leaders at all levels within these schools recognised the importance of the MAT. They usually made reference to the MAT’s role in raising expectations and developing curriculum subject expertise.”
