andy coleman-collaborative leadership in extended schools-ncsl (national college for school...

www.ncsl.org.uk

CollaborativeLeadership inExtended SchoolsLeading in a multi-agencyenvironment

Author: Andy Coleman

Collaborative Leadership in Extended Schools |

Executive Summary 5

Introduction and Context 7

Introduction 8

Aims and background of the report 8

Structure of the report 8

1. Drivers of multi-agency working 9

Promoting the interests of children and related legal imperatives 9

Promoting joined-up thinking and Every Child Matters 9

Collaborative advantage 10

2. Models of multi-agency working 11

3. Advantages and disadvantages of multi-agency working 13

Benefits 13

Weaknesses 14

Success factors 15

4. Developing a model of leadership in multi-agency environments 17

Method 18

Main Findings 19

Structure for the findings 20

Section 1: Creating a climate for change 20

(a) Establishing the sense of urgency and developing a vision for change 20

(b) Establishing relationships with partners 22

Section 2: Engaging and enabling the whole organisation 26

(a) Understanding “professionalism” and creating trust 26

(b) Developing a common culture for working – the emergence of a new professionalism 28

(c) Creating the internal culture for collaboration 31

(d) Mutual support and respect 31

Section 3: Sustaining change 34

(a) Building leadership capacity 34

(b) Demonstrating impact 38

(c) Increasing understanding of professional roles amongst the community 40

(d) Funding 40

Implications for Leadership 42

Complexity and creativity 43

Political and moral leadership 44

Transformational leadership 47

Leading change 48

Bonding and bridging 49

Distributed leadership 50

Entrepreneurialism 51

| Collaborative Leadership in Extended Schools

Application 52

Considerations in using the protocols 53

(1) Developing collaborative relationships with others – using force field analysis 55

(2) Assessing priorities for collaboration – using the Extended School Evaluation Profile 57

(3) Encouraging a culture of entrepreneurship – using Ethos in a Word 59

(4) Considering the head’s leadership style to change – using Pi chart 61

(5) Assessing the extent of distributed leadership – using the distributed leadership matrix 62

(6) Moving to a culture of “bridging” rather than “bonding” – using the organisational priorities triangle tool 64

Conclusions 65

References 67

Further NCSL Resources 71

Reports 72

Programmes and seminars 72

Acknowledgements 73


Executive SummaryThis report provides advice and guidance toleaders in schools on addressing the issuesassociated with multi-agency working. It drawsupon the experiences and perspectives of anumber of individuals in schools and theirpartner organisations with an established trackrecord in collaboration, and also includes themain findings from a review of literature inthis field.

Much of the current emphasis on multi-agencyworking comes from the move towards a greaterfocus on the needs of the whole child, outlinedwithin documents such as Every Child Matters(DfES, 2003). It is also part of a broader ongoingemphasis on “joined-up thinking” in the deliveryof support, which has been a hallmark of thecurrent government’s approach. Many schoolshave a long-established record of collaboration,often based around the need to supportvulnerable children or the broader communitythey serve. In any case, multi-agency workingis generally driven by a desire to achievecollaborative advantage, ie an end result whichis greater than the sum of the individual efforts.

Published literature on collaborative workingwithin schools identifies a number of advantagesassociated with this approach. These involveimproved outcomes for children and families,benefits for staff and services, and increasedefficiency in the delivery of services. Potentialdisadvantages centre on the increase in humanresources required to support collaboration in theshort term, difficulties in establishing commonareas of interest, and the danger of collaborativeinertia, ie the collaboration resulting in a netreduction in the collective output of thepartners involved.

This study found many parallels between thedemands on leaders that stemmed fromcollaborative working and those associated withthe broader leadership of change. Kotter’s changemodel provides a particularly helpful mechanismfor considering these demands, by identifyingthree broad stages which leaders needed toaddress as part of the change process. These are:

• creating a climate for change

• engaging and enabling the whole organisation

• sustaining change

Creating a climate for change includes theprocesses through which the sense of urgency forcollaboration is established and relationships withpartners brokered. The introduction of the EveryChild Matters agenda is important in the first ofthe respects, while identifying “win-win” scenarioswhere the aims of all partners are addressed hasbeen a particularly successful strategy for the latter.

Engaging and enabling the whole organisationfocuses on the ways in which leaders facilitate thedevelopment of a culture for collaboration.This includes promoting the culture of trust,encouraging greater flexibility, and challengingpreconceived and long-established notions ofprofessional identity, with a view to promotingthe notion of a new professionalism that is moresympathetic to multi-agency working.

The final stage considers the processes throughwhich leaders are able to sustain change.The different demands associated with multi-agency working mean that building leadershipcapacity and the effective distribution ofleadership within the school are essentialstrategies for the long-term viability ofcollaborative working. Demonstrating impact and addressing the issue of funding are furtheressential steps in ensuring sustainability.


The report identifies a number of specificimplications for leaders. Perhaps the mostobvious of these relates to the increasedcomplexity that multi-agency working brings toleaders’ work. As significant, though, is the greateremphasis it places on dealing with the politicaldimension associated with any collaboration.Possessing and articulating a clear moral purposeis an important factor in successfully addressingthis challenge.

Developing the ability to effectively diagnose andrespond to the demands of the school at differentstages of the change process is also extremelyimportant. Elsewhere, promoting a culture ofentrepreneurship is essential in realising both theanticipated and unforeseen advantages associatedwith collaboration.

Finally, promoting an open culture whichembraces the ethos of partner organisationsrather than simply focusing on the priorities ofthe school is critical to creating the environmentnecessary for partnership working to flourish.

This report ends by outlining a range ofapproaches which leaders may wish to adopt tosupport increased collaboration within the school.

Introduction and Context


Introduction and Context

Introduction

The move towards developing joined-up solutionsto the challenges faced by children in England is ahallmark of the current government policy. At thesame time, many within schools view this moveas a validation of work they have undertaken forsome time, as they have sought to collaboratewith colleagues on the ground to support thefamilies and communities they serve.Furthermore, while recognising the enormouspotential of such joined-up approaches to makinga difference to people’s lives, they are also onlytoo aware of the range of challenges andobstacles that this new way of working presents.

Aims and background of the report

This report is intended to provide advice andguidance to leaders in schools on how to addressthe issues associated with multi-agency working.In doing so, particular attention is given to theimplications of multi-agency working toindividuals in extended schools, who, almost by definition, are particularly likely to face many of the challenges associated with thiscollaborative working.

This paper draws upon the experiences andperspectives of a number of individuals in schoolsand their partner organisations with anestablished track record of working in this way.Many of these were in schools which wereamongst the first to provide extended services.

This report also includes the main findings from areview of the literature on multi-agency working.The school-based research and the review ofliterature were completed between November2004 and January 2006. Further details of themethod used is included on page 18 ofthis report.

Structure of the report

This report begins by providing an overview of themain drivers behind the adoption of morecollaborative approaches to supporting childrenand their families, and the advantages anddisadvantages associated with them.

It then turns its attention to a more detailedconsideration of the challenges faced by schoolleaders in multi-agency working and theapproaches they adopt to addressing these.This exploration is based upon the principle thatmulti-agency collaborations represent afundamental change in working for many inschools, and as such, school leaders perform acritical role as change managers. While manymodels for change management exist, this sectionis structured in line with Kotter’s model of changemanagement (Kotter, 1995), which is widely usedwithin public service reform generally. This modelis described in more depth in the overview sectionof this report.

The third part of this report considers theimplications for leadership from the themeswhich have emerged from this study, while thefourth section provides a number ofrecommendations which it is believed maycontribute to improvements in multi-agencyworking more generally. The paper then offers anumber of practical approaches for applying themain findings from this work to individuals’own context.


1. Drivers of multi-agency working

Promoting the interests of children and relatedlegal imperatives

As noted above, many schools have well-established collaborations which date back manyyears. Staff in special schools are particularly likelyto have experience of working collaboratively withcolleagues from other services. This has oftenbeen based around the assessment of the needsof children with disabilities, promoted in theSheldon Report of 1968 (Hall, 1997:88) andsubsequently reinforced in the Court Report of1976 (Yerbury, 1997:77). The requirement for aneeds assessment for children with disabilitiesbecame legally binding as part of the 1981Education Act (Cigno and Gore, 1999:325-6), whilethe 1989 Children’s Act introduced a broaderrequirements for agencies to collaborate in theinterests of all vulnerable children (Department ofHealth, 1999:viiii).

Elsewhere, many community schools have a strongtrack record of collaborative working. This hasgenerally involved both the community, voluntaryorganisations and other agencies, and has focusedon raising social capital (see Text box 1 on pg 21)and increasing access to services and resources.

Promoting joined-up thinking and EveryChild Matters

Since its election in 1997, the current governmenthas demonstrated a strong commitment toaddressing the issue of social exclusion. At theheart of this is the belief that in addition to itsmaterial element, exclusion and disadvantage haspolitical and cultural aspects. Furthermore, all ofthese aspects are intertwined, therefore meaningthat it is impossible to effectively deal with anyspecific issue in isolation. In the case of schools,factors relating to a child’s domestic situation andtheir health inevitably have an impact of theirlearning. While schools are therefore able toadopt a range of strategies to address someaspects of a child’s under-attainment, a moreholistic approach is required if real improvementsare to achieved over the longer term. As TonyBlair argued at the launch of the Social ExclusionUnit in 1997:

“Everyone knows that the problems of socialexclusion – of failure at school, joblessness, crime– are woven together when you get down to thelevel of the individual’s daily life, or the life of ahousing estate. Yet all too often governments inthe past have tried to slice problems up intoseparate packages…and in many areas dozens ofagencies and professionals are working inparallel, often doing good things but sometimesworking at cross purposes with far too little co-ordination and co-operation. Joined-up problemsdemand joined-up solutions.”

Blair, 1997


This belief has underpinned a range of initiativeswhich have sought to promote a more cohesiveand co-ordinated approach to tackling deprivationand social exclusion. Examples of these includethe introduction of Education Action Zones,Health Action Zones, Sure Start, New Deal forCommunities and targeted Single RegenerationBudget funds (Power, 2001:18). Perhaps mostradically, these initiatives, and the drive to joined-up thinking more broadly, have been viewed bysome commentators as an attempt to movebeyond multi-agency working to a widercollaboration which goes some way to breakingdown conventional boundaries between thestate and society as a whole (Power, 2001:17).This strategy is important in promoting ownershipof such interventions amongst those theyare intended to support, which is in turn animportant element in their longer-term success.

This focus on joined-up thinking is echoed inEvery Child Matters (DfES, 2003). This outlines avision for a system of child care in England thatsupports the achievement of five outcomes whichmatter most to children’s lives. These are (DfES,2003:11-12):

• being healthy: enjoying good physical andmental health and living a healthy lifestyle

• staying safe: being protected from harmand neglect

• enjoying and achieving: getting the most outof life and developing the skills for adulthood

• making a positive contribution: being involvedwith the community and society and notengaging in anti-social or offending behaviour

• economic well-being: not being prevented byeconomic disadvantage from achieving theirfull potential in life

The effective co-ordination of services isfundamental to the achievement of each of theseand in turn, ensuring that children at risk of harmor neglect are no longer able to “fall through thecracks between different services” (DfES, 2003:5).Every Child Matters is also concerned with a morebasis shift to placing children at the heart ofservice provision, which should be reconfiguredaround their needs rather than those of theirprovider organisations. Measures to introduce alead professional for those most at risk, thedevelopment of a common assessmentframework for reviewing service provision, andthe merging of children’s education and socialservices are all examples of steps which areintended to increase the overall cohesion ofchildren’s service delivery (DfES, 2003:8-9).

Collaborative advantage

Clearly the scale of ambition described inEvery Child Matters is such that its achievementis not within the gift of one group of professionals,but rather requires a range of skills and powers,which have traditionally been dispersed overa number of agencies, are brought together(Tunstill et al., 2005:63). It is therefore envisagedthat this co-ordinated approach is able to deliverresults that represent more than simply the sumof the individual parts. Indeed, this idea of addedvalue is core to any collaboration and can betermed collaborative advantage, ie

“To gain real advantage from any collaboration,something has to be achieved that could nothave been achieved by any one of the agenciesacting alone.”

Paton and Vangen, 2004:2


This drive to achieve collaborative advantage hasbeen seen as a hallmark of many of the currentgovernment’s reform programmes. As noted,school-based initiatives such as Education ActionZones, Excellence in Cities, Beacon Schools andSpecialist Schools have all contained strongelements of collaborative working within theirdesign. This philosophy has not been confined to education, however. In health, the ethos ofpartnership working has been adopted in an effort to replace the pseudo-internal marketarrangements that the NHS had previously beenworking under (Alexander and Macdonald, 2005:1).In economic development, the introduction ofRegional Development Agencies is based upon theprinciple of collaborative advantage, with theirexistence posited on the benefits of adopting amore co-ordinated approach:

The aim (is) to help to ensure that regionalopportunities are fully exploited, and that thoseresponsible for economic decision-taking areworking effectively together, with common goalsand accepted priorities for regional development.

Department of Trade and Industry, 2006

The focus on collaboration has also extended tooperations within government itself, with theOffice of Government Commerce established toimprove efficiency in internal administration andprocurement (HM Revenues and Customs, 2005).This trend also extends beyond government andthe public sector. In recent years the voluntarysector in particular has increasingly adoptedco-ordinated, collaborative approaches (McCurry,2001). Elsewhere, trends in organisationalstructures more broadly have been seen to drivethe collaborative agenda as organisationspromote greater adaptability and responsivenessin order to achieve their greatest competitiveadvantage (Paton and Vangen, 2004:6).

2. Models of multi-agency working

It is perhaps inevitable that the models of multi-agency working developed are as varied as thechallenges they seek to address. Indeed, a keyprinciple within successful approaches is that theyshould contain sufficient flexibility to address thespecific contextual challenges they aim to tackle.

Nevertheless, in a review of multi-agency working,DfES identified three broad models of operation(DfES, 2005b:5-14). These are:

• the multi-agency panel

• the multi-agency team

• the integrated service

The key characteristics of these models, togetherwith the main benefits and challenges associatedwith them, are summarised in Table 1.


Key characteristics

• Panel is co-ordinated bya chair.

• There’s usually a good mix ofagencies represented.

• Members remain inown organisation.

• The panel meets monthly/quarterly etc to review work.

• Most meetings are arrangedby the panel manager.

• Dedicated team leader.• Good mix of staff from

different disciplines.• There is a strong

team identity.• Work is undertaken with a

range of groups and atdifferent levels.

• Acts as hub for services,usually on one site.

• Partners share a commonlocation, vision and principles.

• The management structuresupports integrated working.

• It is usually delivered from aschool or early years centre.

• Service-level agreements areusually present .

• A dedicated manager willoften be present.

• Services will usually includehealth, specialist advice andguidance, outreach andadult learning.

• Collective training strategieswill often be present.

Main benefits

• No recruitment or HR issues.• Practitioners remain fully

involved in own agency’s work.• Opportunities exist for

collaborative working.• No need for a

permanent base .• Where working effectively,

panels are supported bystructures and protocols.

• Good sense of team identity.• Co-operation is core to

the approach.• Communication is

straightforward.• Supports joint training.• Supports preventative and

intervention work in a rangeof settings.

• The full range of issues canbe addressed.

• Knock-on benefits exist foreducation standards.

• Greater co-working andcross-fertilisation of ideasbetween agencies.

• Opportunities for jointtraining.

• Shared base enhancescommunication.

• Members remain linked totheir home agency.

• Members have access totraining and development intheir host agency.

Main challenges

• Lack of formal contact caninhibit the development ofstrong partnerships.

• Panel members tend toidentify more with their hostagency than the panel.

• Panel members may be giveninsufficient time to carry outtheir work.

• Case meetings can be lengthy.

• Recruitment and HR.• Needs time and resources to

set up.• Not all teams are co-located.• Good relationships are vital

to success.• Time for meetings and contact

needs to be protected.

• Requires fresh thinkingaround the concept of theschool/ early years centre.

• Requires engagement throughcollaborative leadership.

• Needs a common senseof purpose.

• Time and pay issues can needcareful handling.

The

mul

ti-a

genc

y pa

nel

The

mul

ti-a

genc

y te

amTh

e in

tegr

ated

ser

vice

Table 1 Characteristics, benefits and challenges of identified models of multi-agency working

Source: Developed from ‘Multi-agency working, introduction and overview’ (DfES, 2005b) pp 5–12


Yerbury also identifies three structures whichdominate teamworking (Yerbury, 1997:81). Thekey difference between each of his classificationsis the degree to which their management is basedupon formal structures:

• Managed – with a team leader and externalmanagement group.

• Co-ordinated – with a team manager butconsiderable responsibility retained byprofessional members.

• Joint accountability – without a clear leaderand ostensibly self-managed.

As such, Yerbury’s work can be seen ascomplementary to the categories outlined above.

3. Advantages and disadvantages ofmulti-agency working

Benefits

As already noted, multi-agency collaborations areviewed as essential in addressing issues thatrequire a multi-dimension, holistic response.Core to this is the notion of collaborativeadvantage, through which the collective responseof a group of agencies is greater than the sum oftheir individual contributions (Paton andVangen, 2004:2).

However, it is worth noting that the evidence base on the impacts of multi-agency working is somewhat patchy, partly because of themethodological problems associated withmeasuring the effectiveness of such approachesand partly because of the relative newness ofmany initiatives (DfES, 2005b:13). Some writershave also noted how the impacts of multi-agencyworking increase during the life of a project(Harker et al., 2004:183), meaning that the trueimpact and benefits of such work can only beassessed once such programmes have becomewell established. A further difficulty centres on thescale of the endeavour the collaboration isintended to pursue. For instance, the effectivenessof partnership-based approaches to promotingsocial capital and general social regeneration are notoriously difficult to assess (Riddell andTett, 2001:7-8).

Nevertheless, in its overview of multi-agencyworking in response to the Every Child Mattersagenda, DfES identified benefits in three broadareas (DfES, 2005b:13). These are:

• improved outcomes for children and families

• benefits for staff and services

• increased fit between the services offered andthose required by young people and families

Further details on each of these is provided below.

Improved outcomes for children and families

Central to this is more convenient access toservices for customers, including:

• improved co-ordination of services resulting inbetter relationships

• improved quality of life

• better and quicker access to services

• reduced stress

• better support for parents

• more appropriate addressing ofchildren’s needs

• better quality services

• reduced need for specialist services

• increased accessing of services

Other benefits have related to the objectives ofspecific programmes. For instance, evaluations ofOn Track have highlighted the programme’ssuccess in terms of improved behaviour andenhanced social well-being (Atkinson et al., 2003).Similarly, the evaluation of Sure Start Plus foundthat collaborative working improved the divisionof labour, resulted in the sharing of expertise,ideas and good practice; addressing joint targets;sharing resources and improved referrals (Wigginset al., 2005:23).


Benefits for staff and services

These include:

• a higher level of satisfaction

• a sense of liberation as organisations workbeyond traditional bureaucratic andcultural constraints

• cross-fertilisation of ideas

• increased flexibility for staff and enhancedcareer development opportunities

• improvements in staff retention, recruitmentand workload

• opportunities for enhanced partnershipworking with other agencies and thewider community

• reduced duplication

• improved links and communication, resulting in enhanced understanding ofpartners’ activities

Increased fit between the services offered andthose required by young people and families

Core to this is the greater likelihood thatindividuals will be supported by a single point of contact, thereby developing a deeper and more mutually informed relationship. This is aparticular concern for families of children withgreater areas of need, who have in the past been expected to deal with a wide rangeof professionals.

Weaknesses

Many of the identified weaknesses of multi-agency working centre upon the specific changesin working arrangements that are needed tosupport this change in approach. Yerbury providesa useful summary of these (Yerbury, 1997:85),some of which require considerable resources.These include the need for:

• the establishment of an inter-agency strategicplanning forum

• a team leader to co-ordinate activities

• regular operational team meetings to reviewpolicy and procedures

• parents to be fully involved in the partnershipto promote its success

“We benefit fromhaving the experience of

working with people from otherbackgrounds. We pick up other

perspectives and others’ ways of doingthings. We have skill-sharing workshops.

All of this enhances the CVs of thoseinvolved and enables staff to give

real-life examples. We can also shareresources for training.”

Extended school co-ordinator,secondary sector


In addition, Yerbury highlights how advantageousthe establishment of joint funding and budgetaryarrangements is, but recognises that this is oftenproblematic. Yerbury also notes that collaborativeworking is greatly enhanced in instances when itis co-located. However, this is not always practicalfor a range of reasons, many of which may relateto size and other factors. As a result of these, suchintegrated centres are more likely to be located inlarger towns and cities rather than being insmaller, rural areas, resulting in different levels ofaccess to services and concerns over equality ofopportunity (Cigno and Gore, 1999:333).

A number of other concerns have also beenidentified. Firstly, Alexander and Macdonald havereported high levels of staff turnover in lesssuccessful health-based partnerships (Alexanderand Macdonald, 2005:6). While the direction ofany causal link related to this is not clear, it ispossible to infer that:

(a) the likely success of any multi-agency initiativemay be increased if staffing remains stable, and

(b) the additional stress resulting fromunsuccessful attempts at multi-agency workingmay have an adverse affect on staff turnover.

Tett et al. also note that collaborative workingplaces additional demands on staff time (Tett etal., 2001:109).

A further concern relates to the perception thatthe current emphasis on multi-agency workingmay even lead to a more dogmatic insistence onthe adoption of such approaches in instanceswhen they are not appropriate:

“There is a danger in the current climate thateveryone is commanded to work in the multi-agency partnership groups, even when this levelof formalisation of routine inter-agencycommunication is not necessary.”

Alexander and Macdonald, 2005:6

Thirdly, difficulties can be encountered in a rangeof areas in instances where the geographic unit ofdecision-making differs between schools andother organisations (Harker et al., 2004:182).

A final concern relates to the degree to whichagencies are perceived to be closely linked andoperating on a multi-agency basis, but in practiceremain relatively disparate. Here the concern isthat effective collaboration requires both formaland informal structures of support, and theabsence of either can have a negative impact onthe overall effectiveness of the initiative (Cignoand Gore, 1999:330).

Success factors

In its toolkit for multi-agency working, DfESidentifies a number of factors important in thesuccess of multi-agency working. These buildupon the points raised by Yerbury, outlined in theprevious section of this paper (DfES, 2005b:18).Other work describing factors important inmulti-agency working include those by Craig et al.(Craig et al., 2004), Huxham and Vengen (2000),Atkinson et al. (2002), Tett et al. (2001) and Harkeret al. (2004). Table 2 provide a summary of thevarious factors identified by these writers, basedaround a number of categories used by the DfESin its publication ‘Multi-agency workingintroduction and overview’. In doing so, it isrecognised that several of these items areappropriate to more than one category, but havebeen placed in the one which is arguably thebest fit.


Strategic

• a genuine commitment to joint working atthe strategic level (including having sharedaims and objectives and firm backing fromelected members)

• effective strategic leadership

• ensuring democracy and equalitybetween groups

• the presence of shared goals andcommon targets

• appropriate time frame

• effective governance arrangements

• existing partnership working

• coincidental administrative boundaries

• sufficient baseline and monitoring data

• processes for regularly monitoring andreviewing these strategic drivers

Community and voluntary sector involvement

• mechanisms for consultation and feedback

• the removal of external and internal barriersto third sector involvement

• gaining and demonstrating legitimacy

Operational

• strong operational leadership

• clarity of vision and purpose

• clearly-defined roles

• effective management of human resourceissues (incl. pay, joint training, linemanagement)

• actively recognising the existence of skills for multi-agency working and supportingtheir development

• building on existing relationshipsand developing additional effectiveworking processes

• the presence of supporting structures (forinstance service-level agreements,management boards etc)

• having adequate resources to support theactivities being delivered

• good communication mechanisms

• appropriate referral systems

• having appropriate structures formanaging risk

• systems for information exchange

• coherent exit strategies

Evaluation-related

• the completion of an effective evaluation ofthe programme, using a range of appropriatemethods and with effective processes forintroducing change which is sufficientlychallenging to support future developments

Table 2 Summary of factors influencing the success of collaborations


4. Developing a model of leadership inmulti-agency environments

As noted in the introduction to this report, the keydriver behind the development of most multi-agency collaborations is the desire to achievecollaborative advantage, thereby realising moresignificant results than would otherwise beachieved. A key focus of multi-agency leadership is therefore upon the process ofchange management.

A number of different change managementmodels exist. Amongst the most popular of theseis work undertaken by Kotter, which has beenused widely in relation to public-sector reform andis included within the literature on multi-agencyworking produced by the DfES (DfES, 2005d:9).

Figure 1 Kotter’s change model (Kotter, 1995)

In his work, Kotter identifies eight steps toorganisation transformation (Kotter, 1995:61).These are summarised in Figure 1. The first threeof these are concerned with creating the climatefor change to occur, and include increasing theurgency for change, building the right team, andestablishing the vision itself. Steps four to six focuson increasing buy-in to the change process andcreating the momentum for change. This includesachieving broad commitment to the vision, thebelief that people are empowered to act, andsecuring short-term wins. The final phase raisesthe importance of ensuring that change becomesinstitutionalised while retaining the prospect offurther transformational action.

1. Establishing a sense of urgency

2. Forming a powerful guiding coalition

3. Creating a vision

4. Communicating the vision

5. Empowering others to act onthe vision

6. Planning for and creatingshort-term wins

7. Consolidating improvements andproducing still more change

8. Institutionalising new approachesImplementing andsustaining change

Engaging and enablingthe whole organisation

Creating aclimate for change


Method

As noted above, this report is based upon thefindings from an exploration of multi-agencyworking in schools that provided a range ofextended services. In particular this study soughtto explore the ways in which leaders managed theprocess of change implicit within the move tomore collaborative working styles, by reviewingthe key facilitators and barriers associated withsuccessfully working in this way. Particularattention was given to the role played by leadersin maximising the potential opportunity forcollaborative advantage.

Data to support this work was obtained from twomain sources. Firstly, a review of literature onmulti-agency working was undertaken. Thisincluded a review of relevant academic databases,including the British Education Index and theEducation Resources Information Centre. A Googlesearch was also undertaken. In addition, key textswere identified from a review of the main policydocuments in this field and through discussionswith officials from DfES, NCSL, Continyou andother stakeholder groups. This review wasconducted between September 2005 andJanuary 2006.

Interviews were also undertaken with leaders inschools with high levels of collaborative working.This involved the production of six case studies ofschools that were seen as demonstrating goodpractice in this respect. In each school theheadteacher was interviewed. In five of the sixschools, interviews were also conducted withcolleagues from supporting services and otherrelevant school leaders (eg the extended schoolsco-ordinator, community engagement worker etc).Potential case study schools were identifiedthrough discussions with officials from DfES, NCSL,Continyou and other stakeholder groups, andtheir most recent Ofsted report was reviewed toconfirm evidence of effective collaborativeworking. Fieldwork to support the production ofthese case studies was undertaken during theperiod September 2005 to December 2005.

In addition to data obtained in production ofthese case studies, the findings from a series ofinterviews undertaken with leaders of extendedschools have also been drawn upon. These werecompleted between November 2004 andJuly 2005.

Main Findings


Structure for the findingsIn the next section of this report, the findings ofthis study are considered in relation to the keystages of change identified by Kotter in his model,described in Figure 1. These are:

1. Creating the climate for change.

2. Engaging and enabling the whole organisation.

3. Implementing and sustaining change.

Section 1: Creating a climatefor changeIn this first stage of Kotter’s change managementmodel, the emphasis is placed on establishing thesense of urgency, forming alliances anddeveloping a vision for change.

(a) Establishing the sense of urgencyand developing a vision for change

As noted above, Every Child Matters has been animportant factor in supporting the move towardsgreater collaborative working between differentagencies. Core to this has been the role it hasplayed in establishing the common vision forsupporting the development of children in thiscountry, based upon the principle of supportingthe whole child (DfES, 2003).

The existence of a common vision is critical inestablishing the sense of joint purpose for thepartnership. Every Child Matters provides a basisfor this by firmly positioning the well-being ofchildren as the starting point for collaboration(Craig, 2004, Department of Health, 1999).Furthermore, it represents a vision which isunquestionably moral in basis – an important factin gaining even greater commitment to theoverall mission (Huxham and Vangen, 2000,Charlesworth et al., 2003).

Another common theme in the vision of thoseinvolved in this study related to the wider effortsneeded to support their local communities moregenerally. For some of those interviewed thiswas the notion of community or social capital,or the networks and common set of values andaspirations that bind local people together(Text box 1). Related themes concerned the needto raise the aspirations of local people forthemselves and their children, promoting a greatercommitment to lifelong learning, and promotinggreater involvement in the school per se.The principle underpinning all of this, though,was that it was impossible to divorce the needs ofthe child from those of the community they live in:

“ECM is not just about every child, but also aboutevery child within their community. It can forgesome of the nice things that adults can shareand that every child will appreciate.”

Headteacher


However while Every Child Matters is helpful inproviding the general overarching view,considerable work still needs to be undertaken todevelop a more specific and grounded version ofthis overall aspiration, based upon what is neededat the local level. This is critical in increasing theoverall sense of ownership individuals have forthe vision and in developing a clearerunderstanding of how this broader aspirationtranslates into specific measures anddevelopments at ground level. It also provides abasis for incorporating more local priorities intothe mission.

In practice, a number of different tactics can beadopted to achieving a shared vision for thecollaboration. One of the most importantconsiderations, though, centres on the degree towhich schools attempt to co-construct the visionwith their partners, or opt instead to securebuy-in to ‘their’ vision from those they seek tocollaborate with. In reality this is seldom aquestion of either/ or but rather a more iterativeprocess which, to work effectively, requires anongoing mutual informing of differentperspectives. Schools and collaborations willseldom begin with a blank piece of paper uponwhich partners seek to describe their collectivepriorities and aspirations. However, neither willthe vision leave the head fully-formed and as afixed entity that partners are only able to puttheir signatures to. Instead, the reality is oftenthat the headteacher will act as the initialvisionary for the extended activity and a driver forits creation, seeking to engage others within andwithout the school in this collective endeavour.

Text box 1 Background to social capital

The concept of social capital was introducedearly in the 20th-century by Lyda JudsonHanifan in his examination of rural schoolcommunity centres. In this, he used the termto describe “those tangible substances (that)count for most in the daily lives of people”(Hanifan, 1916:130).

The notion of social capital was refined anddeveloped subsequently by Bourdieu (1983)and Coleman (1988). However, it was the workof Putnam from the mid-1990s onwards thatreally raised interest in this idea. Putnamdefines social capital thus:

“Social capital refers to connections amongindividuals – social networks and the normsof reciprocity and trustworthiness that arisefrom them. In that sense social capital isclosely related to what some have called ‘civicvirtue’. The difference is that ‘social capital’calls attention to the fact that civic virtue ismost powerful when embedded in a sensenetwork of reciprocal social relations. A societyof many virtuous but isolated individuals isnot necessarily rich in social capital.”

Putnam, 2000:19

Recently, social capital has been used as anorganising principle by the World Bank, whichsees it as follows:

“Social capital refers to the norms andnetworks that enable collective action. Itencompasses institutions, relationships andcustoms that shape the quality and quantityof a society’s social interactions.”

World Bank, 2005

For writers such as Putnam, there is an absolutelink between levels of social capital and successin the education system


One common and popular approach whichsupports early efforts to develop the local visioninvolves the facilitation of a “visioning day” formembers of the school and partner agencies(Tunstill et al., 2002). This will typically involverepresentatives from the school, its governingbody, the LEA, social services, health agencies, thepolice, voluntary sector partners and members ofthe local community coming together to discussand review their aims and aspirations for theschool and its local community. The intention isthat such an event can provide a means ofincreasing awareness of each agency’s respectivemission and priorities, and of identifying commonground that can serve as a basis for mutualcollaboration (the concept of “win-win” situationsis discussed elsewhere in this report). In mostinstances the event will take place in a neutralvenue and have an independent facilitator.Usually the detail of delivery will be consideredsubsequently, and the day will represent an earlystarting point for the collaboration to follow.However, it should not be viewed as any lesshelpful for this. Indeed, additional momentummay come from repeating the event at a point inthe future, when it can provide a means forcelebrating the progress made and identifyingpriorities for further attention.

The need to prioritise the main areas of activitywas consistently highlighted by those whoparticipated in the study, for two main reasons.Firstly it provided the focus necessary to ensurethat initial resources (which may be limited) wereused to best effect and to tackle the areas thatgave greatest concern. It also raised the likelihoodthat early interventions would be both successfuland meaningful, thereby increasing the chancesthat these would provide additional momentum.

Moving forward, the need for focus andprioritisation remained important. As onerespondent noted:

“Success breeds success. The challenge is finding away to prioritise what to do.”

Extended school co-ordinator

(b) Establishing relationshipswith partners

Schools will often have existing and sometimeslong-standing relationships with partner agencies.In such instances, these relationships can play animportant role in supporting increasedcollaboration between partners (Tunstill et al.,2005:114). The presence of an existing Sure Startinitiative can be particularly helpful in theprimary context, given the strong synergiesbetween this and the extended schools agenda(Wiggins et al., 2005:82). The emergence ofEvery Child Matters and the extended schoolsagenda therefore provide additional impetus tothe development of these relationships.

In other cases, though, existing arrangements maybe weak or non-existent. Concerns over territoryand misunderstandings over the specific aims ofthe extended activity can be particular concernswhich need to be overcome in developingrelationships with partner organisations(Cummings et al., 2005).

In either case, increased collaboration betweenpartners is likely to result in a degree ofdissonance for staff as closer working relationsdisrupt existing practices. This presents an urgentneed for leaders in schools and other agenciesinvolved to help colleagues make sense of thechanges being faced, not least by focusing on thebroader benefits of the collaboration and itsability to impact on the lives of childrenand families.

There was no consensus amongst thoseinterviewed as to “one best way” to approachpotential partners in collaborative working.Instead, two broad strategies could be identified,distinguishable as “top-down” and “bottom-up”.In either instance the aim of identifying win-winscenarios was an important guiding strategy.


Finding the win-wins

The idea that relationships should be founded on areas of mutual interest is important forseveral reasons.

Firstly this makes the initial engagement easier byestablishing a more equal footing to the prospectof future work. The ‘win-win’ reduces the extent towhich partners are seen to act as a mechanism foraddressing the concerns of the school, establishinginstead a more egalitarian relationship in whicheach party supports the work of the other. The basisfor the initial contact therefore moves away from“Can you help us with this?” towards “How canwe help you achieve your aims?” or “How can wehelp each other to achieve our aims?”

Establishing this principle at the outset helped theschools in the study to reduce suspicion betweenagencies and individuals by highlighting the areasof mutual interest and reducing the extent towhich the school is seen to be empire-building.The fact that the school is seen to offer amechanism for supporting such work is helpful inproviding a lever in additional expertise. Access tostudents and parents is a particularly valuableresource the school may be able to share:

“We help others to reach their targets. For instance,the Scarman Trust does preventive health care.Well, we have a captive audience of 800 childrenthey can work with to reach their targets.”


Building work on areas of mutual interest also helpspromote the longer-term sustainability of thecollaboration and the extended activity, as agenciesare clearly more likely to continue to commitresources to areas that contribute to their core activitythan those which are of more peripheral interest:

In some instances, schools have taken an evenmore proactive approach, identifying potentiallyimportant partners in addressing their ownobjectives and then seeking to establish thespecific aspects in which the school can offersupport. For instance, one secondary school hasdeveloped a directory which provides details ofthe core aims and objectives of potentialpartners and the support they are potentiallyable to offer.

The notion of win-win is also important inpromoting the sense that schools and partnershave joint ownership of the issues being faced(Craig, 2004).

Top-down vs bottom-up

As noted above, discussions with schools andpartners identified two broad strategies forengaging partners in collaborative working.

The first of these, top-down, involved individualsfrom the school making direct contact with seniorleaders from potential partner agencies, with aview to establishing a strategic relationship forcollaboration. Such approaches are potentiallyhelpful in establishing the commitment of seniorleaders of partner organisations, which maybe essential in promoting longer-term andmore integrated approaches to collaboration.This approach can be highly effective:

“I just called up the head of social services andsaid ‘we’re going to be a full service extendedschool’. And they were really good, reallyconsidered. I had a meeting with their head ofservices and discussed this. At the time socialservices were fire-fighting like mad, and theywere brave enough to stop, step back and askwhat the possibilities were, if we’re looking atreally trying to do some early intervention.”

Headteacher

“A key driver forour relationship is that

we’re able to offer them somehelp in meeting their targets,because it is a target-driven

world, unfortunately.”

Headteacher


Without question the publication of Every ChildMatters has played an important part inincreasing the degree to which partners are opento such approaches. However, cultural barrierscontinue to exist and can influence the degree towhich such direct approaches are welcomed byothers. For instance, differences in the levels ofautonomy afforded to leaders in differentagencies can present some challenges:

“I went to a meeting with the PCT, and talking to these managers I could feel the sense ofanimosity – they saw this agenda as educationtrying to take over the world. This wasarticulated by a senior member of the PCT whothen said to me ‘You’re only a headteacher, who’stold you to be here at this meeting?’ So I said ‘Noone.’ And they said ‘So how can you do it?’ And Ireplied, ‘I’ve decided it’s the best thing to do, soI’m doing it’. He just could not get his headaround the fact that I had the autonomy tomake those decisions.”

Headteacher

In other instances, school leaders have sought toconvene a broader dialogue with several partnerson approaches to addressing shared areas ofconcern. These have often formed the basis forcollaborative “visioning days”, in which differentstakeholders will discuss the specific challengesfacing an area with a view to developing astrategic, co-ordinated approach toaddressing them.

An alternative approach adopted by schools insome instances is to develop existingrelationships or initiate new relationships withindividual professionals. The principle behindthis is the realisation that it is theseprofessionals who will ultimately have to makesense of collaborative working and that they maybe best placed to identify the specific operationalpriorities to be addressed. Often the developmentof such relationships can provide the impetus fordiscussion at a more strategic level:

“Initially we set up an implementation groupand started to invite some local groups with aview to build things up. But what I found wasthere’s a whole number of strategic groups thatmake decisions, some of which you just don’tknow about. And there’s so many of them.So I started to work on the Michael Fullan basis –let’s get people on the ground together and sharewhat we’re doing. And it’s interesting that that’shad a major impact. So I got together with thelocal youth service worker, and the local nurseand the local social worker and in no time at allthis started to cause a bit of a stir – ‘Who arethese people? Who said they could get together?What are they talking about?’ – which has beengood. I think sometimes you just have to drive itfrom where you are. And what’s happened is thisgroup no longer meets, and instead we’ve beeninvited on to a large number of key strategicgroups instead.”

Deputy head

While there are considerable merits to adoptingthe bottom-up approach, it is important torecognise that structural constraints will still needto be addressed. As a Sure Start manager noted:

“It’s about challenging

different cultures and values that we

come across in our organisations. And I think

that it is not just what we do at this level – it has

to be done as well at a strategic level. Sometimes the

structures that are in place at a higher level make it

almost impossible… With the introduction of the

Children’s Act and ECM people have been motivated

to work together, but as far as service delivery is

concerned people have been working together

for quite a long time really.”

Sure Start project manager


The role of the local authority

A related aspect to consider in approachingpartners is the role that a local authority (LA) hasas a facilitator of multi-agency work. Indeed,authorities potentially play a vital role insupporting the development of relationshipsbetween partners in a number of ways.

Firstly, the establishment of Children’s ServiceAuthorities provides a mechanism for them tomodel the benefits of closer working relationshipsand improved collaboration. In doing so, theymust be viewed as seamless, rather than beingtwo separate entities that continue to operate ona largely independent basis despite the introductionof a single Director of Children’s Services.

The LA can also play an important role inpromoting strategic collaboration between schoolsand other partners (Cummings et al., 2004:v).In some instances this has seen LAs play aninstrumental role in developing clusters andnetworks of schools which collaborate withpartner agencies on a broader basis. In others, ithas required LAs to act as the driver or facilitatorof an area-wide strategy for extended schools. Ona more basic level, it can involve the authorityusing its influence to encourage reluctantpartners, and those who have been slower toengage, to collaborate with schools:

“I see LAs as the key driver because hopefullythey can crack a few heads together and forceschools and social services to work more closelytogether, because they provide both of them,don’t they? They can force closer work and makestrategic links with health, decide on clustering ofresources, and hopefully ensure that servicesdon’t become duplicated or stretched.”

Headteacher

Local authorities can also play an important rolein promoting the development of workingrelationships among professionals, betweenprofessionals and political representatives, andbetween professionals and the communities theyserve (Ofsted, 2005:9). In doing so they helpsupport the development of a joint agenda forthe provision of local services (Lownsborough andO’Leary, 2006).

Schools face a particular challenge in instanceswhen their boundaries differ to those of otherpotential partners (Craig et al., 2004:54). In thesecases the LA can play an important role infacilitating collaborations between local schools tohelp achieve the critical mass sometimes neededto support partnership working with otheragencies (Huxham and Vangen, 2000:11,60).

Addressing external constraints

A further key role of the local authority involveshelping schools to tackle some of the externalconstraints on extended activity. This can beachieved in part through the provision ofpertinent guidance and also by proactivelylobbying other agencies to make changes in policywhere necessary. Examples of such externalfactors include funding, inspection andaccountability (Craig et al., 2004, Charlesworth etal., 2003, Cummings et al., 2004, Morton, 2004).Data sharing is another area of particularsensitivity (Kronick, 2002).


Section 2: Engaging andenabling the whole organisationIn the second stage of Kotter’s model, leadershipis concerned with engaging and enabling thewhole organisation, seeking to translate the initialenthusiasm and shared understanding intotangible outcomes. This involves exploring theways in which individuals will work withcolleagues from outside their normal professionalsphere as part of the broader collaboration.

This section therefore starts by exploring theimplications of multi-agency collaboration on theinternal and external organisational cultures.

(a) Understanding “professionalism”and creating trust

As already noted, establishing trust betweenagencies is a critical element of developingcollaborative working. However, while increasingthe commitment to trusting and working withpartner organisations may be achieved relativelyeasily at an organisational level, mistrust betweenprofessionals from different organisations is oftenharder to address. Therefore effective engagementand multi-agency working cannot be achievedwithout developing a sense of trust betweenindividuals on a personal basis. As one head noted:

At the heart of this challenge are traditional andwell-established conceptions of what it means tobe the member of a professional group. At thesame time, misconceptions over the culture, ethosand values of other professions are often just asdeeply engrained. In most instances suchmisconceptions will be rooted in our earliestassessments of what it means to be a teacher, anurse or a social worker, before being shaped andrefined in initial professional training and thensubsequently reinforced through professionalsocialisation. The fact that many professionals willhave had little exposure to alternativeprofessional cultures means that theseperceptions will also often have been furtherreinforced through interactions with peers (NB theissue of organisational socialisation is coveredlater in this report).

Much of this suspicion and mistrust is based upona lack of awareness of the environment andconstraints individuals work in:

“There’s often misunderstanding of people’s roles.For instance a lot of heads complain that whensocial workers call a case conference, they’reexpected to up sticks and go. But it’s not alwaysthat easy, because they perform a range of roles,and therefore if there’s a case conference it’s notjust a case of leaving your desk and going, you’vemaybe got a class of 30 children you’ve got toleave with a colleague, and you’ve got to leavework for them and pick up with them againwhen you come back. Or they’ll call somethingand you make all these complicatedarrangements and get there and they say ‘Oh, itwas cancelled’. The number of year heads I’veheard complain about that. Very often peopleforget that. It’s not just teachers being precious,it’s the hard reality.”

Deputy head

Similarly, reflecting upon the differencesbetween the culture within school and that withinthe police service, one head commented:

“At the end ofthe day you can put all

the structures in, but if therelationships aren’t there they

don’t mean a thing. It’s how it’sdone on a one-to-one basis

that is absolutelyparamount.”

Headteacher


“The education culture is that you’re working forthe kids and whatever it takes, you do. If itmeans you stay here until 7 o’clock at night youdo it – in most cases. It means if you’re a bitunder the weather you come in because, if youdon’t, one of your colleagues has got to do yourwork for you. Police culture is completelydifferent. If you’ve got a cold you stay off. If youwork past four o’clock it’s overtime. And if youdon’t feel like coming in, then basicallyyou won’t.”

Headteacher

A Sure Start manager provided an alternativeperspective on this:

“If you are trying to do a multi-agency approachthere are practical issues. For instance, theavailability of teaching staff is often different tothe availability of social services staff, which isoften different to the availability of health staffetc because of the demands that thoseprofessions have at different times of the day. It’sabout breaking down the behaviours that wehave known for a long time.”

Sure Start project manager

A particularly challenging aspect of this wholearea is that such cultural differences are oftenextremely subtle and remain uncodified.Providing opportunities for dialogue and sharingexperiences is critical in overcoming this issue:

“If they don’t tell us and we don’t tell themabout cultural differences, how are we ever goingto learn? It would have been nice if someone hadgiven me a book which said ‘this is the way socialservices work, these are their protocols, this is itsculture’, so I could see where we meet. But we’rehaving to do that ourselves.”

Headteacher

A further consideration is the fact that the roles ofteachers, social workers and health professionalsshare many similarities and are on one level soclose, but differ so markedly in other regards.Misunderstandings over language are aparticularly good example of this:

“What schools call a code of conduct or a set ofrules, youth workers would run a mile from. Butthey always have ground rules. So long as youcan say the code of conduct is, in a way, anagreed set of ground rules which parent voiceand pupil voice have already been heavilyinvolved in, they’ll say, ‘ah lovely ok we can workwith that’. Similarly, if you use the term‘confidentiality’ across different groups ofteachers, health workers, youth workers andsocial services, it means hugely different things.”

Headteacher

Establishing a shared language and commonconception of each other’s role is therefore acritical factor in achieving successful collaborativeworking (Children’s Aid Society, 2001:72) (Tunstillet al., 2005). Core to this is establishing agreementover issues of confidentiality, codes and protocols(Tunstill et al., 2005, Dryfoos and Maguire, 2002,Calfee et al., 1998, Ofsted, 2005).

As noted, increased dialogue is a key aspect inpromoting greater understanding of differentprofessional roles (Dryfoos and Maguire, 2002,Calfee et al., 1998) and the use of multi-agencyaway-days is a popular strategy for addressingthis. These are often hosted in a local hotel orconference centre and facilitated by an individualunconnected with any of the agencies concerned,thereby providing space for individuals to developconnections with partners on neutral ground.Ongoing shared professional development, forinstance on Every Child Matters or on specificaspects of work, can also support this improveddialogue (Department of Health, 1999, Harker etal., 2004). Some schools have hosted jointlearning sessions on a non-work-specific subjectwith broader appeal to increase take-up. In someinstances participation in such sessions has beenopened up to members of the broadercommunity, which brings the added benefit that itcan help break down barriers between thesegroups too.


A further strategy in promoting trust withindividuals from other agencies involves leaderswithin the school modelling the behaviour theywant to encourage (Craig et al., 2004). Modellingthe desired approaches to information-sharing,avoiding hierarchy, networking, openness andsharing of resources is particularly important(Craig et al., 2004). A related and perhaps moretangible approach sees the clear articulation ofexpectations in instances where professionalsfrom different agencies work within the school.

Recognising that mistakes and misunderstandingsare inevitable and that these should not get in theway of collaborations is also hugely important:

Similarly, acknowledging that improved relationswon’t come overnight and being patient over thelength of time it will take for them to be developedis also important (Smith, 2004). A related themecentres on the need to create realistic expectationsof what the initiative will be able to achieve earlyin its development (Cummings et al., 2005).

(b) Developing a common culture forworking – the emergence of a newprofessionalism

As noted, many of those involved in this studyhighlighted the importance of establishing clearprotocols and understandings of how individualsshould work with and within other organisations.Part of this therefore involved establishing a coreset of principles as a basis for a common cultureof work.

The importance of a common culture ishighlighted within the Every Child Matters anddeveloped further in ‘The common core of skillsand knowledge for the children’s workforce’ (HMGovernment, 2005). This paper also highlights anumber of common values for practitioners whichmay form the basis for broader collaborationaround the development and delivery ofchildren’s services. These centre on promotingequality, respecting diversity, challengingstereotypes, helping to improve the life chances ofall children and young people, and providingmore effective and integrated services(HM Government, 2005:4).

The common core also highlights a range ofspecific skills and knowledge that are particularlyimportant within the context of multi-agencyworking. These are summarised in Text box 2.

“We came to a very clear

mutual understanding that we were

going to misunderstand each other, we were

going to speak different languages, but we had

very similar philosophies of what we wanted and

what we were trying to achieve. It was just different

ways of going about it, and different management

structures. All that nonsense can get in the way, so

we made a promise that our dialogue was

going to be very open and very honest –

non-blaming but very honest.”

Headteacher


In establishing this set of principles and skills, theindividuals interviewed in the study were quick topoint out that their aim was not to turnprofessionals from other organisations intopseudo-educationalists, “training” them in theways of the school, but rather to head offpotential clashes of culture that could have anadverse impact on the smooth running of theschool. In some instances these protocols relatedto areas where there was potential confusion overthe jurisdiction of agencies, for instance inrelation to discipline between the school andthe police:

“There’s a potential problem with the policewhich we spotted early on. If for example astudent pushes a teacher, that is in principle anassault and a criminal offence. However, we hadto agree that the school’s procedures override thepolice in that instance, unless it’s not resolvedsatisfactorily and then it steps up a gear, muchthe same as if the police weren’t here.”

Headteacher

In others they were concerned with processesfor working:

“It’s not conforming to the culture of the school,but rather understanding the reasons why we docertain things and reinforcing their importance.So for instance, if a group of students areworking with a youth worker for two hours, thatsession is actually two lesson periods. So whilethe atmosphere in the room may be different, it’sstill part of the school day and students can’tjust wander off or go outside for a cigarette.”

Headteacher

In both these instances, schools worked effectivelywith partners and were quick to respect thevalue other agencies brought and the benefitsthat could come from their different approachesto working:

The importance of respecting the relativestrengths of different partners is also a well-established theme in the literature. For instance,as Cigno and Gore note:

“Diversity and choice should be respected andeven deemed an essential part of a service whichattempts to meet all the varying needs of thefamily...each team could present periodicseminars aimed at enhancing mutualunderstanding among agencies and providing a basis on which creative solutions couldbe established.”

Cigno and Gore, 1999:333-334

Text box 2 Common core of skills andknowledge for multi-agency working

• communication and teamwork skills

• assertiveness

• knowledge of own role and remit

• understanding of the value you bring to ateam as an individual

• the skills and expertise needed to minimisethe need for referral to specialist services

• general knowledge of the differentorganisations and individuals workingwith children

• knowledge or relevant procedures andworking methods

• knowledge of relevant law, policies andprocedures

HM Government, 2005:18-19

“It’s a balancing actbetween how many of the

processes and protocols of theschool a partner has to embraceand how much they can actually

deviate from this. If we turnthem into the same animals,

they’re neutered.”Headteacher


Individuals who were working within schoolsfound their roles changed in other ways too.Foremost amongst these was a general sense that,as an adult working within a school, it was onlyproper that they subsume certain conventions inthe ways they dealt with children. For instance,reflecting on the approach that made one socialworker integrate so successfully into her school,one head commented:

“She’s taken a role almost like mine on occasions.There was one awful time when she heard aparent screaming and swearing at her little girl,and off she went and said ‘I want you to comeinto my office, I am a social worker and I need totalk to you now’. And she sat her down and said‘You cannot talk to your child like that’. If I’dhave been there I’d have dealt with it, but shejust saw it as part of her remit and did it.”

Headteacher

As noted elsewhere in this paper, the mosteffective multi-agency working was built upon aculture of genuine collaboration and a willingnessto work together to increase effectiveness. Implicitwithin this is a common understanding of theissues to be addressed and the overall aims of thecollaboration (Ofsted, 2005:17). This culture ofcollaboration also involves schools adopting moreflexible approaches to meeting the needs of theindividuals concerned. There is a caveat with this– clearly a major benefit of extended schools isthe principle that improved referral processes andmulti-agency working can reduce the burden onteachers and school leaders to perform non-school tasks, acting as social workers, healthworkers etc. Indeed, for some this was afundamental driver behind the desire tocollaborate more fully with others:

“I was a headless chicken really. I was doingLPSH and taking some time out to reflect andlooked at one week – any old week – and 60 percent of my time was spent dealing directly withsocial services issues. I thought, this is crazy.We had bright intelligent kids who weren’tattaining at the levels they should be and Ithought, we’ve got to do something.”

Headteacher

However, it is also crucial to recognise that thereare instance when individuals from other agenciesrequire immediate support, and in the absence ofpeers and other team members, this may placeadditional demands on individuals within theschool. As one head noted:

“Flexibility is needed from both sides. There weretimes when our social worker needed help.There was one night she had to remove thisfamily, there was no support, but she had to doit. She didn’t have a car but I did so I ended updoing it with her.”

Headteacher

More broadly, increased multi-agencycollaboration forces school leaders to take a widerview and consider the relative demands, issuesand priorities of partner organisations:

While this is to be encouraged, it can present thedanger of role strain for individuals as they seekto reconcile conflicting demands andresponsibilities between the school and their ownorganisation (Atkinson et al., 2002:iii). Retainingstrong links with colleagues is important inmediating these concerns (Cummings et al.,2005:67). However, there is some evidence in theliterature that the overriding loyalty for many inextended schools is in relation to the children andcommunity they serve rather than to oneinstitution or another (Craig et al., 2004:21).

“I’ve changedthe way I see things

through working withothers. I’m much less

dogmatic now.”Headteacher


(c) Creating the internal culturefor collaboration

One challenge in creating the culture forcollaboration is preparing other staff within theschool for the presence of external professionals.As noted above, traditional conceptualisationsof professional roles frequently need to bechallenged as part of this process. Failure to doso can result in attempts at changes toorganisational culture and working practices beingundermined and ultimately neutralised bybehavioural norms and professional identities(Lownsborough and O’Leary, 2006:13).

A further aspect relates to practical elements ofsharing resources. One well-documented concerncentres on the reluctance of some teachers toshare “their classrooms” with colleagues fromother organisations. In the past this has generallycentred on the delivery of adult learning inschools by local FE providers. However, inextended schools the demands will almostcertainly be wider.

The main strategy for addressing this involvesclearly establishing the principle that all resourcesare corporately owned. At the same time, though,the expectation has to be introduced thatindividuals who share these resources will respectthe conventions of the school. As one head noted:

“The key thing is that people understand theschool is corporately owned. Then the next thingis that the people who come in to use theterritory understand the philosophy and whatthe rules and regulations are about the use ofresources and respect for children, childprotection and so on. So it’s about ensuring thateveryone knows the territory is owned byeveryone and shared by everyone. It comes fromcommunications and trust – we invite staff fromother agencies to come to our staff meetings.It’s being clear about those expectations.”

Headteacher

(d) Mutual support and respect

A common theme running through the publishedliterature on multi-agency working centres aroundthe issue of isolation and the extent to whichindividuals from a different discipline feelremoved from the main body of the school(Cummings et al., 2005, Craig et al., 2004). This isa particular challenge for those who are used toworking within professional teams, such as socialworkers.

Strategies for addressing this often centre on twomain areas. Firstly, ways in which individuals canbe made to feel a greater part of the school andsecondly, approaches which ensure that theycontinue to receive the vocational-specific supportthat they require.

Line management

In terms of the appointment of professionals fromother organisations, the schools concerned wereclear that it was essential that such individuals weresympathetic to the ethos of the school and willingto work in partnership with different providers.The idea that schools would adopt a more formalselection process was seen as unnecessary.Heads were equally clear, though, that they hadthe authority to ask for individuals to be replacedin instances where they did not appear to displaya sufficiently sympathetic outlook:

“If you’ve got the wrong person in post they willplay one off against another. I’ve seen that indifferent organisations where they say ‘I’m goingto...’ and been in neither place. And thathappened with our first policeman, and he didn’tlast very long.”

Headteacher


Similarly, most recognised the advantages of staffcontinuing to be line-managed by their ownagencies rather than seeking to integrate themmore heavily into the school’s staffing structure.The underlying consideration that drove this wasthe need for these individuals to receive thesupport and development appropriate to theirprofession – something that heads were oftenquick to acknowledge they were not best placedto provide:

“A key principle was I don’t know anything aboutsocial workers – they had to be managed by theirhead office, with all the backup and services theycould offer.”

Headteacher

This approach was seen as more effective inreducing the extent to which professionals feltisolated in the school, as it protected theirrelationship with their peers and their ownemploying organisation. This was important inpromoting their ongoing development andcareers, but also significant in protecting theirprofessional identity. For instance, one headnoted how a social worker at her school hadsuffered a degree of rejection from her peers, who saw her professional status as compromisedby her work in the school. Retaining linemanagement responsibilities within the hostagency was important in addressingsuch misconceptions.

While formal line management most commonlyremained with an individual’s own agency, therewas nevertheless a need for day-to-daysupervision of staff. A key aspect of this centredon supporting the process of organisationalsocialisation, required when staff from otheragencies begin work within a school. This processcentres on increasing understanding of thedifferent professional cultures and language (moreis written elsewhere in this paper). Additionalissues relate to practical concerns that may ariseand areas where there are potentially conflictingpriorities. Supervision is undertaken by a memberof the senior leadership team, in some instancesthe headteachers themselves, but morecommonly a deputy or assistant head or theextended school manager.

Importance of induction

Professional development is therefore apotentially invaluable approach to increasingunderstanding between professionals andsupporting the emergence of a shared culture.Shared opportunities focused on specific issuesare often used to great effect to encouragedialogue, understanding and the development ofa common culture. A particularly importantelement of professional development centres onthe means by which staff from other agencies areinducted into the school.

The nature and structure of induction variedbetween the schools involved in the study, andmany recognised that this was an area where theywere continuing to learn and develop betterpractice. Induction and professional developmentare not areas which are governed by employmentlaw (ACAS, 2005), and as such considerablevariation will inevitably exist in organisations’commitment to and use of them. However, someareas of good practice could be clearly identifiedin the schools that participated in this work.Considerable guidance is also available from arange of organisations on designing effectiveinduction programmes.

Induction provides the basis for introducing newstaff to an organisation and the colleagues theywill work with. Advice on induction programmestherefore recommends that it covers four elements(Social Care Institute for Excellence, 2006):

• Legal, which relates to specific informationthat all new employees must know such as thehealth and safety arrangements

• Organisational, which relates to genericinformation about the organisation, such asthe organisation structure, team structure, IDprotocol, dress code policies etc

• Vocational, which relates to specificinformation about the job and may be role-related, such as manual handling and lifting,risk assessing and accident reporting

• Occupational, which relates to specificinformation about the sector eg social care


Information on all of these aspects will have beencovered by individuals’ employing agencies.However, as noted already, a fundamentalprinciple within effective multi-agency working isincreased flexibility amongst the professionalsinvolved. This represents a key distinctionbetween professional and organisationalsocialisation, best conceived as the differencebetween “this is how we do things” and the morespecific “this is how we do things here”. Inductionwithin the context of the extended school willtherefore focus upon developing a clearer mutualunderstanding of the above elements in relationto each professional’s role. It will also cover thecustoms, practices and conventions that existwithin the school, thereby increasing the extent towhich individuals are effectively assimilated intothe organisation and their overall senseof belonging.

One example of a particularly good inductionprogramme included provision for new staff to:

• spend one-to-one time with the headteacherand other senior leaders to get a clearer senseof the issues facing the school, the vision forthe future etc

• meet colleagues from the teaching staff,shadowing a teacher for a full day in theclassroom, to improve their understanding ofthe specifics of teaching

• meet colleagues from other partner agenciesworking in the school, also shadowing keyprofessionals for a day

• meet community members informally atcoffee mornings etc to increase awareness oftheir role in the school and their ownunderstanding about the needs of parents

• spend time with colleagues from their ownagency, to discuss issues arising, identifyadditional support that may be required etc

This was scheduled over a two-week period at thestart of an individual’s attachment to the school.

While it may not always be possible to facilitatesuch a comprehensive programme at the outset ofan individual’s attachment, the broad principlesof building mutual awareness and understandingare clearly critical and need to be addressed asquickly as possible once new members of staff arein place. Work shadowing in particular has beenfound to be a beneficial approach to increasingunderstanding of others’ work roles andresponsibilities (Harker et al., 2004:187).

Increased integration

One commonly adopted approach involvedestablishing the principle that the staff room is ashared resource, to be used by all individualswithin the school. This has been found to providea safe environment where colleagues fromdifferent agencies could come together anddiscuss a range of issues in an informal way. Partof this contributes towards the development ofimproved personal relationships and enhancedprofessional understanding.

“It can be very daunting for someone who’s not ateacher to come into a school – very daunting,almost frightening. But in our staff room wehave a policeman, a fireman, a youth worker,learning mentors, a learning support assistant,an attendance officer, an ex-social worker,Connexions staff, health professionals. The staffare used to, and welcoming to, other agencies. Itis a staff room, not a teaching staff room but astaff room.”

Headteacher


Section 3: Sustaining changeThe third stage of Kotter’s model relates to theprocess of implementing and sustaining change.Central to this is establishing the structures andculture needed to ensure that the changesintroduced to the organisation aresufficiently embedded.

In his model, Kotter identifies two key errors thatleaders may make in their efforts at transformingthe organisation (Kotter, 1995:66-67). The first ofthese sees leaders declaring victory too soon.According to Kotter, this often happens after thefirst clear signs of performance improvement,when in reality the cultural change process cantake 5 to 10 years to complete (Kotter, 1995:66).Instead, premature declaration of victory canresult in the improvements secured unravellingwithin as little as two years as the organisationreturns to its starting position. This comes fromthe fact that declaring victory reduces the sense ofurgency that exists and provides an opportunityfor change resisters to highlight any remainingdifficulties, thereby undermining the entireendeavour. Instead, then, a preferred approachsees achievement celebrated as early wins whichprovide a platform from which further efforts canbe built.

The second error sees leaders failing to anchorchanges in the organisation’s culture (Kotter,1995:67). Kotter notes that change sticks “when itseeps into the bloodstream of the corporate norm(becoming) rooted in social norms and sharedvalues” (Kotter, 1995:67). Many estimate that thistakes at least a decade to achieve (Lownsboroughand O’Leary, 2006:12). Kotter identifies twospecific aspects which support this. The first ofthese involves leaders demonstrating to followersthe ways in which changes made have improvedconditions and overall organisationalperformance. The second centres on takingsufficient time to ensure that the next generationof top management has truly embraced the newapproaches (Kotter, 1995:67).

In reflection of this, this final section focuses onthe approaches leaders in the schools studiedadopted to develop the leadership capacityneeded to promote the longer-term sustainabilityof the vision across the organisation. This sectionalso addresses the importance of demonstratingimpact and the ways in which this supports thelonger-term change process. Finally, two otherissues of sustainability are considered. Theserelate to embedding multi-agency workingthrough improved connections with the localcommunity, and the ongoing funding ofcollaborations.

(a) Building leadership capacity

As noted elsewhere, in many instances the headplays a fundamental role in promoting the moveto becoming an extended school. The vision willoften initially have been theirs. In all instances,the restructuring and organisational changesneeded for the vision to come to fruition will nothave been possible without the proactive supportof the head.

However, it is equally true that the scale of theendeavour is such that it is impossible for oneindividual to carry it forward on their own.Rather, then, it is critical that the head quicklydevelops a team of like-minded individuals whocan also drive the pursuit of this vision:

“You need somebody who feels passionatelyenough to drive it and then to get a team aroundyou that feels equally passionate to continue it.”

Deputy head


Each of the schools studied had taken steps topromote the distribution of leadership ofextended activity. In all instances the headprovided a strong strategic and symbolic lead forthis area, but the day-to-day operationalmanagement was dealt with by another memberof staff. In bigger schools there was often adedicated extended schools co-ordinator orequivalent. However, in some instances it formedpart of the bursar’s broader responsibilities or wasspread more evenly across a number ofindividuals. By adopting strategies inspired by thebroader workforce reform process, the impact onthe workload of teaching staff was largely kept toa minimum, although more broadly, teachersoften played an invaluable role by supporting arange of different clubs before and after school.

Evidence of the benefits of adopting this approachcomes from Ofsted research on the earlydevelopments of extended schools. This found thecombination of strong leadership from the headand effective management from an extendedschools co-ordinator was invaluable:

However, for the extended school to reallybecome truly embedded, leadership needs to bedistributed far more broadly than simply acrossthe organisation (see Text box 3). Instead, the aimis to create a wider, more empowered communityof individuals who are able to initiate anddevelop activities that address the common aim.Such individuals will be from the school, partnerorganisations and the broader local community.Indeed, many heads were quick to note the

considerable capacity that existed in the local areaand the role they could play in providing services.Encouraging and collaborating with partners torelease this potential is critical in the longer-termsustainability of the extended school from aworkload and funding view. As one head noted:

“When DFES first put forward the pilot they saidwe couldn’t spend any money on buying theservice…and I kicked up a stink about that.But it did us a real favour, because we had to goout there and look at what was about, andthere’s loads, people are falling over themselvesto offer support, and it’s just making thoserelationships and building bridges to host them –we don’t do all this, it’s done by others, we justhost what goes on. There’s lots of heads that arevery anti , who say ‘Well, I haven’t got the time todo all that’. It’s because we haven’t got the timethat we did it…We’ve got people spilling out allover the place. What we’re doing is now we’ve gota little centre of expertise we can offer advice ongoverning boards and stuff like that, but it’sabout getting rid. All I’ve had to do as a head isreally look at my site management.”

Headteacher

This greater distribution of leadership presents anumber of challenges for the headteacher. Not leastamongst these are developing mechanisms forensuring the strategic development of extendedactivity and, where necessary, addressing issues ofaccountability, and managing risk.

A particularly important factor, though, in thedistribution of leadership is identifying anindividual who is able to really drive the extendedschool forward. In some instances, suchindividuals have been employed to support thiswork on a full-time basis; in others it representedone aspect of their role. However, in either casethe extended school co-ordinator was viewed ascritical by the heads and partner agenciesinvolved in the work. Critical to this was thepractical role they took in promoting thedevelopment of links between collaborators, andmaintaining momentum in the development ofthe extended school.

“The leadershipof the headteacher is

crucial to the success of theextended provision…when

such leadership is supportedby very good strategic

management, it leads toeffective practice.”

Ofsted, 2005:3


A further consideration in this relates to the degreeto which the head feels “naturally” inclined toshare the leadership of this work. For some, theamount of personal investment in the issues beingaddressed can make letting go a real challenge:

“I struggled big-time with delegation in the earlydays, and would see someone doing somethingand think ‘Hmm, I wouldn’t do it like that’ but youhave to think ‘OK, just let it happen’, and I’ll pickthe pieces up at the end if I have to. But hopefullyI’m a lot better than I used to be. There’s peoplewho now work at the school who I hadn’t met butwho had contracts with my name at the bottomand who are having an impact and making adifference, and the only input I had was approvingthe finances. And some of the finances are self-managing and I have no involvement in thatnow. I couldn’t have done that two years ago.”

Headteacher

The potential benefits of doing so made thisworthwhile, however:

Governance, accountability and risk management

The Audit Commission describes corporategovernance as:

“...the framework of accountability to users,stakeholders and the wider community, withinwhich organisations take decisions, and lead and control their functions, to achieve theirobjectives. The quality of corporate governancearrangements is a key determinant of the qualityof services provided by organisations.”

Audit Commission, 2005

Text box 3 Distributed leadership

Distributed leadership considers leadership asa pluralist rather than individual activity(Southworth, 2004:3). Within this, authority tolead comes not from the occupancy of adesignated organisational role, but is ratherbased on one’s knowledge, understanding andability to lead within a specific context.Leadership is therefore a form of behaviourand not a position. As a result, all members ofthe organisation are likely to perform asleaders and followers at different times(Gastil, 1997:158).

The main advantage of distributed leadershipis that it increases the level of skills andexpertise available (Harris, 2002). It isparticularly desirable in large organisationswhere the scale of activity is so broad it isdifficult for any single individual to retain anoverarching view of the big picture, and is seenas particularly effective in promotingorganisational change (HayGroup, 2004:5).Positive effects have also been identified interms of employee motivation and jobsatisfaction (Daft, 2002:44).

Despite this emphasis on openness and theability of all being able to lead, the formallydesignated leader remains key to thedevelopment of this culture of sharedauthority and responsibility. The formal leaderalso plays a critical role in ensuring that, asleadership becomes ever more shared, thegroup stays on-task, all members of the groupare able to contribute to its progress, and thatthe agreed cultural norms are respected(Gastil, 1997:162).

Terms closely related with distributed include:delegated leadership, democratic leadershipand dispersed leadership (Bennett et al.,2002:4). These alternative models can bedifferentiated in the extent to which they placedifferent degrees of emphasis on consultation,delegation and empowerment.

“Give most people the

space and support and they will

perform much better than you may

think. Letting things go is quite difficult

sometimes but it’s absolutely critical

because you can’t do it all.”

Deputy head


Effective governance involves a mix of hard andsoft measures. Core to these within schools is thegoverning body, which fulfils a number of specificroles and responsibilities. Together with the headand the senior management team, the governingbody is an equal partner in the school’sleadership, and its endorsement of extendedschool activities is essential before suchapproaches can be introduced (DfES, 2005a). Morespecifically, section 27 of the Education Act 2002cedes governing bodies the power to provide orenter into contract to provide facilities andservices that “further any charitable purpose forthe benefit of pupils at the school, their familiesor people who live or work in the locality in whichthe school is situated”. Governing bodies are alsorequired to consult prior to establishing extendedservices and support (DfES, 2005a:3).

Extending schools increases the demand on theknowledge of governing bodies, requiring them tomake strategic decisions on a broader range ofareas than in more “traditional” school models. Italso introduces additional pressures in terms ofthe sheer scale of areas which call for theirattention and consideration. In response to this,many extended schools decide to introduce sub-committees and associate members to supportthis broader work.

In ‘Governor’s Roles and Governance’, DfESoutlines four main models for arranging thegovernance of extended schools (DfES, 2005a:4-6).While these differ in many ways, they areconsistent in their inclusion of a sub-committeeor governors and partners from other agencieswho act as a management group, tasked withsupporting the strategic direction of theextended school.

In terms of “soft” structures, a number of factorscan be summarised as key in developing effectivegovernance. These include (DfES, 2005c:24):

• leadership that establishes a vision, generatesclarity and fosters professional relationships

• an open and honest culture in which decisionsand behaviours can be challenged andaccountability is clear

• supporting accountability through systems andprocesses, such as financial management,performance management and internalcontrols

• an external focus on the needs of service usersand the public

More generally, there are indications thatcollaborative working is enhanced by the presenceof a management board whose membership isdrawn from across partner agencies. Managementboards and steering groups are important inhelping to develop and maintain strong andeffective inter-agency child protection proceduresand protocols, and in ensuring that local childprotection services are adequately resourced(Department of Health, 1999:35). While theirmembership should be determined locally, thereis broad consensus that it should includerepresentation from all key strategic partners andwhere possible, the local community (Cummingset al., 2004:27). In this way the board is able toraise awareness and increase the broad ownershipof the collaboration amongst partners and localpeople alike. They also provide a mechanism forincreasing ongoing dialogue between partners, aparticularly important factor in instances whenchannels for communication are not alreadyin place:


“Crucially, we set up a management committeeoutside of the school governors. The headteacherwas on it, I (the extended school co-ordinator)was on it, representatives from other funderswere on it. But most crucially the BoroughCouncil had a representative sitting on acommittee that decides on pricing and the accesspolicy of a county council school facility. Thathad never happened before and it brought thecouncil on board. And it helped us to quicklyaccess other important opportunities.”

School business manager

Management boards provide a basis for theongoing development of a shared strategic visionfor the extended school. They also offer a forumfor reviewing day-to-day operational issues.Evidence from the Sure Start experience has alsohighlighted the important role that managementboards play in offering support to leaders of multi-agency collaborations (Tunstill et al., 2005:67).

In many instances collaborations are furthersupported by the presence of formal agreementsand Service Level Agreements (SLAs) which outlinein more detail the specific focus for collaborativeworking and the respective commitments madeby each side.

SLAs play a major role in the delivery ofcommissioned support. Their function is toregulate the provision of a specific intervention orservice, usually – but not always – provided inreturn for financial support. SLAs should showhow resources can best be used to deliverimprovements in performance, and will usuallycontain a series of specific targets and measuresagainst which the effectiveness of the interventioncan be judged. They should detail what isrequired rather than how it is delivered. Theyshould therefore be comprehensive enough tomeet the needs of the commissioningorganisation, but flexible enough to allow forinnovation (National Treatment Agency forSubstance Misuse, 2002).

The recent emergence of Community ServiceAgreements is an acknowledgement of the greaterrole communities are playing as partners in thedelivery of public-sector support. CommunityService Agreements differ from SLAs in the factthat they are potentially more reciprocal in natureand highlight the assistance public organisationswill provide (Strickland and Knight, 2005).

(b) Demonstrating impact

Discussions with individuals involved in thedevelopment of extended schools highlighted anumber of issues concerning the demonstrationof impact.

Firstly the scale of ambition behind thedevelopment of the extended school is such thatit will often take considerable time before manyof the impacts desired are realised:

“We can see differences now but I think it’s goingto be five to ten years before you can see the realdifferences, and people don’t like that becausethey’re putting money in and want results quick,quick, quick.”

Headteacher

For some this raised a concern over the extent to which this agenda may be affected by changesin political priorities that may occur duringthat time:

“I think there’s an acknowledgement that anyshift will take five to ten years, but politically,nothing works on that sort of time scale.Politically we don’t give things that sort of timeto happen. By the time the initial funding stopswe’ll have only just started our job.”



Furthermore, in some instances the challengeswere seen to be so great that even theintroduction of the extended school wasinsufficient to support children with the mostcomplex problems. In these cases school leaderswere keen to establish more realistic expectationsof what the extended school could achieve and tohighlight the importance of other support.Implicit within this was the ongoing tensionbetween the need to focus on raising standardsand providing intensive, individualised supportfor children.

A related point centres on the ways in which theimpacts of extended schools can be measured.Indeed, there was an almost universal recognitionthat current approaches that centre uponacademic attainment were, on their own,inappropriate for judging the effectiveness of theextended school. Instead, the added value ofextended schools was generally seen as morelikely to come from their ability to help addressissues of deprivation and in relation to caring forthe child as a whole. Given that extended schoolsare one of a number of initiatives aimed atsupporting families and children, this presents aphilosophical challenge to the desire forattribution – ie determining which interventionresulted in which impact. Instead it was generallyfelt more appropriate to consider the effect ofextended school activity as part of the “sum of thewhole” rather than as an individual element:

“The only organisation that’s said ‘Are theyimpacting on your 5 A–Cs?’ was the localgovernment office. No one else expected anyimpact in that time frame. I think thegovernment office also know how it is, but theyjust hope they can quote that the school hasmoved 20%. But if we did, some of it would bedue to healthy schools, some due to GNVQs, somegifted and talented, some nothing to do withextended schools. So how can you unpick what itrelates to?”


While recognising these difficulties, demonstratingimpact was nevertheless highlighted as importantin promoting the development of the extendedschool. Celebrating success was seen as a helpfulstrategy for maintaining interest and promotingbuy-in to the broader initiative. It also offered anopportunity to reflect on what had already beenachieved, something which is often lost as focus isplaced on tasks in hand and the challenges yet tobe overcome:

“What I say to colleagues is that we’re often onlylooking at our present situation and thinkingthere’s a million things going on. But if we lookback, we can see the advances we’ve made.And then we look forward and think if we canever get there, that will be brilliant. But yourhead is often only in today. The danger is youforget where you’ve come from and reflecting onthat. And I think we’ve already made majordifferences to young people.”

Deputy head

Several heads and extended school co-ordinatorsnoted the importance of being able todemonstrate the contribution that interventionsby partners make as a strategy for promoting theprovision of these resources subsequently:

“When you get someone, you really have to usethem and demonstrate what a difference itmakes. And hopefully they’ll continue tofund them.”


While highlighting the need to celebrate success,it is important to ensure that this is done in ameasured way. As Kotter notes, declaring thevictory too soon is a major danger in the changemanagement process, and one which maypotentially undermine the considerableachievements secured to that point. Instead, suchearly successes and victories should be promotedas positive staging points on the journey towardsa longer-term destination.


(c) Increasing understanding of professional roles amongstthe community

In addition to improving understanding of therole of other professionals amongst the schoolstaff, schools where multi-agency working is seento be most successful will also have undertaken aproactive approach to raising awareness amongstthe community they serve. This is particularlyimportant in the case of those professional groupswhose roles are more likely to bring them intoconflict with parents, such as police officers andsocial workers.

As with broader community engagement per se,many schools highlight the advantages ofadopting a range of strategies to tackle this.For instance, formal structures such as newslettersprovide a mechanism for announcing theappointment of such workers and disseminatingthe “official” message concerning their function,focus etc quickly and easily. However, the greaterchallenge of establishing personal trust on anindividual basis will take more time and effort.This often centres on taking advantage ofopenings for personal engagement, for instanceusing coffee mornings or informal drop-insessions as opportunities to discuss their work andto reassure parents and community members thatthey are there to help and have the interests ofchildren and families at heart. In doing so, this isnot meant to “soften” their role, but rather toprovide a clearer understanding of what theyhope to achieve:

“A part of our social worker’s induction was inthe school going to the coffee mornings. It wasabsolutely key that parents knew she was a socialworker from day one. There would be no hidingthis. They knew what she was. Yeah, she canremove your children if they’re at risk, but that’snot what it’s about. It’s about offering yousupport, helping you make the best job you canof a very difficult job. And people believed her.It changed perceptions. They didn’t used to letsocial workers through the doors – they’d think‘they’re gonna take me babbies off me’, that’swhat they’d say. And that’s changed, even thoughshe has removed four families since shewas here.”

Headteacher

(d) Funding

The issue of funding is clearly central to thelonger-term sustainability of extended services.

Several of the schools that participated in thisresearch were designated full-service extendedschools that had attracted funding to support thedevelopment of services. In most instances,leaders of such schools reflected that they hadinitially been frustrated by restrictions on the useof this funding which prevented them from usingit to directly fund services. However, on reflectionthey had often come to realise that theserestrictions had been beneficial, as they hadforced them to consider the longer-termsustainability of the support from the outset.Furthermore, they had forced them to take amore inclusive approach to the provision ofsupport than may otherwise have been the case.For these leaders, the development andmaintenance of such partnerships were central totheir longer-term sustainability.


Furthermore, by adopting such a collaborativeapproach, the onus for resourcing services andsupport is positioned within the partner agency,rather than within the school itself. As anextended school co-ordinator observed:

“We’re trying to put the ownership of activitywithin another agency or organisation. So forinstance, it’s not about us getting money andemploying a youth worker, but rather us talkingto the youth service and having a youth workerseconded across service areas.”


As noted above, demonstrating the benefitsaccrued from having such support in school is animportant factor in encouraging partners to fundthis activity on an ongoing basis.

A more pressing concern for many schools is theway in which they are able to build capacity tomanage the development of the extended schoolover the longer term. Indeed, a relatively commonpractice amongst full-service schools has been touse the initial pump-priming funding to resourcea dedicated extended school manager. As alreadynoted, such individuals are often instrumental inthe successful development of the extendedschool, and maintaining their ongoing presencehas frequently been a high priority. In someinstances, schools have identified alternativeexternal sources of funding to support their work.However, more commonly schools have usedworkforce remodelling as a means of maintainingthis role over the longer term.

In addition to partnership working, maintainingan entrepreneurial approach is important insecuring extra funds, as the school may need todevelop additional complementary services. Suchan entrepreneurial ethos is also important inpromoting an openness to partnership activityand a willingness to engage in unexpected andopportunistic openings. One school described theimportance of developing a culture of“magnificent failure”, whereby staff wereencouraged to pursue stretching targets forpotentially valuable ideas they may have, with theimplicit understanding that they may not be ableto fully achieve these. In this school, the beliefwas that even limited success justified taking therisk, as unexpected benefits may subsequentlybe realised. For instance, this school’s Director ofCommunity Sports had sought to developrelationships with local sports clubs to gainsupport for a bid which was ultimatelyunsuccessful. However, in doing so he had forgedstrong links with a club whose membership wasdrawn predominantly from members of minorityethnic groups, which in turn opened the door toalternative sources of funding centred ontackling racism.

Co-ordinators are often pivotal in identifying andsecuring such discretionary funding – a processwhich can require considerable time, expertiseand effort. Moving forward, as more schoolsdevelop extended services, gaining discretionaryfunding is likely to become ever harder as schoolsfind themselves fishing in an increasingly crowdedpond. In such a scenario the importance of strongpartnership working becomes greater than ever.

Implications for leadership


Implications for leadershipIn describing the main findings from thefieldwork supporting this work and the review ofpublished literature on multi-agency working, thisreport has identified a number of recurringleadership themes and issues. In this section, theimplications of these themes are explored further.In this discussion, the primary focus is on the roleof the headteacher, although attention is alsogiven to the work of extended school co-ordinatorand others in similar roles who play a major partin the overall development and sustainability ofsuch schools.

Complexity and creativity

Perhaps the most obvious starting point for thisdiscussion is to recognise the additionalcomplexity multi-agency working brings to the lifeof a school leader. While headship per se hasincreased in scale and become more complicated(a trend, incidentally, observed in othercomparable roles outside of education too), theadditional scope of the extended school meansthat leadership in such schools is particularlymulti-faceted.

That there is no template for the development ofan extended school is at once both attractive anddaunting. Much of its appeal centres on the factthat schools are free(r) to develop a model ofextended provision that meets the needs of theirchildren and local families. In doing so, schoolleaders have a greater opportunity to develop andrealise their own vision for their school and itsstudy as part of a broader community of support.Many of those interviewed in this work clearlyrelished the opportunity that the work gave themto move beyond the traditional confines of theschool and to address instead many of thebroader issues which impact so greatly on theability of their pupils to learn. In many instances,steps had already been taken to begin to addresssome of these concerns. In these instances theextended schools initiative now played animportant part in legitimising these efforts.

The lack of a prescribed model for extendedschools requires schools to effectively create theirown reality for their extended provision.As indicated above, this presents a majorchallenge for individuals in schools to work inways which are markedly different to those thathave dominated in the past. It also calls forconsiderable flexibility, as school leaders mustquickly develop an understanding of a range ofareas which will usually have been previouslyunfamiliar to them. These include theprofessional cultures of partner agencies, closerworking with community groups, parents andfamilies, legal issues concerning the provision ofadditional services, and the wide variety offunding sources and models. This theme isreturned to later in this section.

The literature also identifies a number of otherdemands on leadership stemming from thegreater focus on multi-agency working. Theseinclude the increasingly complex management ofhealth and safety, VAT, insurance and security(Cummings et al., 2005:67-68) and the greaterrestrictions that involvement with other agenciesplaces on the autonomy of leaders to lead(Huxham and Vangen, 2000:1167). More broadly,in the evaluation of Sure Start, Tunstill notes ahigh turnover of managers which is felt likely tobe a reflection of the challenging nature of thejob (Tunstill et al., 2005:64). Similarities betweenSure Start and extended schools mean that this isa potential concern in extended schools also.


Political and moral leadership

A particular demand within multi-agencyleadership centres on the increased politicaldimension of this activity. Within this context, thenotion of politics is concerned with the ways inwhich decisions are made within groups(Wikipeadia, 2006). As already noted, multi-agencyworking creates a number of particular demandsfor leaders in relation to the approaches they useto establish and develop relationships withpartner agencies. These include developing aneffective understanding of different professionalcultures and stimulating a collectiveunderstanding of the priorities to be addressed.

Of course, in most instances this will not be thesole responsibility of the headteacher, and anumber of factors have helped to create a broadappreciation of the need for wider, more tightlyco-ordinated support to improve outcomes forchildren and families. Included amongst these isthe publication of Every Child Matters. However,multi-agency working increases the demands onheadteachers in particular as their involvement iscritical in providing the status needed to helpsecure the overall success of such collaborations.This is especially true in the early stages of multi-agency working, when heads are often more ableto secure access to leaders in partnerorganisations, which may not be afforded to lesssenior colleagues in the school. Elsewhere thehead plays a major role in supporting others inunderstanding the necessity of extended schoolsand recognising the benefits that moving to morecomplex ways of working will bring. More iswritten on this later in this section.

Political leadership forms an important elementof Paton and Vangen’s notion of collaborativethuggery (Paton and Vangen, 2004:3-4), whichthey view as an important element in theleadership of effective partnership working.According to Paton and Vangen, collaborativethuggery is concerned with the pragmatic actionsthat, on the face on it, appear to be anti-collaborative but which are nevertheless essentialto the overall health of the partnership. Examplesof these included holding individuals to account,manipulating agendas, and playing the politicsgame. Vangen and Paten highlight theimportance of this type of “tough love” ingardening, noting that sometimes weeding ratherthan nurturing is the only way to protect thehealth of the garden as a whole. In describing thisconcept, Vangen and Paten are quick to highlightthe importance of being able to identify whichapproach is appropriate in any given situation,and change behaviour accordingly. Therefore thedevelopment of strong diagnostic skills isimportant to effective leadership in a climateof collaboration.

In reflecting on the political aspect of leadership,it is important to give some consideration to thebasis for leaders’ power and authority in thiscontext. Many discussions on power centre on itsthree faces, ie the degree to which individuals orgroups possess power in relation to decision-making, agenda-setting and preference-shaping(Wikipeadia, 2006) (Bratton et al., 2005:133-134).In terms of extended schools and multi-agencyworking, the political dimension of leadership isprimarily concerned with the first two of thesethree areas, ie the development of the actualservices themselves, and informing the broaderdiscourse within which decisions on extendedservices are made. As noted above, the overtlymoral dimension to the Every Child Mattersagenda underpinning much of this is animportant source of power and authority inmulti-agency working.


In his work on change, Fullan highlights thesignificance of morality in school leaders’attempts to increase the extent to which schoolssupport broader change to families andcommunities (Fullan, 2001a:30). The sense thatleadership of extended schools is implicitly moralin nature therefore helps to increase its legitimacywithin this context and extend the degree ofinfluence its leaders enjoy withcollaborating agencies.

Sergiovanni provides further insight into theimportance of moral leadership (Sergiovanni,1992) His work starts by identifying the five mainsources of authority for leadership, summarised infigure 2. He notes that more ‘traditional’hierarchical models of leadership draw authorityfrom bureaucratic and psychological sourceswhich emphasise the transactional nature of theleader/led relationship. In this traditionalarrangement, subordinates are primarilymotivated to follow leaders’ requests by a desireto receive rewards and avoid sanctions, which theleader is authorised to apply through recourse totheir formal status.

BureaucraticHierarchy, rulesand regulations

Technical-rationaleEvidence defined by

logic and scientific researchie. what is defined as the “truth”

ProfessionalInformed craft knowledge

and personal expertise

MoralFelt obligation and duties

derived from widely sharedcommunity values and

personal expertise

PsychologicalMotivation technology,

interpersonal skills, humanrelations leadership

Figure 2 Sergiovanni’s sources of leadership authority


Sergiovanni states that more recent changes inorganisational type and structure, coupled with agreater focus on collaboration, have resulted inleadership becoming increasingly stretched acrossorganisations and the broader community. As aresult, leaders are less able to resort tobureaucratic sources of authority and theimpositions of sanctions and rewards. Instead,authority is more likely to come from appealingdirectly to a strong sense of moral purpose and acore set of values and principles held byindividuals (these are also encompassed to somedegree within the notion of professionalism).

This focus on moral leadership is furtherreinforced through a range of behaviours andactions. For instance, the emphasis on developingwin-win relationships is important in placingattention on the ways in which partnerscollaborate in order to achieve a common,moralistic goal. Similarly, the broader modellingby leaders of behaviours which supportpartnership working is also important, forinstance valuing partners, promoting opencommunications etc.

Weber’s tripartite classification of authority offersan alternative approach for considering the basisfor a leader’s authority. It is particularly helpful infocusing attention on the ways in which leaderscan ensure the sustainability of their services overthe longer term. According to Weber, authority isbased on three different sources: these aretradition, charisma and legality/rationality(Bratton et al., 2005:132). These are summarisedin Figure 3. At any one time, a leader will draw hisor her authority from a combination of thesesources. In the case of a school leader workingacross organisational boundaries, greateremphasis will be placed on the first of these twosources, ie tradition and charisma, thanrationale-legal.

TraditionalFollowers accede to leader’s

commands because they havealways done so

CharismaticFollowers obey leaders

who have or appear to haveextraordinary power or skills

Rationale-legalLeader’s legitimacy derives

from his or her position withinthe formal structure

Figure 3 Weber’s typology of authority


Weber’s model is helpful in highlighting theimportant role that individual characteristics canplay in securing buy-in to a vision. Certainly all ofthose individuals included in this studydemonstrated a strong and passionate belief inthe importance of the extended schools, and inseveral instances colleagues in their schoolsdescribed these heads as charismatic.

However, while charisma can be important ininitially gaining support and trust by encouragingpersonal commitment in the short term, anyreliance upon the personality of a singleindividual over the longer term presents issues forthe initiative’s sustainability. In such instances akey challenge for headteachers is to quickly movefrom a position where the initial momentum andimpetus for extended activity comes from thehead to one of a broader collective moralendeavour, in order to promote the longer-termviability of the work.

Transformational leadership

Bass’s study of transformational leadership(Bass, 1998, Bass and Avolio, 1994) provides amechanism for considering some of the waysleaders included in this research addressed theneed for this shift.

In his work, Bass differentiates between two broadtypes of leadership, these being transactional andtransformational. While transactional leadershipoperates on broadly economic principles,transformational leadership draws its authorityfrom a strongly held moral, ethical and evenspiritual conviction (Bryman, 1996:280).Transformational leadership is particularlysignificant in the study of extended schools as it isconcerned with a fundamental reconsideration ofthe relationships, behaviours and attitudes whichunderpin an organisation. Within this context,therefore, it provides a means of understandingthe reasons why individuals would be willing tosupport what may represent a radical reappraisalof what the function of the school is and theirpurpose within it.

In his work, Bass identified four key aspects whichsupported transformational leadership.Collectively these are known as the “Four I’s”(Bryman, 1996:281). These are:

• Idealised influence (the presence ofcharismatic leadership and the modelling ofdesired “citizenship” behaviours).

• Inspirational motivation (the communicationof high expectations and development of ashared vision achieved through the alignmentof personal and organisational values).

• Intellectual stimulation (challenging followersto review their motivation and beliefs).

• Individualised consideration (supporting anddeveloping followers according to theirspecific needs).

Evidence within this study is consistent with manyof Bass’s ideas. For instance, the importance ofmodelling in developing the culture necessary forcollaboration has been highlighted elsewhere inthis report. Examples of this include promotingopenness and valuing the contribution ofother partners.

A commitment to high expectations is central tomany leaders’ belief in the importance of raisingsocial and community capital. This wasepitomised in the notion that the communitiesserved should expect more for themselves andtheir children, and work together to create thefuture they wanted to see.

The development of the extended school sawmany leaders challenge their staff to reflect ontheir beliefs on a range of different things. In thecontext of multi-agency working, though, themain challenge came through a fundamentalreconsideration of what the school stood for andwho it was intended to serve. By seeking toextend the degree of multi-agency working, manyof these leaders also challenged their staff toreconsider their understanding of differentprofessional groups and agencies.


Bass’s fourth “I” concerns the delivery ofindividualised consideration and support tofollowers to meet their needs during thetransformation process. Some evidence of this wasfound during the study, although in truth it didnot form a central focus of the research andtherefore would require further investigation atsome stage.

Leading change

The significance of being able to lead in a climateof change has been a recurring theme throughoutthis report.

In his work, Fullan highlights the relentless focuson change as a major reason for the complexnature of leadership in schools. The need toachieve a fundamental “re-culturing” of theschool to support lasting change is a key part ofthis, while the lack of hard and fast models (anissue covered elsewhere in this paper) also adds tothis complexity (Fullan, 2001b:147).

Both Fullan and Goleman stress the importance ofbeing able to vary the style of leadership used toreflect the challenges the school faces duringdifferent stages of change (Fullan, 2001b:148)(Goleman, 2000). The need for strong diagnosticskills has already been highlighted in Paton andVangen’s work on collaborative thuggery, andclearly connects again here.

Goleman’s description of the six main leadershipstyles is summarised in Figure 4.

Goleman stated that four of these – Authoritative,Affiliate, Democratic and Coaching – had positiveimpacts on climate. The remaining two influences,Coercive and Pacesetting, were negative influences.The latter of these is particularly noteworthy for,as indicated already, many of the heads interviewedin this work had effectively driven the developmentof collaborative working in the early days, partlythrough modelling. There appears to be a need,then, to ensure that pacesetting is undertakenin a way which is seen as positive to the overallorganisational culture rather than becoming anegative drain.

Coercive Authoritative Affiliative Democratic Pacesetting Coaching

The leader’smodusoperandi

Demandsimmediatecompliance

Mobilisespeople towarda vision

Createsharmony andbuildsemotionalbonds

Forgesconsensusthroughparticipation

Sets highstandards forperformance

Developspeople for thefuture

The style in aphase

“Do what I tellyou”

“Come withme”

“People comefirst”

“What do youthink?”

“Do as I donow”

“Try this”

Underlyingemotionalintelligencecompetencies

Drives toachieve,initiative, self-control

Self-confidence,empathy,change catalyst

Empathy,buildingrelationships,communication

Collaboration,teamleadership,communication

Conscientious,drive toachieve,initiative

Developingothers,empathy, self-awareness

When the styleworks best

In a crisis, tokick-start aturnaround orwith problememployees

When changesrequire a newvision, or whena cleardirection isneeded

To heal rifts ina team or tomotivatepeople duringstressfulcircumstances

To build -buy inor consensus orto get inputfrom valuableemployees

To get quickresults from ahighlymotivated andcompetentteam

To help anemployeeimproveperformance ordevelop long-term strategies

Overall impacton climate

Negative Most stronglypositive

Positive Positive Negative Positive

Figure 4 Summary of Goleman’s six leadership styles


The school leaders included in this studyrepeatedly highlighted approaches and strategiesconsistent with the authoritative and affiliativeleadership styles. Core to these were establishingbroad sign-in and ownership of a people-centredvision and relationship building. The democraticstyle was also evidently important in creatingconsensus over the focus for the collaboration.

Although not observed directly within this study,the potential danger of adopting the coercive andpacesetting approaches is nevertheless worthhighlighting. In their way both are appealing, asin the extended schools context they potentiallyprovide a mechanism for short-cutting processesthat may be viewed as cumbersome and time-consuming, and as such delaying the movedirectly into action. The danger of excessivelyusing the pacesetting approach is particularlygreat as, on the face of it, the characteristicsassociated with this are admirable. However,excessive use of this strategy encourages an over-dependence upon the leader, and over the longerterm can prove demotivating and unsustainable.

Bonding and bridging

One of the most consistent themes runningthrough the fieldwork undertaken in this projectcentred on the importance of an open andinclusive approach to leadership. This principle iscentral to the notion of “bridging” rather than“bonding” relationships, processes and actions(Farrar and Bond, 2005:6). In essence, bonding isconcerned with developing highly coherentorganisational structures with a strong sense ofshared purpose and mutual dependency.While such a model is highly attractive in manycircumstances, it can lead to a degree ofintrospection and a sense of exclusivity.In contrast, bridging focuses more on connectingwith other agencies and networks who are able tosupport the achievement of the shared aims andvision. Both kinds of activity are important, butbridging is particularly important for reconcilingdemocracy and diversity (Putnam, 2003:279-280).Within the context of extended schools, bridgingactivities are essential for increasing a genuinecommitment to address areas of common concern.

Putman notes that bridging is implicitly morechallenging than bonding because it demands anopenness to alternative cultures and perspectiveswhich may challenge the accepted wisdoms andgivens of a particular group. Indeed he is quick toemphasise that bridging is “not about Kumbayacuddling” (Putnam, 2003:278) but rather is aprocess concerned with uniting groups withalternative perspectives in a full and genuinedebate, focused upon addressing a commonconcern. Much is written elsewhere in this paperon the different professional cultures of teachers,social workers and others, and the ways in whichthese often lead to conflicts between groups.For leaders, bridging requires confidence andexpertise in dealing with interdependence andmeaning-making as increased demands areplaced on them to help colleagues understand thenecessity for collaboration and the alternativeperspectives offered by different groups. As alreadynoted, the strong moral purpose for extendedschools provides an important source of authorityfor leaders in this context. Modelling an opennessto collaboration and valuing all partners isalso extremely valuable. Communication skills areclearly at a premium in this context.

In terms of the leaders included in this study,practical steps in moving from bonding tobridging included the development of sharedmanagement boards, visioning days, sharedtraining, the establishment of a shared staffroom, and the introduction of inductionprogrammes that included all partners. Morebroadly, leaders sought to establish a commonwill to work together, with the implicitexpectation that individuals would collaborateand operate flexibly to meet the needs of thechildren and families they served. Explicitlyadopting the common values outlined in “Thecommon core of skills and knowledge for thechildren’s workforce” is one potential way ofincreasing this sense of collective purpose andsupporting the induction of staff from otheragencies into the school.


Distributed leadership

Openness to collaboration is also implicit within aleader’s willingness to promote the ethos ofdistributed leadership within the school, animperative described elsewhere in this paper. Inthe extended school, a commitment to sharedleadership is fundamental to dealing with theincreased demands the extension places on thehead, and also in protecting the longer-termsustainability of the school per se. As notedelsewhere, the contribution of individuals such ascommunity engagement workers and extendedschool co-ordinators is particularly important inthis. However, within the extended school thedistribution of leadership moves further, beyondthe confines of the school itself to individuals inpartner agencies and the wider community asa whole.

Many of the leaders included in this studyadopted a strategy of distributed leadership notjust in response to increased workload but alsoout of a deep-seated commitment to buildingleadership capacity and developing individuals.Often this was viewed as part of the broaderdesire to raise social capital.

As noted elsewhere in this paper, adoptingdistributed leadership approaches can bechallenging for leaders, and necessitates a highdegree of trust. Gronn identifies a number ofother demands relating to distributed leadership,including (Gronn, 2003:71):

• the ability to make explicit previously implicitelements of individuals’ roles

• a greater openness to reciprocity andinterdependence

• a higher tolerance of impermanence

• openness to change and different ways ofworking

• tolerance of ambiguity and uncertainty

• strong negotiation skills

Each of these is covered in some form or otherelsewhere in this section of this report.

The need for reciprocity is particularly great, asany leader’s attempts to increase the degree towhich others are empowered to lead is doomedto failure if attention is not given to creating aclimate in which others are inspired to seek outopportunities for leadership themselves(HayGroup, 2004). Indeed, Bush has written ofinstances in which teachers and others have shiedaway from increased leadership opportunities fora range of reasons (Bush, 1995). Furthermore thedistribution of leadership can call into questiontraditional notions of professionalism (Gronn,2003:69) and the nature of the leader/ledrelationship. In times of broader change, such asthe move towards extended schooling, concernsrelating to areas such as these can requiresensitive handling. They also demand that theleader gives considerable attention to creating aculture in which individuals embraceopportunities to lead.


Entrepreneurialism

Entrepreneurship is the final essential ingredientwithin the overall success of extended schools.Indeed, behaviouralist studies ofentrepreneurship highlight a range ofcharacteristics, many of which can be readilyidentified within leaders of extended schools.Blawatt for instance highlights the significance ofrisk-taking and independent and innovativethinking in entrepreneurialism (Blawatt, 1998), allfactors which are important in developing newrelationships and services. In contrast,Lownsbrough notes that many professionalsinvolved in the broader provision of children’sservices are inherently risk-averse, as thepredominant culture is one centred on theprevention of harm rather than on maximisingthe potential for enrichment. The fact that part ofthe current impetus for change and closercollaboration comes from high-profile failureswithin the provision of care to children is likely tofurther reinforce a risk-averse culture(Lownsborough and O’Leary, 2006:17-23).

Fillion (Fillion, 1997) provides a useful summaryof characteristics associated withentrepreneurship which are shown in the tablebelow. Only one of these behaviours –aggressiveness – was not readily identified withinthe leaders included in this study. In contrast,several behaviours were seen to have beenexemplified particularly strongly by thoseinterviewed. These are highlighted in bold inTable 2, and include resourcefulness, tenacity,high levels of energy, and a tendency totrust people.

Table 2 Summary of entrepreneurial behaviours

Blawatt and Filion both highlight the desire forwealth creation as an integral part of theentrepreneurial spirit. However, within the contextof extended schools and multi-agency working thisis more likely to relate to the desire to build social,rather than financial, capital – an ethos consistentwith the notion of social entrepreneurship(Community Action Network, 2003).

Specific examples of entrepreneurial behaviour inthe schools included in the study includedidentifying alternative sources of funding,establishing areas of need, developing serviceprovision and building relationships withpartner agencies.

Innovators

Moderate risk-takers

Creators

Tenacious

Optimistic

Flexible

Need for achievement

Self-confidence

Tolerance ofambiguityand uncertainty

Use of resources

Aggressive

Money as a measure of performance

Leaders

Independent

Energetic

Original

Results-oriented

Resourceful

Self-awareness

Long-term involvement

Learning

Initiative

Sensitivity to others

Tendency to trust people

Source: (Fillion, 1997)

Application


ApplicationThis final section is intended to help schoolleaders further their thinking on the leadershipissues covered in this report. In doing so it describesa number of tools and approaches that leadersmay find it helpful to use with colleagues in theirschool and other organisations involved in thedevelopment of their extended school. In eachinstance a protocol is described which may providea basis for reflecting on the issue under reviewand to support further discussion and planning.

Further information on the tools outlined can beobtained from NCSL’s ‘Self-evaluation: a guide forschool leaders’ (NCSL, 2005) and ‘The Self-evaluation File’ by John MacBeath (MacBeath,2005b), each of which has been drawn upon indeveloping this section.

Example approaches are provided for consideringthe following key issues outlined in the report:

• developing relationships with other agencies

• assessing priorities for collaboration

• encouraging entrepreneurship

• considering the head’s leadership style

• assessing the extent of distributed leadership

• moving to a culture of bridging ratherthan bonding

Considerations in using the protocols

As noted, each of the protocols outlined isintended to provide a basis for reflection andfurther discussion. A critical first step in their useis for leaders to consider what they hope toachieve through this dialogue, and who needs tobe involved in order for this to be possible. Forinstance, assessing the priorities for collaborationwill certainly involve drawing upon the opinionsof colleagues from other organisations, parents,students and the wider community. In contrast,considering the head’s leadership style may be amore solitary activity, or involve reflectiveconversations with peers and colleagues. Similarly,the anticipated outcomes from these activities arealso likely to vary. While the former may focus ondeveloping a list of specific actions to address, thelatter may be more concerned with encouragingdeeper reflection and self-awareness.

The use of these tools and any subsequentdiscussions will also be helped by ground rulesbeing explicitly established at the start of theprocess and the assurance of confidentiality. Onepotential way of doing this is to position therelated discussion as dialogue rather than debate,by highlighting the characteristics of thisapproach as described in Table 3.


Ground rules are particularly important ininstances when those present may feel especiallyvulnerable or uneasy, for instance parents, orcolleagues from other organisations. Thereforeposting ground rules in a visible location,modelling the desired behaviour, and challengingany breach of these rules early are all importantstrategies. In addition to this, school leaders maywish to give consideration to the benefits of usinga neutral facilitator and venue for the discussions,which may put participants further at ease. Thisstrategy has often been used to good effect bymany schools in their “visioning” days, as notedelsewhere in this paper.

An example set of ground rules, based upon thoseused by the Mental Health Foundation, is shownin Figure 5.

Figure 5 Example ground rules (Mental HealthFoundation Conference Centre, 2006)

Please

• Listen to what other people are saying

• Respect the views of other people, even ifyou disagree with them

• Tell us what you think – your views are asvaluable as anyone elses’s

• Use plain English

• Keep your contribution to the point

• Be positive and concentrate on what can bedone rather than what can’t

Please do not

• Feel you have to say something

• Breach others’ confidences

• Criticise individuals, organisations or seek todisparage them

• Use abusive or offensive language

• Concentrate on past failures

Adapted from Mental Health FoundationConference Centre “Ground Rules” atwww.mentalhealth.org.uk/conferences/main.asp?showitemID=169%codeitemID=

Debate

arguing to win a point

assuming that there is one right answer (and that you have it)

combative: attempting to prove the other sidewrong about winning

listening to find flaws

defending your assumptions

criticising the other side’s point of view

defending one’s views against those of others

searching for weaknesses and flaws in theother person

seeking an outcome that agrees withyour position

Dialogue

aiming for consensus

assuming that others have pieces of the answer

collaborative: attempting to find commonunderstanding; about finding common ground

listening to understand

bringing up your assumptions for inspection and discussion

re-examining all points of view

admitting that others’ thinking can improveone’s own

searching for strengths and value in theother’s position

discovering new possibilities and opportunities

Source: (Creasy and Paterson, 2006:30)

Table 3 Debate vs. dialogue


(1) Developing collaborativerelationships with others – using force field analysis

Background

The importance of developing strong relationshipsat all levels with partner organisations has beenhighlighted throughout this paper. A number ofissues are barriers to these, including differencesin language, suspicions between differentprofessionals, variations in the aims andobjectives of organisations, and problems inestablishing initial contact.

At the same time a number of factors can act aseffective facilitators and a basis for buildingrelationships between agencies. Examples of theseinclude the contribution Every Child Matters hasmade to setting the broader policy agenda forcollaboration, the role of Sure Start in promotingcollaboration, and the establishment of Children’sTrusts to support collaboration at thestrategic level.

A key step for leaders in extended schools is toreview these relative strengths and weaknessesand develop a strategy for addressing them orbuilding on them as they look to move thecollaboration forward.

How does it work?

Force field analysis is used to examine theconditions which inhibit or facilitate developmentof a culture, approach or behaviour. Its mainadvantages centre on its simplicity and speed ofcompletion. It provides a means for consideringthe challenges that need to be overcome, andworks well as a basis for further discussion overthe priorities for subsequent action. On theflipside it can be perceived as threatening ifinsufficient context is established for its use, andcan potentially over-simplify the issue underconsideration.

The force field consists of one sheet with two setsof three arrows pointing in opposite directions.These arrows represent the differentcounterforces, ie factors which act as brakes orserve as accelerators. Individuals are given a shortperiod of time to summarise the three keyaccelerators and brakes in their context. This canbe done either individually or as part of acollective task. Responses are then collected andshared more broadly as a basis for furtherdiscussion and action planning.


An example of how a completed force fieldanalysis may look when used to explore thepotential for collaboration with another agency isprovided in Figure 6.

Questions for reflection

• What are the factors which help us workwith partners?

• How can these be developed further?

• What are the main barriers we face?

• How can these be removed or theirsignificance reduced?

Things that hinder(Brakes)

Things that help(Accelerators)

Common ownership of the problem

Bulding on existing relationships

Commitment amongst senior leaders

Inter-agency rivalries

Lack of understanding of each others’ priorities

Poor communications

Figure 6 Example force field analysis of multi-agency working


(2) Assessing priorities for collaboration– using the Extended SchoolEvaluation Profile

Background

The issue of establishing shared priorities forthe extended school is critical to promoting itslonger-term sustainability and ensuring a genuinesense of collaboration. As noted elsewhere inthis paper, accusations of empire-building andusing other agencies to address their prioritieshave been thrown at schools in the past and thedevelopment of a shared vision is vital inaddressing these.

How does it work?

The Extended School Evaluation Profile is amodified version of the School Evaluation Profile,originally used in the European Project on Qualityin Education. It provides a means of consideringthe relative strengths for the school and whetheror not it is felt to be improving each area.

The main advantage of this approach is that itprovides a basis for broader involvement acrossdifferent agencies. The use of a quantitative-basedquestionnaire ensures consistency in thecollection of data across different groups, therebysupporting subsequent analysis. Its structurednature can be inhibiting for some individualshowever. Finally, some consideration needs to begiven to the process by which the items listed inthe left-hand column are identified, to ensurethat they are not viewed as simply representingthe school’s agenda.

In this approach, a number of small groups areestablished, each of which consists exclusively ofmembers of a specific stakeholder group. Withinthe context of school improvement, stakeholdergroups will typically comprise teachers, parents,pupils and governors. However, for the purposesof developing extended school provision andmulti-agency collaboration, alternative groupingsmay be more appropriate, for instance schoolstaff, social services staff, PCT staff, youth workers,voluntary groups etc.

Groups work collaboratively to complete theExtended School Evaluation profile, aiming toreach a consensus on the relative strengthsand weaknesses of the extended school in a rangeof areas. This can be done through discussion.

The responses from different stakeholder groupsare then collated for consideration, usually by asingle, smaller sub-group of approximately 8 to 12individuals from different agencies charged withprogressing this area of work. This group will thenreview the answers given and seek to establish asmall number of agreed priorities which will thenbe taken further over the short term.

An example of how an Extended SchoolEvaluation Profile may look is provided inFigure 7.


Consideration of current position Direction of progressVery strong

++Strong

+Weak

-Very weak

--Improving

?Static

?Deteriorating

?

Aims

The extended school’saims are clearly expressed

These aims are shared byall staff

The aims have beendeveloped in partnership

Aims are owned bypartner staff

Aims are clearlyunderstood by keytarget groups

Collaborative culture

Staff appreciate thedemands of partneragencies

Staff have a goodunderstanding ofpartners’ languageand culture

Staff understand the needfor collaboration and arecommitted to it

Colleagues from otherorganisations are valued

Environment

The environmental needsof staff from otheragencies working inschool are understood

Adequate resources areprovided to enablecolleagues to workeffectively

Environmentalconstraints tocollaboration havebeen addressed

Figure 7 Example of an Extended School Evaluation Profile


• What are the main strengths and weaknesses identified by stakeholder groups?• What agreement is there over the areas for improvement?• Which relate most closely to the school’s improvement plan?• Which can be addressed most easily? • Who needs to be engaged to support these activities?


(3) Encouraging a culture ofentrepreneurship – using Ethos ina Word

Background

The spirit of entrepreneurship is a key ingredientin ensuring that extended schools take advantageof the range of opportunities open to them.Examples of these include accessing alternativesources of funding and developing mutuallybeneficial partnerships to promote the longer-term sustainability of initiatives.

As noted elsewhere, a number of behaviours aresynonymous with entrepreneurship. These includerisk-taking, trustfulness, resourcefulness andflexibility. While heads may be able to embodythese personally, the demand for increasedleadership capacity means a broader of culture ofentrepreneurship is needed for the overall successof the school. Therefore, important actions forschool leaders include reviewing the extent towhich the culture within the school can be seento support entrepreneurship, and identifyingthose areas which need to be addressed topromote this further.

How does it work?

Ethos in a Word is used to establish anunderstanding of the school culture, based uponthe views of different stakeholder groups.

Under this approach, a series of descriptors arelisted alongside their polar opposite. Respondentsare required to consider each aspect in turn,indicating on the numerical scale the degree towhich they feel each description applies. To avoidbias, the columns of descriptors should notconsistently be arranged as either “good” or “bad”but rather should be a combination of both.

The instrument can be completed individually orby groups of professionals from a similarbackground.

Ethos in a Word supports the completion of astatistical analysis and can provide a clearindication of the areas of culture that requirefurther attention. However, its closed format canbe inhibiting to some respondents, and as such afurther open discussion will usually be desirable,rather than using the instrument on its own.

A generic example of the Ethos in a Wordinstrument can be found in NCSL’s self-evaluationmaterials (MacBeath, 2005a:24). An example of amodified instrument, focusing more specificallyon entrepreneurship, is provided in Figure 8. Inthis instance, the characteristics in the left-handcolumn are closely associated with anentrepreneurial culture.


Figure 8 Example “Ethos in a Word” modified to focus on entrepreneurship

1 2 3 4 5

Innovative Constraining

Risk-taking Risk-averse

Creative Unimaginative

Optimistic Negative

Flexible Inflexible

Aspirational Unaspirational

Self-confidence Nervousness

Encourages independence Culture of despondency

Energetic Energy-sapping

Original Unoriginal

Results-oriented Process-focused

Sensitivity to others’ needs Insensitive to others’ needs

Trusting Suspicious

Liberating Based on fear

Imaginative Unimaginative

Empowering Restrictive

Reflective Unreflective

Clear aims and objectives Imprecise aims and objectives

Responds well to conflict Avoids conflict

Long-term perspective Short-term perspective

Democratic Authoritarian


• In what ways is the school’s ethos seen to be entrepreneurial?

•What potential exists to develop these areas further?

•What aspects of culture discourage entrepreneurship?

•What steps can be taken to reduce their influence?


(4) Considering the head’s leadershipstyle to change – using Pi chart

Background

It is difficult to overstate the importance ofeffectively leading change to the overall success ofthe extended school, particularly in its early stagesof development. Goleman and Fullan have bothwritten of the importance of adopting alternativeleadership styles, while Paton and Vangen havehighlighted the importance of different leadershipstyles to the overall success of collaboration.

Heads and other leaders therefore need todevelop a clear understanding of differentleadership strategies and better awareness of theextent to which they adopt these variousapproaches in alternative contexts. Self-awarenessand the ability to adopt alternative strategies areespecially important in addressing the increasedpolitical and outward-facing dimension toleadership in the extended schools context.

How does it work?

The Pi chart stimulates a potentially very quickassessment but one that can generate anextremely powerful discussion. The aim of the Piis to get a broad understanding of the relativeemphasis given to different leadership styles.Often this has centred on a broad three-way splitbetween consensus, command and consultation,and research into the effectiveness of leadershipstyles recommends a 20/10/60 per cent split alongthese lines. However, within the context of theextended school, it may be more helpful to use analternative classification, based upon the stylesGoleman identified, outlined on page 48 of thispaper. To simplify this process, it is suggested thatfour categories be used:

A example of how this may appear is providedin Figure 9. The completed Pi chart can form auseful basis for personal reflection on one’s ownapproach. Generally, the leader him- or herselfcompletes the analysis. However, further benefitmay come from asking their colleagues to alsoproduce an analysis of the leader’s style.Where possible a more powerful use of the toolmay involve a comparison of the findings withother leaders in extended schools, therebyproviding a means of comparing and contrastingone’s own experiences. A comparison over timemay also prove illuminating, particularly duringthe early stages of collaborative working.

1. Coercive

2. Pacesetting

3. Authoritative/affiliative/ democratic

4. Coaching


Figure 9 Example of completed leadership stylesPi chart assessment tool

(5) Assessing the extent of distributedleadership – using the distributedleadership matrix

Background

Developing additional leadership capacity iscritical in addressing the increased demandswhich result from extended schools and a greaterfocus on collaborative working. This is for severalreasons. Firstly, the greater scale of activity mayoften be simply too much for one person or asmall team to handle, and as a result a greaterdistribution of responsibility is required to ensureworkloads remain manageable. Secondly,developing a greater sense of shared leadershipand empowerment is an important ingredient inestablishing the culture of entrepreneurshipdescribed above. Elsewhere, longer-termsustainability requires a collective commitment tothe vision of collaborative working. Increasingleadership capacity is therefore an important stepin promoting this greater sense of ownership andprotecting the commitment to collaborationagainst changes in leadership.Questions for reflection

• What is the leadership style most often used?Is this the right one for the stage of theschool’s extended development?

• What opportunities are there to modelalternative, more positive approaches tocollaboration more consistently?

• If you completed this again in a year’s time,what difference would you expect to seeand why?

Coercive5%

Coaching19%

Pacesetting10%

Authoritative / Affiliative / Democratic66%


How does it work?

The formal and informal leadership matrixprovides a simple way of focusing on the locationof leadership within an organisation. It does thisby encouraging individuals to consider moreclosely and more critically the ways in whichleadership of activities is realised on a day-to-daybasis. At its simplest this can just be a broad list ofindividuals who demonstrate formal and informalleadership of specific areas of activity withinthe school.

One approach to its use is for the head to invite anumber of colleagues to complete this matrixwithin the context of extended school activity.Ideally, these individuals will come from a rangeof levels and, potentially, organisationalbackgrounds. Subsequent discussion may centreupon differences and similarities in who isrecognised as a leader, with the aim that theoverall level of informal leadership may increaseand be valued more. Again, repeating this exerciseafter a set period of time (eg 12 months) mayprovide a basis for reflecting upon the ways inwhich this aspect of organisational culturechanges as the school develops.

An example of a completed distributed leadershipmatrix is provided in Figure 10.


• To what degree is formal and informalleadership shared across the school?

• Is leadership shared in the right areas?

• Is leadership shared consistently, or only in alimited number of areas or with a smallnumber of people?

• Are there opportunities to promote thesharing of leadership further?

• What are the barriers to sharing leadershipmore broadly?

• What more can be done to create a culturewhere all are encouraged to lead?

• Is leadership more shared in the formal orinformal domains?

Formal

MB, Extended schools co-ordinator

FP, headteacher

SLT

KE, ICT co-ordinator – runs excellent computerclub

AC, chair of extended schools managementboard

PM, librarian who runs bookworm club

CC, community engagement worker who runscoffee stop

Informal

SC, caretaker

AH, LG – year 6 pupils who volunteer to help

IB, – learning support assistant who supportscomputer club

WH – AH’s mum who supports the bookwormclub

JK – local parent who has encouraged otherparents to attend coffee stop mornings

Figure 10 Formal and informal leadership matrix


(6) Moving to a culture of “bridging”rather than “bonding” – using theorganisational priorities triangle tool

Background

The move to a culture of bridging rather thanbonding involves a greater openness to alternativeperspectives and cultures (a fuller discussion onthe notions of bridging and bonding social capitalcan be found on page 49 of this report). Indeed,this is essential in developing a sense of sharedpurpose and common values, and fundamental tothe longer-term success of any collaborativeendeavour. Without this change in culture,organisations may work in tandem but notnecessarily develop the genuine synergy neededto achieve the maximum collaborative advantagerequired to address the complex challenges at theheart of ECM.

A key step in moving towards bonding is makingexplicit one’s core priorities and aspirations, andgaining a meaningful understanding of those heldby partner organisations.

How does it work?

The triangle provides a basis for individuals toreflect on the core values of their differentorganisations. Individuals are asked to positionthemselves at the place in the triangle that bestreflects the relative emphasis given to each of thethree priorities. Only in extreme instances will anindividual place themselves on the actual point ofthe triangle, although the differences betweenorganisations will often still be clearly evident.This instrument can be used as a paper-basedexercise or, preferably, involve the identification ofa triangle in the room within which individualswill be asked to physically move. This has theadvantage of introducing a more physical aspectto any discussion, which can increase energylevels and provide a break from seated discussiondebate. As with the other instruments described,this tool is most effective when used as anintroduction to further debate.


• How consistent is the emphasis that differentorganisations place on social justice, well-being and standards?

• What are the reasons for these differences?How widely are these differencesunderstood?

• What common ground exists which can bebuilt upon further?

Wellbeing

Social justice

Standardsin schools /

achievement

Figure 11 Organisational priorities triangle

Conclusions


ConclusionsThis work represents an initial exploration of thecomplexities of multi-agency working within extendedschools. Despite its relatively small scale, a numberof clear findings can be identified which aresummarised in this, the final section of the report.

The first of these is that, if leading a conventionalschool is complex, leading an extended schoolworking with different agencies is even morecomplicated. A number of factors contribute tothis, but it is arguably the “soft” issues of cultureand interpersonal relationships that are the mostdemanding. Further challenge and complexitycomes from the degree to which the move toextended schools working in a multi-agencycontext calls into question core understandingsand assumptions as to what the school is for andthe nature of professional roles. Indeed, asignificant finding from the work is that multi-agency working requires individuals to work moreflexibly, developing skills and approaches whichmeet the specific demands of the school.

Almost by definition, extended schools areorganisations in a permanent state of flux.The absence of a prescribed model for theirdevelopment is at once both a blessing and acurse. It means such schools must reconcilethemselves to a perpetual state of evolution asthe needs and demands of the local communitieschange. Arguably it is through the use of changeleadership models that we are best able toconsider the nature of leadership needed for thecollaborative working intended to meetthese demands.

The scale of this change and the differentdemands on leadership in this context requirenew and exciting ways of thinking and working.At the same time, a genuine commitment to thedistribution of leadership is fundamental to thesustainability of the extended school. Sharingleadership and empowering others to act is alsoone way in which the head can model approacheswhich build capacity. The fact that, within thiscontext, leadership is distributed not just withinthe school but more broadly across partnerorganisations and the wider community meansthat it also makes an important contribution tothe development of social capital.

A further key element to leadership in this contextis the importance of morality. Indeed, reflectionson the work of Sergiovani and others highlightsthe importance of a clear moral purpose inbuilding authority, given the absence of othermore traditional sources. The contribution ofEvery Child Matters to this should not beunderestimated, as it provides a strong drivetowards collaboration in all key areas of childwelfare provision. Similarly, local authorities oftenplay a major role in facilitating relationshipsbetween schools and other partners locally.Within the context of these schools, a strongcommitment to the development of social capitalis also significant.

A range of different leadership qualities andattributes can be seen as essential in thiscollaborative environment. The ability to dealwith the political dimension is particularly key.Many of the attributes associated withentrepreneurship are also essential. Similarly, ageneral commitment to move towards an ethos ofbridging rather than bonding is important inestablishing a more open organisational climateconducive to collaboration. Professionaldevelopment for collaboration is more likely to beeffective if it focuses on nurturing and developingthese and other key attributes than if emphasis isplaced on skill-specific training.

In conclusion, the demands multi-agency workingplaces on school leaders are great. However, ashighlighted at the start of this report, the scale ofambition set out in Every Child Matters andelsewhere is such that no single organisation orindividual leader is able to realise it on their own.Moreover, such approaches are not entirely newto schools, many of which have accumulatedconsiderable expertise in collaborative working,often over many years. Building commitment tothis partnership activity and sufficient leadershipcapacity to support its delivery is essential if thefull potential of extended schools is to be realised.

References


ReferencesACAS (2005) Induction Training. ACAS, London

Alexander, H. and Macdonald, E. (2005), Evaluating policy-driven multi-agency partnership working:A cancer prevention strategy group and a multi-agency, 11th Annual UKES Conference, Manchester,1st-2nd December 2005

Atkinson, M., Kinder, K. and Doherty, P. (2003) On Track: A Qualitative Study of the Early Impacts ofServices. DfES, London

Atkinson, M., Wilkin, A., Stott, A., Doherty, P. and Kinder, K. (2002) Multi-agency working: a detailed study.NFER, Slough

Audit Commission (2005) Corporate governance inspection, at www.audit-commission.gov.uk/reports/NATIONAL-REPORT.asp?CategoryID=ENGLISH^576^SUBJECT^488^REPORTS-AND-DATA^AC-REPORTS&ProdID=BBCDD8B0-2AA3-4a7a-984C-7BA2EA2F0F75&SectionID=sect2#, updated on 21 Jul 2005, accessed on 13-2-06

Bass, B. (1998) Transformational leadership, Mahwah, New Jersey.

Bass, B. and Avolio, B. (1994) Improving organizational effectiveness through transformational leadership,Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks.

Bennett, N., Wise, C. and Woods, P. (2002) Distributed leadership. NCSL, Nottingham

Blair, T. (1997) Bringing Britain together, at www.socialexclusionunit.gov.uk/downloaddoc.asp?id=61,accessed on 24-4-06

Blawatt, K. (1998) Entrepreneurship: theory and process, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.

Bourdieu, P. (1983) In Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (Ed, Richardson, J.)Greenwood Press, New York, pp. 241-258.

Bratton, J., Grint, K. and Nelson, D. (2005) Organisational Leadership, Thomson South-Western, Mason, Ohio.

Bryman, A. (1996) In Handbook of organisation studies (Eds, Clegg, S., Hardy, C. and Nord, W.) Sage,London, pp. 276-292.

Bush, T. (1995) Theories of educational management, Paul Chapman Publishing, London.

Calfee, C., Wittwer, F. and Meredith, M. (1998) Building a full service school, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.

Charlesworth, K., Cook, P. and Crozier, G. (2003) Leading change in the public sector: making thedifference. Chartered Management Institute, London

Children’s Aid Society (2001) Building a community school. Children’s Aid Society, New York

Cigno, K. and Gore, J. (1999) A seamless service: meeting the needs of children with disabilities through amulti-agency approach Child & Family Social Work, 4, 325-335.

Coleman, J. (1988) Social capital in the creation of human capital American Journal of Sociology, 94, s95-s120.

Community Action Network (2003) Social entrepreneurs, at www.can-online.org.uk/se/, accessed on 3-1-06

Craig, J. (2004) Schools Out: strategies for extending schooling. Demos, London

Craig, J., Huber, J. and Lownsborough, H. (2004) Schools Out: can teachers, social workers and health stafflearn to live together?, Demos, London

Creasy, J. and Paterson, F. (2006) Leading coaching in schools. NCSL, Nottingham

Cummings, C., Dyson, A. and Todd, L. (2004) Evaluation of the Extended Schools Pathfinder Projects.Department for Education and Skills, London

Cummings, C., Dyson, A. and Todd, L. (2005) Evaluation of the Full Service Extended Schools project:end of first year report. Department for Education and Skills, London


Daft, R. (2002) The Leadership Experience, Thomson Learning, Mason, Ohio.

Department of Health, H. O., Department for Education and Employment (1999) Working together tosafeguard children: a guide to inter-agency working to safeguard and promote the welfare of children.Department of Health, London

Department of Trade and Industry (2006) England’s Regional Development Agencies: mission statement,at www.consumer.gov.uk/rda/info/#Introduction, updated on 23 January 2006, accessed on 30-1-06

DfES (2003) Every child matters. DfES, Norwich

DfES (2005a) Governors’ roles and governance. DfES, London

DfES (2005b) Multi-agency working: Introduction and overview. DfES, London

DfES (2005c) Multi-agency working: Toolkit for Managers. DfES, London

DfES (2005d) Multi-agency working: Toolkit for Managers of Integrated Services. DfES, London

Dryfoos, J. and Maguire, S. (2002) Inside full-service community schools, Corwin Press Inc,Thousand Oaks, California.

Farrar, M. and Bond, K. (2005) Community leadership in networks. NCSL, Cranfield

Fillion, J. (1997), From entrepreneurship to entreprenology, USASBE Annual National ConferenceEntrepreneurship: The Engine of Global Economic Development, San Francisco, California, 21-24 June 1997

Fullan, M. (2001a) The moral imperative of school leadership, Sage Publications, London.

Fullan, M. (2001b) The new meaning of educational change, Teachers College Press, New York.

Gastil, J. (1997) In Leadership: classical, contemporary, and critical approaches (Ed, Grint, K.) Oxfordmanagement readers, Oxford, pp. 155-178.

Goleman, D. (2000) Leadership that gets results Harvard Business Review, 78-90.

Gronn, P. (2003) In Rethinking educational leadership (Eds, Bennett, N. and Anderson, L.)Sage Publications, London, pp. 60-73.

Hall, D. (1997) Child development teams: are they fulfilling their purpose? Child: Care, Health andDevelopment, 23, 87-99.

Hanifan, L. (1916) The rural school community center Annals of the American Academy of Political andSocial Science., 67, 130-138.

Harker, R., Dobel-Ober, D., Berridge, D. and Sinclair, R. (2004) More than the sum of its parts? inter-professional working in the education of looked after children Children & Society, 18, 179-193.

Harris, A. (2002) Distributing leadership in schools: leading or misleading?, atwww.icponline.org/feature_articles/f14_02.htm, accessed on 15-12-04

HayGroup (2004) The five pillars of distributed leadership in schools. NCSL, Nottingham

HM Government (2005) Common core of skills and knowledge for the children’s workforce. DfES, Nottingham

HM Revenues and Customs (2005) Office of Government Commerce (OGC) Information, atwww.hmrc.gov.uk/about/ogci.htm, updated on 5 May 2005, accessed on 30-1-06

Huxham, C. and Vangen, S. (2000) Leadership in the shaping and implementation of collaboration agendas:how things happen in a (not quite) joined up world Academy of Management Journal, 6, 1159-1175.

Kotter, J. (1995) Leading change – why transformation efforts fail Harvard Business Review, 73, 59-68.

Kronick, R. (2002) Full service schools, Charles C Thomas Publisher Ltd, Springfield, Illinois.

Lownsborough, H. and O’Leary, D. (2006) The leadership imperative.

MacBeath, J. (2005a) Self evaluation: models, tools and examples of practice. NCSL, Nottingham


MacBeath, J. (2005b) The self-evaluation file. NCSL, Nottingham

McCurry, P. (2001) Charities driven to follow the collaboration road, atwww.society.guardian.co.uk/voluntary/story/0,7890,424305,00.html, accessed on 30-1-06

Mental Health Foundation Conference Centre (2006) Ground Rules, at www.mentalhealth.org.uk/conferences/main.asp?showItemID=169&codeItemID=, updated on 2 Feb 2006, accessed on 23-3-06

Morton, R. (2004) Writing on the Wall: pioneer development of integrated local authority services forchildren and families. NFER/ emie, Slough

National Treatment Agency for Substance Misuse (2002) Commissioning drug treatment systems:resource pack for commissioners, at www.nta.nhs.uk/frameset.asp?u=http://www.nta.nhs.uk/publications/commissioners/sect_3_1.htm, accessed on 14-2-06

NCSL (2005) Self evaluation: a guide for school leaders. NCSL, Nottingham

Ofsted (2005) Extended schools: a report on early developments. Ofsted, London

Paton, R. and Vangen, S. (2004) Understanding and developing leadership in multi-agency children andfamily teams. DfES, London

Power, S. (2001) In Education, social justice and inter-agency working (Eds, Riddell, S. and Tett, L.)Routledge, London, pp. 14-28.

Putnam, R. (2000) Bowling Alone: The collapse and revival of American community, Simon and Schuster,New York.

Putnam, R. (2003) Better together, Simon and Schuster, New York.

Riddell, S. and Tett, L. (2001) In Education, social justice and inter-agency working (Eds, Riddell, S. andTett, L.) Routledge, London, pp. 1-13.

Sergiovanni, T. (1992) Moral leadership, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.

Smith, M. (2004) Extended schooling – some issues for informal education and community education, atwww.infed.org/schooling/extended_schooling.htm, updated on 18/2/05, accessed on 18/2/05

Social Care Institute for Excellence (2006) Induction: a basic guide to the principles of good induction,at www.scie-peoplemanagement.org.uk/public/docPreview.php?surround=true&docID=58, updated on3-2-06, accessed on 3-2-06

Southworth, G. (2004) An introduction to distributed leadership. NCSL, Nottingham

Strickland, C. and Knight, M. (2005) Community Service Agreements: A new approach to Public ServiceDelivery, at www.urbanforum.org.uk/events/documents/HandoutCSAs.doc, accessed on 14-2-06

Tett, L., Munn, P., Kay, H., Martin, I., Martin, J. and Ranson, S. (2001) In Education, social justice andinter-agency working (Eds, Riddell, S. and Tett, L.) Routledge, London, pp. 105-123.

Tunstill, J., Allnock, D., Meadows, P. and MacLeod, A. (2002) Early Experiences of Implementing Sure Start.DfES, Nottingham

Tunstill, J., Meadows, P., Allnock, D., Akhurst, S., Garbers, C., Chrysanthou, J. and Morely, A. (2005)Implementing Sure Start Local Programmes: An Integrated Overview of the First Four Years. DfES, London

Wiggins, M., Rosato, M., Austerberry, H., Sawtell, M. and Oliver, S. (2005) Sure Start Plus National Evaluation:final report. Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education, University of London, London

Wikipeadia (2006) Politics, at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political, accessed on 21-2-06

World Bank (2005) Social Capital, at www.web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTSOCIALDEVELOPMENT/EXTTSOCIALCAPITAL/0,,contentMDK:20642703~menuPK:401023~pagePK:148956~piPK:216618~theSitePK:401015,00.html, updated on September 12,2005, accessed on 10-1-06

Yerbury, M. (1997) Issues in multi-disciplinary teamwork for children with disabilities Child: Care, Healthand Development, 23, 77-86.

Further NCSL Resources


Further NCSL Resources

Reports

NCSL has produced several other reports in relation to collaborative leadership. These include:

Working together: helping community leadership work in practice (2006)

This publication aims to support school leaders in engaging more effectively and authentically withtheir communities, and with other agencies and organisations. It examines why this approach isimportant for schools and what this means for future practice.

Lessons from extended schools (2006)

Extended schools are intended to ensure improved access to a range of services for children and theirfamilies, moving towards a focus on the needs of the whole child. This document explores in moredetail the implications of extended schools for their leaders, drawing upon a Leading Practice seminarundertaken in 2005.

ECM: why it matters to leaders (2006)

This publication outlines the importance of the ECM agenda for all school leaders, and sharesopportunities for your leadership development in this area. In it, school leaders talk about their directexperience of leading schools offering access to extended services as part of their commitment to EveryChild Matters.

Taking the wide view – the new leadership of extended schools (2005)

This report outlines the challenges faced by headteachers in building an extended school culture.

Copies of these publications can be downloaded free from the publications section of the NCSL website:www.ncsl.org.uk/publications.

Programmes and seminars

NCSL also offers several programmes to support leaders involved in collaboration. Further details can beobtained from the Community Leadership section of the College’s websitewww.ncsl.org.uk/communityleadership/index.cfm.

Acknowledgements


Acknowledgements NCSL is grateful for the support offered by leaders from the schools and organisations who assisted inthis study. These individuals include:

Bill Hutcheson, Headteacher, Elm Court School

Dave Dunkley, Headteacher, Coleshill Heath Primary School

Carol Beddows, Care Nursery Manager, Coleshill Heath Primary School

Jo Sabin, Sure Start Manager, Sure Start Chelmsley Wood

Ruth Chand, LEA Link Officer, Solihull Local Authority

Clive Bush, Headteacher, Linton Village College

Fiona Fletcher, Family Support Work Manager, Linton Village College

Lesley Silk, Family Support Work Manager, Linton Action for Youth

Cherry Russell, Project Manager, Family Partnership, Sure Start Coventry.

Sue Williams, Programme Manager, Sure Start Coventry

Geraldine McKeown, Early Years Team Leader, Sure Start Coventry

Therese Allen, Headteacher, Wychall Primary School

Tracy Smith, Parent Partnership Worker, Wychall Primary School

Tracey Wearn, Community Project Co-ordinator, Wychall Primary School

Alan Smithies, Headteacher, Parklands High School

Linda Kerans, Extended School Co-ordinator, Parklands High School

PC Mike Ward, Community Police Officer, Parklands High School

Tim Sherrif, Headteacher, Westfield Community School

Donna Sixsmith, Team leader, Social Services, Westfield Community School

Sharon Baker, Deputy Head, Westfield Community School

Mike Faulkner, Vice-chair of governors, Maggie Coghlin, Chair of governors, Westfield Community School

Lorraine Rayner, Business Manager, Westfield Community School

Shirley Leadbarrow, Sure Start Manager, Westfield Community School

Bob Mitchell, ES Co-ordinator, Beauchamp College, Leicester

Richard Parker, Headteacher, Beauchamp College, Leicester

Liz Rowbotham, ES Co-ordinator, Hengrove Community Arts College, Bristol

Stephen Mutargh, Headteacher, Hengrove Community Arts College, Bristol

Ian Mather, Vice-principal, Freebrough Community College, Saltburn-by-the-Sea

John Reveley, Headteacher, Rooks Heath College for Business and Enterprise, Harrow

Dave Parker, Deputy Head, Rooks Heath College for Business and Enterprise, Harrow

Tracey Brazier, Assistant Head, Rooks Heath College for Business and Enterprise, Harrow

Doug Williams, Head of PE, Rooks Heath College for Business and Enterprise, Harrow

Kate Blundell, Alternative Curriculum Co-ordinator, Rooks Heath College for Business and Enterprise,Harrow

Stavrakis Panayiotous, Roxbourne Ward Station, Rooks Heath School

Deep Hirji, Roxbourne Ward Station, Rooks Heath School,

Annie Clouston, Penn Green Children Centre

Stuart McLaughlin, Headteacher, Falmer High School, Brighton


Hilary Price, ES Co-ordinator, Falmer High School, Brighton

Jackie Lees, ES Co-ordinator, Mitchell High School, Stoke

Debbie Sanderson, Headteacher, Mitchell High School, Stoke

Anna Hassan, Headteacher, Millfields Community School, Hackney

Mo Laycock, Headteacher, Firth Park Community Arts College, Sheffield

Ian McLennan, Assistant Headteacher, Firth Park Community Arts College, Sheffield

Gordon Henshaw, Extended School Co-ordinator, Firth Park Community Arts College, Sheffield

Diane Dewick, LEA Extended school officer, Sheffield LEA

Julian Piper, National Programme Director, Extended Schools Support Service, Continyou

John Grainger, Executive Director Extended Schools and Lifelong Learning, Continyou

Cath Lee, Deputy Headteacher, King Edward VII school, Melton Mowbray

Ray Waring, Business Manager, King Edward VII school, Melton Mowbray

Professor Alan Dyson, University of Manchester

Thanks are also given to colleagues who supported the author in the production of this report.The support given by Michael Bristow in the additional research undertaken in developing this report isparticularly appreciated.

Price: £10 where charged for

National College forSchool LeadershipTriumph RoadNottingham NG8 1DH

T: 0870 001 1155F: 0115 872 2001E: [email protected]: www.ncsl.org.uk

© National College for School Leadership, July 2006

PB160

For printed copies of this publication,please visit www.ncsl.org.uk/publicationsand complete an order form. You can alsodownload copies for free from this address.

andy coleman-collaborative leadership in extended schools-ncsl (national college for school...

Documents

moral leadership

transformational leadership

model of leadership

distributed leadership

building leadership

heads leadership style

multiagency environments

disadvantages of multiagency