what we are learning about: leadership of every child matters

What we are learningabout: leadership ofEvery Child Matters

www.ncsl.org.uk

Inspiring leaders;improving children’s lives

ReportSCHOOL LEADERS

This paper focuses on currentknowledge and thinking aboutEvery Child Matters and schoolleadership. Its findings aresummarised in six key messages.

02Six key messages about ECM leadership

Contents

Introduction 03

The key messages 03

Key message 1 04

Key message 2 07

Key message 3 10

Key message 4 14

Key message 5 17

Key message 6 19

Appendix 1: Details of databases and websites searched 24

Appendix 2: Key search terms used 26

References and bibliography 27

03 Six key messages about ECM leadership

IntroductionThe Every Child Matters (ECM) agendaencourages schools to offer extended servicesto help pupils achieve the five ECM outcomes,and to engage their families and the widercommunity in the process. As part of providingextended provision, schools are expected towork closely with a range of other specialistservices to ensure that all pupils can achievethe ECM outcomes. The challenge for schoolleaders is to develop and implement modelsof leadership that are effective in addressingthe ECM agenda, that facilitate and sustaineffective partnerships with other agencies, andthat engender buy-in to the ECM agenda fromstaff, as well as external services. With this inmind, the National College for SchoolLeadership (NCSL) commissioned the NationalFoundation for Educational Research (NFER) toconduct a research study focused on currentknowledge and thinking about ECM andschool leadership.

The findings from this study are summarisedhere in the form of six key messages, evidencefor which was collected from three mainsources: a literature review of relevantmaterial; telephone interviews with keystakeholders, including policy makers,researchers and local authorities; and focusgroups with school leaders (see appendices 1,2 and 3 for more details regarding sourcesand participants).

The key messages

1. Effective school leaders are able to fullyconvince the staff in their school that afocus on ECM can raise standards and thatECM complements, rather than conflictswith, the standards agenda.

2. ECM cannot be achieved by a single schoolleader: effective school leaders shareleadership responsibilities widely amongstthe professionals working within the school

3. ECM outcomes cannot be achieved by theschool alone: effective school leaders adopta collaborative approach with otherschools, agencies and services

4. ECM has widened school leaders’ role andled to an emerging model involvingleadership beyond their own institution,within the wider community

5. Effective school leaders believe in genuinestudent, parent, and communityconsultation in order to develop locallyresponsive solutions to ECM

6. To implement ECM effectively, schoolleaders will require new skills: effectiveschool leaders engage in ongoingprofessional development and promotea whole-school learning culture.


Key message 1

Effective school leaders are ableto fully convince staff in theirschool that a focus on ECM canraise standards and that ECMcomplements, rather than conflictswith, the standards agenda.

What the literature says

The current educational landscape requiresschool leaders to simultaneously raise studentattainment and improve the quality of theirlives (Higham, Hopkins and Ahtaridou, 2007;Carter and Sharpe, 2006). In addressing boththe standards agenda and the ECM agenda,school leaders need to take a ‘wider view’(Craig, 2005) and recognise that there arelimitations to the improvements a sole focuson teaching and learning in the classroom canproduce (NCSL, 2006). Recent literature stressesthat schools are only one contributory factor ina child’s education. Parents, for example, aremore influential than schools up to the ageof 11 years (Desforges and Abouchaar, 2003).Learning increasingly takes place outside ofeducational institutions and it is suggestedthat, if academic standards are to be raised ina sustainable way, school leaders need to seetheir role in terms of a broader social functionas opposed to a narrow emphasis onimproving classroom practice (Otero and WestBurnham, 2004). This broader social functionis addressed in the ECM agenda and thereforerecognising the links between ECM andstandards is increasingly pertinent. Schoolleaders need to recognise the role thatcommunities as ‘the silent teacher’ can havein achievement and, when seeking to raisestandards, shift from focusing on institutionalimprovement to community transformation(Craig and O’Leary, 2006; Otero and West-Burnham, 2004). This concept has beenreferred to as building ‘social capital’.

School leaders who are successful in meetingthe ECM agenda recognise the links that ECMhas with the standards agenda (Kendall et al.,2007). Staff in ECM engaged schools take theview that ECM goals will ultimately impact onstandards of attainment. Kendall et al (2007)state that school leaders may find it usefulto demonstrate these links to their staff and,where possible, gather evidence to reinforcethis link. The literature goes on to suggest thatleaders of extended schools and children’scentres who have a vision for the five ECMoutcomes and also for improved standards,deliver the most effective extended services(Ofsted, 2006). However, Bond and Farrar (n.d)believe that education professionals may notfeel comfortable with ECM where they see thisas less directly relevant to raising standards.Making these links explicit for them maytherefore help some staff to embrace a widerdefinition and provide a more child-centredfocus for their work.

What the stakeholders say

Making the link between ECM and standardswas one of the most frequently identified waysfor leaders to promote buy-in to ECM amongsttheir staff. There was agreement amongststakeholders that effective school leadersrecognise the alignment of the ECM agendaand the standards agenda: ‘They are sofundamentally tied together’; ‘People havegot to see that it is one and the same thing.’Not all stakeholders were convinced that themajority of headteachers think in terms ofECM, rather, that ECM may be seen assecondary to attainment, or that they cannotfocus on both and therefore believe ECM to bea distraction. There was also a view that someheadteachers see ECM as an initiative or policydevelopment and therefore as an ‘add on’.If treated in this way, it was thought that ECMwould be perceived as intrusive by staff.Stakeholders stated that ECM needed to beintegrated and embedded into schools’


working practice and that school leaders needto see extended school activities as being asimportant as activities in the traditional schoolday. They added that effective leaders linkECM into the core purpose of the school andconstantly reinforce this message so it becomesintegrated into practice.

Stakeholders pointed to evidence of variabilityacross different types of schools. Schools inmore challenging communities were reportedto buy in to ECM more readily because theyrecognise that wellbeing and learning sit handin hand, whilst schools in affluent areas weresaid to see ECM as less of a priority. There wastherefore a view that some headteachers needto be convinced that ECM is about ‘doingthings for all children and not just a few’.

The use of peer pressure to encouragecommitment amongst disengagedheadteachers was raised by more than onestakeholder. According to one local authorityrepresentative, where headteachers who are akey influence and well respected by their peersare used to influence their colleagues,‘movement in relation to ECM tends to occur’.This was considered more productive than thelocal authority exhorting schools to becomeinvolved. Stakeholders thought that schoolleaders could be encouraged to engage byfocusing on the benefits of ECM, particularlyin terms of delivering their core purpose (i.e.evidence that ECM impacts on pupil learning)and by building on what they are alreadydoing towards ECM. Good evidence ofeffectiveness (or ‘early wins’) was reportedto shift some of those who are less inclined.It was thought that the sharing of goodpractice can also provide ‘enormous drive tomove things forward’. In addition, strategicvision and leadership from the local authoritywas thought to be influential.

Stakeholders stated that strong messageschampioning ECM are required at all levels ofthe system, by central and local government.

They thought that clarity about what is meantby ECM is required and considered it easier tofocus on specific areas (e.g. extended services).It was reported to be ‘a big leap of faith’ tomove from the traditional school day toextended services, but there was evidence thatengagement in extended school activitiescould change school staff’s perceptions aboutteaching and learning and make it easier forthem to embrace ECM.

Some stakeholders indicated that therewere particular issues to do with teachers’awareness of ECM and its significance as astrategy. It was considered essential, therefore,that school leaders reinforce amongst theirstaff the message that ECM can lead to raisedattainment by meeting the wider needs ofchildren and overcoming barriers to learning.Effective leaders ensure staff recognise theymay not see improvements in standardsunless they engage with this agenda. It wasconsidered important to dispel misconceptionsabout the tensions between ECM andstandards. There was also a view that ECMshould not be seen as purely instrumental inraising attainment, rather that the fiveoutcomes are of intrinsic value themselves.

For many stakeholders the key is integratingECM outcomes into school leaders’ thinkingabout school development and improvementplanning. According to one local authorityrepresentative, leaders who effectively designschool improvement plans (SIPs) around theECM outcomes make the connection for staffbetween ECM and standards. The Ofstedinspection process and the self-evaluationform (SEF) were reported to drive this processand reference was made to TeacherDevelopment Agency (TDA) materials as apractical tool to support school leaders withthis process.

Effective school leaders provide clarity of visionand keep staff informed and involved in whatis happening. One stakeholder described this


as the single most important factor influencingbuy-in to ECM. Alongside this, it wasconsidered important that school leadersensure that their staff have a goodunderstanding of all the elements of theECM agenda and why they are important.A distributed leadership model was thoughtto assist the process of staff engagement andpromote a sense of ownership (see keymessage 3). Stakeholders indicated thateffective school leaders recognise that staffmay be at different levels of engagement andthey therefore define a self interest in ECMengagement for staff (by homing in on what isin it for them) rather than exhorting people toengage. They are sensitive to staff concerns,particularly about overburdening them. It wasalso suggested that it was helpful to identifylocal champions, to showcase good practiceand provide exemplars of what teachers arealready doing towards ECM (‘join the dots forpeople and make connections’). One localauthority, for example, had drawn up a charterwhich schools could use as an audit tool tomeasure themselves against to enable themto see what ECM means in practice. In someschools, extended school coordinators werereported to be collecting evidence of impacton learners and in this way enabling schoolleaders to demonstrate that involvement inthe wider aspects are beneficial for learning.

What the school leaders say

There was general agreement amongst schoolleaders that all schools need to be engagedwith ECM and that the Ofsted process shouldensure this. Some school leaders considered itso integral to their work they found it difficultto conceive that a headteacher might not beon board with the ECM vision (although aschool might struggle with the practicalities).They insisted schools were accountable andECM could not be ignored: ‘It is the bedrockand baseline of so many other things.’ Theyagreed with stakeholders that it could not be

seen as merely an initiative and had to beintegrated into practice: ‘ECM should be seenas integrated into everything and not just bolton.’ However, one headteacher voiced theopinion that ECM was not originally designedto raise standards, since it was introducedin response to the need to bring agenciestogether to safeguard children.This headteacher pointed out the conflictbetween the rationale behind ECM and that ofthe standards agenda: ECM is about the childwhereas standards are about the school.Countering this argument, anotherheadteacher stated that the greater the focuson the child, the more likely that schoolswould raise standards, because the barriersto learning are more openly shared and easierto manage.

Consistent with the stakeholder view, schoolleaders felt that schools in socially deprivedareas are more likely than schools in affluentareas to perceive ECM as a vehicle to raiseachievement, and the latter are therefore lesslikely to make this connection. The head ofa federation gave examples of two schoolsin different areas with the same seniormanagement team (SMT), where one schoolwas reported to have engaged in ECM morereadily because it was considered importantfor the local community. School leadersreiterated the view of stakeholders regardingthe need to get the message across: ‘ECM is forevery child. It is universal practice, not just forkids who need support.’

Whilst school leaders did not feel there wasmuch resistance to ECM amongst their staff,they stated that the staff most engaged in ECMare not teachers. They also said that teachersare not used to this being part of their roleand that some school staff do not feel it is partof their remit. In particular, they pointed tothe fact that teachers in secondary schoolshave traditionally dealt with subject areas andthe expectation that they address the needs ofthe whole child is therefore a culture change.


School leaders felt that the knowledge andcommitment of the school leadership teamis particularly influential in enlisting staffengagement. Where this is in place, ECM wasreported to be better understood by staff andthe link between ECM and standards mademore explicit. It was considered important thatall staff have training in ECM and for them toknow the priorities of the school in relation tothe agenda and the understanding behind this.

The general view, supported by stakeholders,was that staff could be brought on board byframing the school development plan (SDP)around ECM. The agenda would then be drivenby meeting the targets/developments withinthe SDP. The school improvement process,particularly the requirement within the SEF toaddress ECM outcomes, was considered to havebeen particularly useful to school leaders inhelping them to get staff on board. Accordingto the headteacher of a special school,standards and ECM can be married by havingindividual education plans (IEPs) whichintegrate the five outcomes and meetstandards: ‘The strands aren’t alien tostandards. They are all tangibly married. It isabout being overt. You write your developmentplan and ensure that you hit all the triggers.’Where an explicit link between ECM andstandards is not made, it was reported thatthere could be divisions amongst staff, i.e.between those for whom everything revolvesaround ECM and those who have little to dowith the agenda, and that, as a result, workundertaken by pastoral staff with the childrenmay not be followed through in the classroom.Therefore, whilst retaining a sharp focus onteaching and learning, it is important topromote serious engagement with ECM byall staff.

The performance management process wasalso considered helpful in terms of inducingpeople to change. Headteachers explained thatlongstanding teachers do not always buy in tonew developments so this process can take

time: ‘Change is difficult and moving themon is difficult.’ Teaching and learningresponsibility (TLR) payments were reported tohave helped to get the right staff on board andto change management structures.

School leaders stated that, if there wascommitment to ECM from the local authorityand the children and young people’s planhad been written from this perspective, thiscommitment is easier to pass on to schools.School leaders also noted that they looked tosupport from the government and from thewider community to support ECMimplementation.

Key message 2ECM cannot be achieved by asingle school leader: effectiveschool leaders share leadershipresponsibilities widely amongstthe professionals working withinthe school


In light of the increased demand that ECM hasplaced on headteachers, many are now clearthat they will not achieve the five outcomesthrough their skills alone. As such, schoolleaders are harnessing the skills of otherschool staff and, by drawing them into thedecision-making process, are building capacityfor others to take on wider leadership roles.This is resulting in a distribution of leadershipwhich has frequently been identified as aneffective approach for promoting the aims ofECM (Higham et al., 2007).

ECM has also provided the opportunity fornon-teaching staff (e.g. extended schoolscoordinators) to play a bigger role inleadership teams, and created opportunitiesfor the role of associate staff to be developed,particularly where their roles are linked to ECMoutcomes (Kendall et al., 2007).


As a result, flatter management structures areemerging which allow for a maintained focuson teaching and learning(PriceWaterhouseCoopers, 2007). School leadershave been looking at the expertise both withintheir school and locally beyond the school todetermine the best person to deliver specificaspects of extended provision (LGA, 2004).This not only brings in specialist teachingskills, but also relieves the perceived pressureof ECM on teaching staff.

Distributed leadership requires delegationof strategic, management and operationalresponsibility (Munby, 2007) and the literaturesuggests that some leaders find it difficult tohand over elements of control. It requiresa high level of trust in those who take onresponsibility (Coleman, 2006). It also relieson school leaders making previously implicitelements of individual roles explicit and clear,being more open to interdependence, tochange, and to different ways of working(Gronn, 2003). It was stressed that currentschool leaders need to recognise that theirschools are the training grounds for futureleaders. Indeed, some authors have suggestedthat distributed leadership is integral tosecuring system-wide development and change(Carter and Sharpe, 2006). It also means thatknowledge and expertise is less vulnerable toorganisational or external shifts and changes,and as such is more likely to ensuresustainability (Harris and Mijuis, 2004 citedin Harris, 2005).


There was agreement amongst stakeholdersthat it was unrealistic and unhelpful forheadteachers to take on single-handedly thewider set of responsibilities that ECMembraces. The ECM agenda was reported tobe too broad to continue with the traditionalleadership model where the headteacher hasauthority over everything. It was therefore

seen as essential that these responsibilitieswere delegated or shared amongst a widerteam and ‘distributed’ leadership wasfrequently identified by stakeholders as anapproach currently being used to promote theaims of ECM. Echoing the literature, there wasa view that progress with regard to ECM wouldbe impossible and unsustainable without ashift to distributed leadership. Examples of thismodel, where specific parts of the ECM agendaare shared out amongst a team of leaders,were reported to be on the increase. As a resultof workforce reform, some schools werereported to have restructured their leadershipteams and realigned leadership responsibilitieswith ECM. Effective leaders were reported tofocus on staff strengths and to nominateindividuals to implement and develop specificECM areas (e.g. by taking charge of a particularECM outcome). The introduction of TLR wasfelt to have facilitated this process, although,variation amongst local authorities wasevident, for example, in one local authority, itwas considered uncommon for staff to have anECM brief and TLRs were reported to remainfocused on achievement.

Distributed leadership was reported to havechanged the school leader role dramatically.The move to shared leadership responsibilitieswas felt by some stakeholders to be a majorchallenge for school leaders in terms of boththeir mindset and their skill set (see keymessage 6). They were sometimes reportedto find it difficult to distinguish betweenaccountability and responsibility, and felt theneed to remain in control: ‘They have to beable to let go and not hold all the reins.’Where headteachers retain control and thereare no processes and systems in place to allowothers to take on management responsibilities,it was agreed that the wider ECM agendawould be impossible to manage.

Stakeholders stated that, because of the widerfocus and the need for greater collaboration,new leadership roles that are emerging have


begun to include non-teaching professionals.This was considered beneficial in that itfacilitated a wider range of outcomes andhelped overcome barriers to learning.The wider membership of leadership teamswas considered to be working successfully insome instances, although it was also reportedto be in its early stages. One local authorityrepresentative expressed the morecontroversial view that perhaps schools mightlook to those outside of the teachingprofession for school leaders, in common withthe children’s centre initiative which employsleaders from a variety of professions.He/she argued that this would result in betterprovision for the community populationas a whole. However, there was anacknowledgment that, at the current time, itwould be inconceivable for schools to havea non-educationalist at their head because ofthe focus on teaching and learning. The title‘headteacher’ was said to be ‘a difficult bridgeto cross’.

The introduction of professionals fromdifferent backgrounds was considered acultural change for school leaders andstakeholders stated that it was necessary forthem to have an understanding of what theseprofessionals can contribute to teaching andlearning. The greater role of non-teachingprofessionals was said to have implications forschool leaders, in particular with regard toperformance management.


School leaders agreed with stakeholders thatthere are too many ECM elements for leadersto handle alone and that there is a danger ofheadteachers spreading themselves too thinly.In the majority of cases, leadershipresponsibilities are shared amongst the seniorleadership team and this now includes anon-teaching element (e.g. extended schoolscoordinators and non-teaching pastoral

managers). Support staff were said to playkey roles on senior leadership teams in someinstances. A number of school leaders reportedhaving changed the structure of theirleadership teams to encompass the broaderroles associated with ECM. There was clearevidence that they allocate ECM responsibilitiesand have specifically delegated roles to workwithin the community and on a multi-agencybasis. They stated that this helps to raise theprofile of ECM within the school and that,without such measures, things were unlikely tochange. Some schools had used TLR paymentsas an opportunity to restructure pastoral andleadership systems in line with ECM: ‘It’s aboutgetting the right people on board and themanagement of change. … It’s about knowingwhat you want, where the barriers are andchanging the structures to help. You movesome on and others step aside.’

The profile of school staff was reported to havechanged dramatically over the last few years(i.e. less than 40 per cent are now teachers)and this was felt to be a visible outcome ofECM and workforce reform. The learningmentors in one school, for example, as thestaff most involved with ECM, had gained ahigher profile by virtue of this status. It wasnoted, however, that the promotion of the roleof support staff can contribute to the view ofsome teachers that ECM is the role of others.Effective school leaders, therefore, reinforcethe message that ‘ECM is not the job of theSENCO … ECM is everyone’s job. It is a sharedresponsibility for everyone in the school. Youneed everyone on board within and beyondthe school.’ Other than within children’s centres,school leaders were not aware of any instancesof other agencies taking the overall lead withineducational institutions or schools and somefound this a difficult concept to accept.

In line with stakeholders’ views, school leadersstated that the introduction of ‘para’professionals in schools has significantimplications for them.


Unlike teachers, these professionals areunlikely to have a foundation of training,education and experience. This was said tocreate issues for school leaders with regard toperformance management, continuingprofessional development and‘professionalism’, as well as having thepotential to affect the culture and ethos withinthe staff room. Thus, they raised the questionas to how school leaders can effectively inductthese professionals into the schoolenvironment and ethos. School leaders decriedthe ‘blinkered’ role of national and localgovernment with regard to the changingworkforce in schools, which meant they hadlittle opportunity to remunerate support staff.Whilst occupational standards were reported tobe moving towards a more professional footing,a pay structure that financially rewardssupport staff was still felt to be a long way off.They also reported the disparity between thesalary of teaching staff compared to that ofassociate staff to be a significant issue.

Key message 3

ECM outcomes cannot be achievedby the school alone: effectiveschool leaders adopt acollaborative approach with otherschools, agencies and services


Collaborative working is at the very heart ofthe ECM agenda and, with the emphasis onintegrated children’s services and the provisionof more community-led activities, schoolleaders are being asked to work as partnerswith a whole range of services to meet theneeds of children, young people and the widercommunity (Craig and O’Leary, 2006).Increasing numbers of schools are adopting amulti-agency approach to school leadership asa well-developed and direct response to ECM

(PriceWaterhouseCoopers, 2007). This approachis outward looking, interagency focused andoften involves teaching staff and professionalsfrom other agencies working together as aleadership team.

In working with partners to achieve ECM,effective leaders enter into the ‘spirit ofcollaboration’ (Huxham and Vangen 2005;2004; Vangen and Huxham, 2003), have agenuine desire to work in partnership and donot perceive it is as being externally imposed(Kendall et al., 2007). They seek to achieve a‘collaborative advantage’, i.e. something thatwould not have been possible without the actof collaboration (Huxham and Vangen, 2004and 2005; Huxham 2003) and find ‘win-win’strategies that have a common interest at thecentre (Coleman, 2006). Indeed, collaborativeadvantage is a key motivation for establishingpartnerships beyond the school because theschool, with its primary focus on educationalattainment, cannot achieve the ECM outcomesalone. The imperative to work towards the fiveECM outcomes provides the common goals andpurpose necessary for successful collaboration(Kendall et al., 2007; Frost and Lloyd, 2006).

Inter-school collaboration can also helpschools to meet ECM requirements, resultingin collaborative advantage and providing alifelong learning approach to a school’s focus.In order to achieve the five outcomes,headteachers are recognising that working withtheir local or neighbouring schools is crucialto continued success and raised standards(Fullan, 2004). Federations of schools thathave evolved are characterised by varyingdegrees of collaboration between schools, orbetween schools and other providers(PriceWaterhouseCoopers, 2007).

The literature highlights that, on a day-to-daybasis, effective collaborations are led byoutward-looking school leaders who aresolution-focused and start from the problemitself as opposed to the procedures


(Anning et al., 2006; Lownsborough andO’Leary, 2005; PriceWaterhouseCoopers, 2007).An array of strategies for leading collaborationseffectively is apparent. There is no prescribedmodel and approaches need to be tailored tothe local context. However, six key leadershipstrategies for facilitating effective collaborationemerge from the literature:

• Organisational aspects(PriceWaterhouseCoopers, 2007; Coleman,2006; DfES, 2006; Frost and Lloyd, 2006;Ofsted, 2006; SWQ, 2006; White et al., 2005;HM Treasury, 2004)

• Clarity of purpose (DfES, 2006; NCSL, 2006;Frost and Lloyd, 2006; HM Treasury, 2004;Bond and Farrar, n.d)

• Role demarcation (Coleman; 2006; DfES,2006; Frost and Lloyd, 2006; Lownsboroughand O’Leary, 2005)

• Good levels of communication(PriceWaterhouseCoopers, 2007; Ofsted,2006; SWQ, 2006; Bond and Farrar, n.d)

• A partnership approach (DfES, 2006;Ofsted, 2006; SWQ, 2006; HM Treasury, 2004)

• Establishing trust and mutual respect(Carter and Sharpe, 2006b; Coleman, 2006;e.g. Huxham and Vangen 2005).

Successful collaboration takes time (Atkinsonet al., 2002; Cummings et al., 2003 and 2004).To avoid ‘collaborative inertia’, effective schoolleaders set realistic targets and timescales,start small and move gradually to moreambitious targets, as well as building uponexisting long-standing partnerships wherepossible (Coleman, 2006; Cummings et al., 2003and 2004; HM treasury, 2004; Huxham 2003;Huxham and Vangen, 2004 and 2005; NCSL,2006; Vangen and Huxham, 2003; White et al.,2005). Local authorities can also play animportant role in supporting school leadersand acting as a key facilitator for engagingpartners (Coleman, 2006; Ofsted, 2006). Forinstance, they can help develop strategic

collaborations between agencies and schools oramongst groups or clusters of schools and canencourage more reluctant partners to engage.


There was a general consensus amongststakeholders that effective school leadersrecognise that they (and their schools) cannotdeliver the wider ECM outcomes in isolation.Effective leadership therefore involves a strongbelief in, and commitment to, partnershipworking and recognition that differentagencies and services have different expertiseto contribute. Leadership was considered tobe highly contextual and to involve thedevelopment of a vision that is clearly aboutdeveloping partnerships and good relationswith other organisations and other services.Effective school leaders ensure that thepartnership is worthwhile and purposeful, andthey demonstrate to their staff that workingtogether adds value. According to onestakeholder, providing examples that show thatpartnership working is worthwhile ‘createsmomentum’. Whilst headteachers werereported to have become better at workingwith a range of partners, some thought therewas still a long way to go before they becomecomfortable with other deliverers providingservices within schools.

Most stakeholders maintained that the key toeffective leadership of partnership working isabout ‘understanding where the other side iscoming from’. When asked about the advicethey would give to leaders new tocollaborative working, they stressed the needfor leaders to respect what other agenciesbelieve is precious, recognise the otheragency’s authority and ‘shed the skin of theirown self importance’. Effective leadersunderstand the pressures and drivers of otherservices. They understand how the partnershipcan fulfil the school’s objectives, whilst at thesame time ‘hitting other people’s targets’ and


they agree joint objectives rather than ‘pushtheir own’. According to one stakeholder, beingable to fulfil other agencies’ statutoryresponsibilities is an important lever forpartnership working. To achieve this, effectiveleaders engage in constant dialogue and enteralternative professional frames of reference,and this can necessitate reframing their ownunderstanding of education. They are willingto talk openly and honestly about what bothsides want out of the partnership and todevelop mutual trust. Many stakeholdersstressed the need for open mindedness anda focus on listening. A didactic approach wasconsidered counterproductive in partnershipworking as it was thought that it could lead tothe disempowerment of others. Alongside this,stakeholders stated that effective leadersensure clarity of language and meaning,otherwise they can make assumptions aboutother agencies: ‘You can assume an intent theydon’t have.’

Stakeholders said that school leaders candevelop a feel for what is happening locallyand, as noted in the literature, feed intopartnership forums and networks that alreadyexist to avoid duplication. Increasingly, theywere reported to be using a range of multi-agency forums as a way of strategically planningto deliver the ECM outcomes and the core offerfor extended services. It was suggested thatthey work alongside local authorities and linkinto local authority structures and processes toassist them with partnership working. Localauthority brokerage was considered to be oneof the levers they could use for effectivelyengaging partners. However, how farpartnerships should be brokered through thelocal authority and how far schools should bepart of wider local authority partnerships andsystems is, according to one stakeholder, stillup for debate.

There was a view that, where money wasprovided for people to work together,collaboration and joint leadership

automatically follow: ‘You need the lure ofjoint funding that people can play with.’According to some stakeholders, effectiveleaders think creatively about governancearrangements so that there is sharedparticipation, shared responsibility andaccountability, and so that partnerships aresustainable. There were said to be wide viewsand practices concerning leadership withindifferent agencies/services. According to onepolicy maker, these differences need to beunpacked for multi-agency working to beeffective. In contrast, another stakeholderstated that, increasingly, the same valuesare embedded in effective leaders acrossthe sectors.

Operationally, effective leadership ofpartnership working was thought to be aboutproviding strong direction and clarity aboutwhat can be achieved, as well as the capacityof individual leaders to be able to buildand sustain close and appropriate workingrelationships across boundaries. Where schoolsare already involved in other initiatives(e.g. Behaviour Improvement Programmes andBehaviour and Educational Support Teams)and the structures and commitment topartnership working are already in place, thiswas thought to provide a platform on which tobuild. Effective leaders provide opportunitiesfor staff from different cultures to work togetherto enable them to become familiar with eachother’s worlds and to address underlyingassumptions about each others’ roles. Therehas to be clarity about roles and responsibilitiesand different ways of working necessitatejointly agreed protocols on how to worktogether. According to one stakeholder, schoolsoften begin by thinking they have to controleverything on the school site and that militatesagainst building networks which may helpthem to achieve better outcomes for children.

Inter-school collaboration, where headteacherswork alongside each other for the benefit ofthe children, parents and communities they


serve, was identified by stakeholders aseffective for addressing children’s wider needsand therefore the ECM agenda. What wasdescribed as the ‘old style of leadership’, whereheadteachers are competitive, inward lookingand aggressive in pushing forward their ownagenda, was considered ineffective.Stakeholders stated that school leaders canfind inter-school collaboration a challengebecause of the tension between a collaborativeapproach and the competitive environment.However, they described models of headshipthat move beyond the leader of a singleinstitution towards a more collective approach(e.g. executive headship of federations andsupportive headship models). Federatedleadership, for example, was cited as aneffective strategy for engaging partners since itwas thought that, by schools working together,local services can respond more easily (ratherthan having to engage with a number ofdifferent schools) and this can prevent servicesbeing fragmented.


School leaders, in line with stakeholders,agreed that, as a result of ECM, schools couldno longer work in isolation and needed towork in collaboration with other partners.They stated that ECM had led to a dialoguewith a broader range of stakeholders and thatschools were now working more collaborativelywith other agencies and with other schools.It was thought that ECM had facilitated acommon approach amongst agencies and thatthis enabled them to share concerns and workmore closely together. Pre-ECM, it was felt thatother agencies were often critical of the wayschools operated. Partnerships were said to bebecoming more formal and some referred tostrategic groups or meetings (e.g. communitylearning partnerships) they attended withrepresentatives from other agencies. Schoolleaders talked about how positive the movetowards partnership working has been becausethe child’s needs are considered paramount.

On a day-to-day basis, school leaders thoughtthat the key factors in terms of leadership ofcollaborations are the commitment of theleadership team, the establishment of a clearrationale for partnership working andarticulating a clear vision, as well as effectivecommunication. There was a view that, withschools the only constant in some children’slives, they are often the only organisation ableto effectively coordinate agencies/servicesaround the child.

School leaders indicated that they still foundworking with other agencies problematic in anumber of ways. They shared concerns aboutthe funding for partnership working and thesustainability of any additional support thatis offered to children and families as a result.They stated that there can be difficulties ininvolving all the relevant agencies, particularlyhealth, and in achieving a sharedresponsibility. It was also reported to bedifficult to see the immediate results ofpartnership working and thereby for schoolleaders to justify the time spent to staff.

The view of one stakeholder with regard tothe need for schools to control the servicesprovided on the school site was borne out bythe practical problems that school leadersraised. They stated that it can be difficult forschool leaders when they have no authorityover partners operating on the school site.Whilst, in common with stakeholders, theyagreed that it was important to respect theprofessional expertise of other agencies, theystressed the importance of establishing agreedprotocols with other agencies in suchinstances. Lack of physical space to houseother agencies was reported to be problematicfor some smaller primary schools.

Whilst discussions centred mainly oninteragency collaboration, as withstakeholders, the importance of collaborationrather than competition amongst schools wasstressed and this was thought by one of theschool leaders to be an important key message


for schools. The role of the local authority inpartnership working was reported to vary.Some were said to work directly with schoolsto facilitate collaboration with other schoolsand with other agencies, whilst others allowschools to work more autonomously. Somelocal authorities are more likely to have therelevant systems and structures in place thanothers. The type of local authority was alsoconsidered influential. In a rural locality, forexample, the isolation of institutions andperceived lack of coherence of services was feltto make partnership working more difficult.

Key message 4

ECM has widened school leaders’role and led to an emergingmodel involving leadershipbeyond their own institution,within the wider community


The ECM agenda has expanded headteachers’responsibilities and given them influencebeyond the boundaries of their school andwithin the wider social system in which theirschool operates. As a result, a new leadershipapproach is emerging, referred to in theliterature as ‘system leadership’ (Hopkins,2005). This embraces all the different modelsof leadership a headteacher can assumebeyond the traditional boundaries of theschool (e.g. leaders of extended schools,executive headteachers and federation leaders,community leadership) and recognises theinterdependence between schools, otherorganisations and communities (O’Leary andCraig, 2007). It is suggested that school leadersneed to shift from focusing on institutionalimprovement to community transformation,referred to as ‘social capital’, as noted earlier inkey message 1 (Craig and O’Leary, 2006; Oteroand West-Burnham, 2004).

This approach seeks to build sustainableleadership capacity and system-widedevelopment and change (Carter and Sharpe,2006; Harris et al., 2006). According to Barnes(2006), as well as contributing to the ECMagenda, system leadership can develop anability to ‘think big’ and act in larger terms.It also allows schools to work for the interestsof pupils across a wider system rather than formore parochial school self-interest.

Networking with other schools has providedthe ground for system leadership (Carter andSharpe, 2006b). The literature suggests thatnetworks are creating environments in whichschool leaders are responding to thechallenges of leading development work andlearning beyond their own school, with thechallenges of the wider locality driving theirconcern. Beyond collaborating with otherschools (discussed in key message 3), someleaders have begun to take on responsibilityfor more than one school (Hopkins, 2005).Known as executive headship, this is targetedat integrating professionals with a wide rangeof experiences and expectations.

Leaders involved in working beyond their owninstitution and within the community willrequire a range of skills to create connectedstrategies to influence change within their ownschool, across other schools, within externalagencies, and with the community. Futureschool leadership will involve buildingcommunities within schools, between schoolsand beyond schools (Collarbone, 2005) and, assuch, will involve high-level skills in managingand brokering relationships. Six key leadershipcharacteristics have been identified within theliterature in relation to this approach(PriceWaterhouseCoopers, 2007):

• A willingness to take on system-wide roles

• A moral and strategic purpose

• A focus on enhancing the quality oflearning, teaching and assessment


• An ability to make schools personal andprofessional learning communities

• A commitment to building capacity throughnetworking and collaboration

• A clear framework for developingleadership at all levels with individualschools.

Alongside this, ‘system-wide’ leaders are alsotypified by their focus on the local context andthe development of partnership/collaborativeworking within the community as a whole.


There was a view amongst some stakeholdersthat, in the future, school leaders would needto take on leadership responsibilities that gobeyond the boundaries of the school and intothe wider community. As such, headteacherswere reported to be key leaders in their localcontext. Stakeholders stated that the localcommunity is now a very important part ofschool leaders’ responsibility. This was said tobe a very different, new and emerging typeof leadership, being less hierarchical andinvolving less power and control. There werereported to be the seeds and ‘pockets ofpractice’ of this type of leadership in someareas and a number of headship models thatmove beyond the leader of a single institution(e.g. federations, shared leadership, andinstances where one headteacher oversees twoschools). According to one federation head,federations are established as a response tomeeting the broader needs of children andyoung people.

This type of community leadership wasthought to require an ‘outward looking’approach and an understanding thatimprovement does not just happen within theboundaries of the school. Stakeholders statedthat effective community leaders believe inmeeting the needs of all children and familiesand focus on the creation of communities that

are self-improving. They were reported to be‘school exceeding’ and to see the need tocontribute to the system as a whole. However,stakeholders highlighted that school leadersmay need to persuade their governing bodiesthat it is beneficial for them to focus on theneeds of all the children in the local communityrather than just those in their school.

There were a number of examples of systemroles cited where, encouraged by the ECMagenda, school leaders had taken on a morecommunity-wide role. They referred toexamples of collaboration between schoolsand leadership beyond the institution inclusters of schools, federations andheadteachers in executive headship roles. Onestakeholder cited an example of a headteacherseconded to the post of director of communityand wellbeing who was leading the ECMagenda across a community of schools andservices. Headteachers were also reported tobe involved in children and young people’sstrategic partnerships where they are involvedin decisions about community provision.

However, there were some stakeholders whofelt that there was a debate still to be hadabout how far school leaders should providea wider community leadership role and therewas some scepticism about whether this wasbeneficial. Some headteachers were reportedto be challenging the need for this role.For some stakeholders, therefore, how far aheadteacher is responsible more widely forpupils beyond their own school was an issuestill to be resolved. According to one, whilstheadteachers recognise that their role isbroadening, it must not become so big as tobe unmanageable. More than one stakeholderstated that their experiences suggested thatsuch a move could be detrimental to theinstitution. There was a common viewamongst some local authorities, for example,that, even though schools may have to focusbeyond the classroom to improve,headteachers need to remain focused on


achievement and the school’s core purpose.Some also thought that this might mean theweakening of the system a leader is trying tostrengthen by pulling out key people. Onelocal authority representative, for example,stated that he would prefer to use talentedheadteachers to coach other school leaders,rather than them taking on a community-wideleadership role. There was some agreementwith this view, and another stakeholder statedthat a school leader would not be providingthe sort of leadership required by schoolstoday if they were out of school ‘improvingthe system’.

Community leadership was reported to be afundamental challenge because school leadersare traditionally nurtured within institutionsand this requires them to look beyond theschool and exercise leadership across thecommunity and a range of agencies andservices. In addition, stakeholders thoughtthat, not only could this be detrimental tothe school, but there was an underlyingassumption, considered erroneous by some,that a good school leader has the skills to bea good ‘system’ leader. The skills required byleaders for this role are discussed more fullyin key message 6.


School leaders thought that ‘communityleadership’ was not yet established and still illdefined. They recognised that school leadershave more of a role within the community andthat they need the skills and confidence toundertake this role, which is different from themore traditional and narrowly defined schoolleadership role. The headteacher of one of thesecondary schools stated that they have a

community vice-principal and examples weregiven of school clusters where a leaderoversees and genuinely leads across thecommunity, where there is parity with headsof other agencies. There were examples ofprimary headteachers who are working in thecommunity, taking on the role of communityleaders and feeding back to the school. Therewas also reported to be a headteacher of a‘virtual’ school who was ‘looking at children inthe widest sense’ within the community. Otherstaff within the school were said to take on therole of headteacher while the school leaderstepped out to take a wider brief (reflecting thedistributed leadership model discussed earlierin key message 2).

Some school leaders found it difficult to saywhether they were comfortable with this typeof leadership model because it was still at thetheoretical stage and not a reality as yet.However, others were resistant to the idea:‘There is a danger of making a heads jobundoable, it would be enormous.’ Those takingthis view agreed with some of the stakeholdersin feeling that it could take away from the corebusiness of the school. They stated that, whilethey valued the impact of extended schoolsand working with other agencies/services, theyfelt that this wider role would be comparableto managing a huge organisation.


Key message 5

Effective school leaders believe ingenuine student, parent, andcommunity consultation in orderto develop locally responsivesolutions to ECM


The importance of the local context is centralto ECM and an understanding of local needs isconsidered essential for ECM leadership (DfES,2006; Ofsted, 2006). The literature emphasisesthat leaders need to recognise and appreciatethat there is no single blueprint or ‘best way’for engaging partners in collaborative working,developing extended services or responding toECM (Carter and Sharpe, 2006; Coleman, 2006).Rather, effective school leaders appreciate theimportance of developing a local, tailoredstrategy for seeking out new partners andresponding to local need (Cummings et al.,2003 and 2004; Kendall et al., 2007).

School leaders are beginning to place the localcontext at their centre in response to ECM.Local solutions leadership requires anawareness of, and receptivity to, how differentways of leading a school may be successful andeffective in different circumstances (Munby,2007). As such, effective leaders seek localsolutions and are innovative in their approach.Some leaders may look to collaborate andfederate with other schools in the local areato ensure that the approach taken is contextspecific and tailored to local needs. Consultationis fundamental to any such approach.

ECM demonstrates the connection between thechild, the school, the home and the community,and effective leaders see the school as workingwith the community to working for thecommunity (Bond and Farrar, n.d). Oneemerging leadership approach has service-users at its core: ‘User-centred leadership’

(Munby, 2007). Leaders adopting this approachconsider their core business as connecting withthe users of their school to make sure that theschool revolves around and serves them.They place a heavy emphasis on the role ofstudents, parents and the wider community,and engage in genuine dialogue with themto assess needs. Three key factors have beensuggested as instrumental in developing acommunity based needs-led approach toleadership (Craig and O’Leary, 2006):

• ‘Re-shaping participation for today’scommunities’, i.e. organising interactionbetween the school and the communityso it is more frequent.

• ‘Building the belief that communities canmake a difference’ by schools celebratingthe benefits and outcomes of communitycollaboration and leadership.

• ‘Creating new spaces for community life’,i.e. meeting in spaces and places where theschool and community have equal control.

By creating opportunities to consult and workwith the community, responses to ECM canfocus on local needs. As such, they are morelikely to result in meaningful outcomes andmore focused and successful responses to ECM.


There was a shared belief amongststakeholders that, in order to address ECM,effective school leaders are outward lookingand listen to, and respond to the needs of thelocal community. Leadership was said to beleast effective where the headteacher is notprepared to consult with children, families andthe wider community or assumes they knowtheir needs: ‘Only by providing what is wantedare you going to guarantee access to provisionand only then are you going to be able towork towards delivering outcomes.’ If thecommunity genuinely feels its needs are beingtaken on board this was thought to be a good


starting point. Stakeholders stated that serviceshave to be tailored to local needs to enablethem to be more responsive and to assistschools with the ECM agenda. They thoughtthat the local authority has a strategic role inbringing together partners and researchinglocal priorities.

With the advent of extended services, schoolswere reported to be increasingly aware of theneed to consult widely, particularly ingenuinely seeking and utilising pupil, parentand community views to inform planning.There was a view that it is beneficial for serviceusers to be involved in influencing thedirection of change and schools therefore needto hear what children and young people aresaying and need to understand what theythink and want. Whilst some stakeholdersthought that the process of consultation wastotally embedded in schools, there were thosewho thought that some schools were detachedfrom their community. They stated thatgenuine consultation means having a beliefthat children have something authentic to sayand a climate where they are genuinely ableto express their views.

Whilst genuinely engaging the community wasconsidered hard to achieve, it was thought tobe central to success. To achieve this, it wasthought that effective leaders spread themessage to the community that the school is aresource for them and a belief that it matters.Stakeholders described this as a two-wayprocess: ‘Seizing every opportunity to get thecommunity into the school and the school intothe community’ and engendering in the schoolthat they are part of the community. Successfulheadteachers are visible within the communityand adapt strategies to local circumstances.Stakeholders gave examples of strategies forincreasing community involvement, includingholding consultation events in the local libraryor the foyer of the local supermarket,organising social events to engage parents,capitalising on PR opportunities (e.g. using

local papers and community groups) andhaving someone to take on the specific role ofcommunity liaison. They also talked about theuse of local people and third sectororganisations with credibility in thecommunity to engage parents. Establishing acommunity room was described as a tangibleway for the school to demonstrate that itwants to engage with the community.

A few local authorities were reported to beworking on how children and young peopleexercise leadership. They talked about a rangeof student involvement at different levels, e.g.student councils, pupils as researchers andpupil representation on children and youngpeople’s strategic partnerships. It was thenorm in one authority for students to beinvolved in staff recruitment and in the designand delivery of services. However, it was notedthat, even where there was real commitmentto pupil participation within the localauthority, schools were felt to be at differentstages within this process.

Whilst stakeholders reported that schoolleaders require recognition of the more‘customer orientated’ approach, they were feltto be more aware that their ‘customers’ havea more sophisticated understanding of theirrole. There was a view that it was early days interms of understanding the full significance ofthe consultation process and the much widerdegree of consultation was reported to be achallenge for school leaders. Effective schoolleaders understand how to undertake genuineconsultation ‘conversations’ and are able tomanage the feedback. It was thought thatthis can require a cultural shift and takeheadteachers out of their comfort zone, fromsomeone in authority to someone open tothe views of others, who has to respondaccordingly. According to one stakeholder,when the culture does not privilege teachervoice over student voice, this has massiveimplications for school leaders because therecan be disharmony of views.



School leaders agreed that they now workedmuch more in a ‘user-centred’ way, althoughsome felt that this was more to do with schoolimprovement, rather than ECM directly. Theyadmitted being more conscious of having toconsult key stakeholders, wanting to improvethe use of parent and pupil voice andensuring their input into decision making. Theheadteacher involved in a federation of schoolsstated that a major focus of the federation wasabout consultation with the community.

School leaders indicated that engaging parentswas a big issue, although their role in ECM wasthought to be paramount. Making the schoolwelcoming was considered the first step toengaging parents and the local community:‘Buildings are important and people need tofeel comfortable’. Schools need to be seen asmore than academic institutions. In one localauthority, the development of wellbeingcentres was seen as a way to engage parentsand make them take responsibility for theirchildren’s education. The focus on wellbeingand the change of context meant that thecentres are not seen as schools. The processof consultation also raised issues for schoolleaders and, as the ECM agenda develops, itwas thought that school leaders would needto be able to manage parental expectations.

There was some agreement that schools’attention to pupil voice has always beenstrong, but is becoming stronger, and this wasreported to be a priority within the schooldevelopment plan. Pupil voice was reported tobe having an impact on self-evaluation andinfluencing how the school moves forward.School leaders expressed the opinion that ithas been difficult for staff to accept theenhanced role of student voice because itrequires a cultural change, but it is nowbecoming more acceptable. Again a variety ofexemplars of schools incorporating studentvoice, similar to those proffered by

stakeholders, were cited. One school leadertalked about the input of pupils intodepartmental reviews, which was described asa tangible example of how pupil voice can beused to raise teaching standards. It was notedthat, whilst this sort of feedback can beuncomfortable for teachers, it can be verypowerful and teachers are becomingincreasingly used to this notion.

Key message 6

To implement ECM effectively,school leaders will require newskills: effective school leadersengage in ongoing professionaldevelopment and promote awhole-school learning culture


The literature highlights the range of new skillsthat will be required by school leaders in orderto implement ECM. Whilst these have beentouched on throughout the report, this keymessage serves by way of a summary of these.

Most significantly, the literature refers to theneed for leaders to have a commitment to,and recognition of, the value of partnershipworking to better meet the needs of everychild and young person within their schooland community (Craig and O’Leary, 2006;Kendall et al., 2007; PriceWaterhouseCoopers,2007). Thus, recognising the collaborativeadvantage of partnership working is a crucialECM competency. The ability of school leadersto manage and broker new relationships withservice providers, and to recognise and respectthe experience and expertise of professionalsworking beyond schools is stressed, as is theneed for leaders to develop stronger skills ofcommunication (Huxham and Vangen, 2005;LGA, 2004; Ofsted, 2006; PriceWaterhouseCoopers,2007; SWQ, 2006).


The literature refers to the need for leaders, asa result of the shift in responsibilities requiredby ECM, to recognise the broader socialfunction of their role and their influencebeyond the immediate boundaries of theschool (Hopkins, 2005; Otero and West-Burnham, 2004). Thus, it emphasises thateffective leaders take a ‘wider view’ or moreoutward looking approach (Craig, 2005;PriceWaterhouseCoopers, 2007). They seek toengage the local community and recognise theimportance of this for school improvement(Craig and O’Leary, 2006; Otero and West-Burnham, 2004). This wider leadership rolerequires the development of additional skillsets to those required for leading a singleinstitution. Leaders need to be able tocommunicate a vision and moral purpose thatresonates with every stakeholder and providescoherence (Carter and Sharpe, 2006a; 2006b).As well as having to manage teaching andlearning, being able to develop people, and todevelop the organisation as a whole, Hopkinsand Higham (2007) state that system leadersalso require the ability to change othercontexts beyond the school by engaging withthe whole system (e.g. empoweringcommunities and leading partnershipscommitted to enabling all schools to moveforward). In addition, system leaders need topace change appropriately, to interpret andrespond to different explanations for negativityand reluctance to change, and to managerisk so that the boundaries of what can beachieved can be pushed (Lownsborough andO’Leary, 2005).

As highlighted in the literature, furthercompetences are linked to the distributedleadership model in which school leadersharness the skills of others, both within andbeyond school (Higham et al., 2007). Effectiveschool leaders are open to change, open tonew and different ways of working, and,above all, to be able to ‘let go’ of certainresponsibilities (Gronn, 2003). Effective school

leaders establish trust amongst theirleadership teams, are receptive to differentstyles of leadership and recognise experienceand expertise within the school and otherprofessionals (e.g. Coleman, 2006).Furthermore, the increasing role of non-teaching professionals and managing achanging workforce require additional andnewly developed skills, in particular withregard to performance management(Kendall et al., 2007).

In order to address the ECM agenda, effectiveschool leaders seek to promote a learningculture within and across their school as awhole (for students; teachers; non-teachingstaff; associate staff etc). By investing in theprofessional development of staff in this way,school leaders can promote greater staff buy-in, which is crucial to implementing anysystem of change, especially the ECM agenda(SWQ, 2006). By encouraging such a cultureand providing continuing professionaldevelopment opportunities for school staff,leaders can build confidence and reducereluctance and defensiveness amongst staff,thereby creating an openness to change (Mujisand Harris, 2003; O’Leary and Craig, 2007).

The literature also suggests that ECM hasrequired school leaders to develop anunderstanding of local needs (e.g. DfES, 2006;Ofsted, 2006). Effective school leaders thereforeconsult with community members andrecognise the role of pupils and their familiesin school development (Munby, 2007).Listening skills and the ability to respond toneed are therefore reported to be becomingincreasingly important.


With the advent of ECM and the leadershipchanges required, stakeholders frequentlyalluded to the new skills leaders may requirein order to implement the agenda. Thus, theneed for greater collaboration and community


leadership, and the focus on distributedleadership, each suggest the potential forleaders to require a new or different set ofskills or qualities, some of which may notbe part of currently recognised leadershipqualities. Stakeholders stated that professionaltraining needs to be broader and different.A few stated that, rather than requiring schoolleaders to acquire new skills, leadership stylesmay need to be developed from differentarenas (e.g. business models) and applied to anew setting. They felt there would need to bean assessment of the attitudes and skills thatwere required.

Stakeholders felt that a more subtle set of skillswas required for successful collaborativeworking than those currently recognised foreffective school leadership. They referred tothe need for leaders, for example, to developnegotiation skills and excellent interpersonaland social skills for engaging multi-agencypartners effectively. Effective leaders requirethe skills for brokering relationships, as wellas an understanding the joint benefits ofcollaboration. Headteachers were reported tobe getting better at working with a range ofpartners. Stakeholders stated that the skillsrequired by leaders for the wider communityleadership role also involve relationshipbuilding, brokerage and entrepreneurialship.The key to this type of system-wide leadershipwas felt to be about managing relationshipseffectively and learning about other agenciesand services.

Stakeholders talked about school leadersensuring that staff take on new roles and haveaccess to relevant training opportunities.Flexibility was said to be key, as effectiveleaders move rapidly and become involvedin ‘futures’ thinking, i.e. thinking ahead withregard to the training needs of staff. Theyadded that effective school leaders showa commitment to developing others intoeffective leaders as this is important forsustainability and succession planning, as well

as ECM. They ensure, through training andexposure to the practices of other schools, thatstaff have a broader perspective and learn newskills. There was a view that ECM had resultedin new opportunities for leadership, includinga range of new leadership roles and new routesfor leadership. Some stakeholders thought thatthis might improve recruitment and retentionissues and thereby ensure sustainability.

As highlighted within the literature, a numberof stakeholders believed that successful schoolleaders place importance on developing theirschools as learning organisations. To maintainthis, they have a commitment to learning at alllevels of the system and take the view thateveryone, staff, as well as students, arecontinually learning. According to onestakeholder, this is about moving from a‘professional training’ to a ‘professionallearning’ environment. Some stakeholderstalked about the development of a schoolculture of reflection and consultation thatbuilds in sustainability. They stated that thiscan be achieved by school leaders brokeringexperiences in other schools and providingopportunities for sharing good practice.Effective school leaders highlight exemplars ofwhat staff are already doing towards ECM andprovide evidence of what works.


School leaders acknowledged that, with theadvent of ECM, they might require new skillsand competencies. Rather than focusing indetail on identifying the new leadership skillsrequired, they stated, as did stakeholders, thata set of qualities, abilities and skills for thismore complex role would need to be developed.

They talked extensively about themanagement of change: ‘It’s about getting theright people on board and the management ofchange.’ There was a view that headteachersare managing change all the time and theyhave always had to be flexible and adaptable.


According to one headteacher, as a result, theyare ‘top in terms of skills’. Some therefore feltthat, because a change culture is alreadyembedded in schools, there is little resistanceto ECM from staff. There was also considered tobe more scope to induce change than in thepast, for example, through the performancemanagement process and the use of TLRs.

Alongside this, some additional skills requiredby school leaders were highlighted. Schoolleaders stated, for example, that forcollaborative working, they require stronginterpersonal skills and the ability to developpositive relationships with a range ofprofessionals. According to one headteacher,school leaders ‘have to get to grips withemotional intelligence’, the essential premiseof which is to do with recognising andmanaging one’s own emotions as well as thoseof others’, and improving relationships andunderstanding between people. They stressedthat effective school leaders have effectivecommunication skills, are able to articulatea vision and to communicate with all thoseinvolved. Once they have developed a vision,they set in place the structures to enablechange. However, there was also a view,proposed by one secondary headteacher, that,although the leadership role has become morediverse as a result of ECM, the leadership skillsare the same since the job revolves around thedriving of development plans.

A distinction between management andleadership was also made by a small numberof school leaders. As highlighted previously,the involvement within schools of professionalsfrom outside of the teaching profession wasreported to raise significant managementissues for school leaders. They thereforerequire the necessary skills to effectivelyand cohesively integrate ‘para’ professionalsinto the school workforce. The currentqualifications for headteachers were reportedto focus more on leadership skills and less onthese types of management requirement.


ConclusionsThroughout the literature a plethora of termsis assigned to different styles or models ofleadership and this makes the distillation ofkey messages for ECM leadership important.Only in this way can school leaders understandthe key principles of what is required andintegrate these into their practice.

In the main, there is little within the keymessages emerging from the data that schoolleaders themselves are likely to dispute,particularly given the consistency of findingsacross the three evidence sources. Whilst thereis inevitably some variation across schools,there was a sense that school leaders aremaking the link between ECM and standards,that they are already adopting a morecollaborative approach and developing alocal response to ECM through engagementwith their local community. School leadersrecognise that ECM is not merely an initiativeor policy development; rather it is somethingthat needs to be integrated into their staff’sworking practice. When working effectively, aswell as improving outcomes for children andyoung people, this may also help to improvethe life of their staff.

The main area of contention is likely to lie inthe suggestion that the school leaders’ role isextended to a wider leadership role beyondthe single institution. As a new and emergingleadership role, this is something which schoolleaders and other stakeholders will wish todiscuss and debate further. In addition, thereis evidence that the enhanced skills requiredfor school leaders to undertake this new andcomplex role require more detailed definition.Effective school leaders recognise that theycannot achieve everything all in one go. It isimportant that the school leader’s role remainsmanageable, that they recognise the need forcontinuing professional development and thatthey are provided with the necessary supportin the form of future CPD provision to take onthis challenge.


Appendix 1:Details ofdatabases andwebsites searched

Databases searched:

• Applied Social Sciences Index andAbstracts: Index of articles from over 600international English language socialscience journals, from 1987 to the present.

• British Education Index: An indexingservice covering over 300 education andtraining journals produced in the UK, reportand conference literature, and materialincluded in the complementary Education-line collection of full text documents.

• British Education Internet ResourceCatalogue: Internet based database ofinformation about professionally evaluatedand described internet sites which supporteducational research, policy and practice.

• ChildData: This database is produced bythe National Children’s Bureau and includesapproximately 69,000 bibliographic recordson issues concerned with children andyoung people.

• Current Educational Research in the UK(CERUK): CERUK is a database of current orrecently completed research in educationand related disciplines. It covers a widerange of studies including commissionedresearch and PhD theses, across all phasesof education from early years to adults.

• International Bibliography of the SocialSciences: This database containsbibliographic information from aninternational selection of publications(including over 2600 journals) in the fieldsof economics, political science, sociology,and anthropology.

• Intute: Social Sciences: This gateway aimsto provide a trusted source of selected, highquality online information in the socialsciences. It includes a browsable andsearchable Internet catalogue giving accessto online resources selected by experts in arange of subject areas.

• Research in Practice: This is the largestchildcare research implementation projectin the country and aims to promote the useof evidence in both policy and practice.Features include an EvidenceBank ofresearch reviews relating to children inneed and a Research Resources sectionincluding guidance on identifying,acquiring and evaluating research evidence.

• Social Care Online: This database providesinformation about all aspects of social care,from fostering, to mental health andhuman resources.

• Social Policy and Practice: The databasecovers public and social policy, publichealth, social care, communitydevelopment, mental & community health,homelessness, housing, crime, law & order,families, children and older people.Content is from the UK with some materialfrom the USA and Europe. A significantnumber of the references are to greyliterature and UK government publications.


Websites searched:

• NCSL

• DCSF

• Teachernet

• Ofsted

• DENI

• Scottish Executive

• Department of Health

• Institute/Centre for Excellence inleadership (health and social care)

• Continyou

• Centre for Excellence in Leadership

• IDEA/LGA

• Solace (LA network)

• DEMOS

• TDA

• CfBT

• Children’s Workforce development council

• Innovation Unit (wider workforce, MAworking, system leadership)

• Committee for Sustainable Development(e.g. EC’s Future Matters)


Appendix 2: Keysearch terms used

Every Child Matters:

ECM

Every Child Matters

Every Child Matters Agenda

Children’s services

Integrated children’s services

Extended Schools

Lead Professionals

Children’s Trusts

National Service Framework

Common Assessment Framework

Children’s Centres/Sure Start

Leadership:

Leadership

School leadership

School leaders

Heads

Headteachers

Principals

Deputy headteachers

Assistant headteachers

School management

Management teams (further breakdown e.g.Middle management, Department heads,Bursars, Subject leaders)

Author searches

Michael Fullan (systems leadership)

David Hopkins (systemic leadership)

John Burnham-West (general literature onschool leadership)

Ron Glatter (primary school leadership)

Alma Harris (University of Nottingham)

John MacBeth (Cambridge University)

Centre for Excellence in Leadership (website)


References andbibliography

References

ANNING, A., COTTRELL, D., FROST, N., GREEN, J.AND ROBINSON, M. (2006). Developing multiprofessional teamwork for integrated children’sservices. Open University Press.

ATKINSON, M., WILKIN, A., STOTT, A., DOHERTY,P. AND KINDER, K. (2002). Multi-AgencyWorking: a Detailed Study (LGA ResearchReport 26). Slough: NFER .

BARNES, I. (2006) Primary Executive Headship:A Study of Six Headteachers who are LeadingMore then one School. Nottingham: NCSL.

BOND, K. AND FARRAR. M. (n.d). What are welearning about…? Community leadership innetworks. Nottingham: NCSL.

CARTER, K. AND SHARPE, T. (2006). Schoolleaders leading the system: system leadershipin perspective. Nottingham: NCSL.

COLEMAN, A. (2006) Collaborative Leadership inExtended Schools. Leading in a multi-disciplinary environment. Nottingham: NCSL.

COLLARBONE, P. (2005) RemodellingLeadership. Paper presented at the North ofEngland Education Conference. Available at:http://www.tda.gov.uk/upload/resources/doc/n/neec_conf_collarbone2.doc [8 October 2007].

CRAIG, J. (2005). Taking the Wide View. Thenew leadership pf extended schools. London:DEMOS.

CRAIG, J. and O’LEARY, D. (2006) The invisibleteacher: How schools can unlock the power ofcommunity. London: DEMOS.

CUMMINGS, C. and TODD, L. with DYSON, A.(2003). Extended schools pathfinderevaluation: Issues for schools and localeducation authorities (Research Brief RBX18-03). London:DfES.

CUMMINGS, C. and DYSON, A. with TODD, L.(2004). Evaluation of the Extended SchoolsPathfinders Projects (Research Report RR530).Nottingham: DfES.

DEPARTMENT FOR EDUCATION AND SKILLS.(2006). Championing Children: A shared set ofskills, knowledge and behaviours for thoseleading and managing integrated Children’sservices. Nottingham: DfES.

DEPARTMENT FOR EDUCATION AND SKILLS.(2005). Extended Schools: Access toopportunities and services for all. A prospectus.Nottingham: DfES.

DEPARTMENT FOR EDUCATION AND SKILLS.(2007). The Governance and Management ofExtended Schools and Sure Start Children’sCentres. Nottingham: DfES.

DESFORGES, C. AND ABOUCHAAR, A. (2003).The Impact of Parental Involvement, ParentalSupport and Family Education on PupilAchievement and Adjustment: A LiteratureReview. London: DfES.

FROST, N. AND LLOYD, A. (2006). ‘Implementingmulti-disciplinary teamwork in the new childwelfare policy environment’, Journal ofIntegrated Care, 14, 2, 11–17.

FULLAN, M. (2004). The future of educationalchange: system thinkers in action. Paperpresented at the American EducationalResearch association annual meeting, April2004. Available at:http://networkedlearning.ncsl.org.uk/knowledge-base/conference-papers/system-thinker-in-action-aera-fullan-2004.rtf [25 October 2007].

GRONN, P. (2003) In Rethinking educationalleadership (Eds, Bennet, N. and Anderson, L.).London: Sage Publications.


HARRIS, A., BROWN, D. AND ABBOTT, I. (2006).Executive leadership: another lever in thesystem? School leadership and management,26, 4, 397-409.

HARRIS, A. (2005). Leading or misleading?Distributed leadership and schoolimprovement. Journal of Curriculum Studies,37, 255-265.

HARRIS, A. (2003). Teacher Leadership asDistributed Leadership: heresy, fantasy orpossibility? School Leadership andManagement, 23, 3, 313-324.

HIGHAM, HOPKINS AND AHTARIDOU (2007)Improving School Leadership: CountryBackground Report for England. London:London Centre for Leadership in Learning.

HILL, R. (2006). Leadership that lasts:Sustainable school leadership in the 21scentury. Leicester: Association of School andCollege Leaders (ASCL).

HOPKINS, D. AND HIGHAM, R. (2007). Systemleadership: mapping the landscape. Schoolleadership and management, 27, 2, 147-166.

HM TREASURY (2004) The sum of its parts?The Development of Integrated CommunitySchools in Scotland. Available online:www.hmie.gov.uk/documents/publication/dicss-01.html [25 October 2007].

HUXHAM, C. AND VANGEN, S. (2004). Doingthings collaboratively: realizing the advantageor succumbing to inertia? Organizationaldynamics, 33, 2, 190-201.

HUXHAM, C. AND VANGEN, S. (2005). Managingto collaborate: the theory and practice ofcollaborative advantage. Routledge, Taylor andFrancis Group.

HUXHAM, C. (2003). Theorizing collaborativepractice. Public Management Review, 5, 3,401-423.

KENDALL, S., LAMONT, E. WILKIN, A. ANDKINDER, K. (2007) Every Child Matters. HowSchool Leaders in Extended Schools Respond toLocal Needs. Nottingham: NCSL.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT ASSOCIATION. (2004).From vision to reality: transforming outcomesfor children and families. London: LGA.

LOWNSBROUGH, H. AND O’LEARY, D. (2005) TheLeadership Imperative. Reforming children’sservices from the ground up. London: Demos.

MUJIS, D. AND HARRIS, A. (2003). TeacherLeadership – Improvement throughEmpowerment? Educational Management andAdministration, 31, 437.

MUNBY, S (2007) Steve Munby’s Speech to theNCSL annual Seizing Success Conference.Available at: http://www.ncsl.org.uk/media/057/5F/steve-munby-speech-conference2007.pdf[25 October 2007].

NATIONAL COLLEGE FOR SCHOOL LEADERSHIP.(2006). Working Together. Helping CommunityLeadership Work in Practice. Nottingham: NCSL.

O’LEARY, D., AND CRAIG, J. (2007) SystemLeadership: Lessons from the Literature.Nottingham: NCSL.

OFSTED (2006) Extended services in schoolsand children’s centres. Available:http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/assets/Internet_Content/Publications_Team/File_attachments/extended2609.doc [3 October 2007].

OTERO, G. AND WEST-BURNHAM, J. (2004)Leading Together to Build Social Capital.Nottingham: NCSL.

PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP (2007).Independent Study into School Leadership.London: DfES.

SQW (2006) Research to Inform the Managementand Governance of Children’s Centres. FinalReport to DfES. London: SQW Limited.

VANGEN, S. AND HUXHAM, C. (2003). Nurturingcollaborative relations: Building trust ininterorganisational collaboration. The journalof applied behavioural science, 39, 1, 5-31.

WHITE, G., SWIFT, J. AND BENNETT, A. (2005).Sure Start maintaining pilots: what can welearn? London: DfES.


Bibliography

BARNES, I. (2006) New models of headship:Primary executive heads. Nottingham: NCSL.

BARNES, I. (2006) Primary executive headship:a study of six headteachers who are leadingmore than one school. NCSL.

BARNES, I., COLEMAN, A., CREASY, J. ANDPEARSON, F. (2005) New models of headship:Secondary or special school executive heads.Nottingham: NCSL.

BENNETT, N., WISE, C., WOODS, P. AND HARVEY,J. (2003) Distributed leadership. Nottingham:NCSL.

BOND, K. AND FARRAR, M. (2004) Leadingtogether to build social capital. Nottingham:NCSL.

BOND, K. AND FARRAR, M. (n.d) Workingtowards community leadership: Rotherham.Nottingham: NCSL.

BUSH, T. AND GLOVER, D. (2003) SchoolLeadership: Concepts and evidence.Nottingham: NCSL.

CARTER, K. AND SHARPE, T. (2006) Schoolleaders leading the system: system leadershipin practice. Nottingham: NCSL.

CARTER, K. AND SHARPE, T. (Eds) (2006) Schoolleaders leading the system: NCSL’s leadershipnetwork in conference. Nottingham: NCSL.

COLLINS, A., IRESON, J., STUBBS, S., NASH, K. ANDBURNSIDE, P. (2005) Does every primary schoolneed a headteacher? Key implications from astudy of federations in The Netherlands. NCSL.

COLLINS, A., IRESON, J., STUBBS, S., NASH, K.AND BURNSIDE, P. (2006) New Models ofheadship series: Federations. Nottingham: NCSL.

COULTON, S. (2006) Getting our heads together:shared leadership of a collaborative schoolimprovement project. NCSL.

COURT, M. (2003) Different approaches tosharing school leadership. NCSL.

DEPARTMENT FOR EDUCATION AND SKILLS.(2006) Sure start children’s centres practiceguidance. Nottingham: DfES.

FULLAN, M. (2002) The role of leadership in thepromotion of knowledge management inschools. OECD Conference.

FULLAN, M. (2003) The moral imperatives ofschool leadership. London: Sage Publications.

GLATTER, R. AND HARVEY, J. (2006) Varieties ofshared headship: a preliminary exploration.NCSL.

HUXHAM, C. AND VANGEN, S. (2000)Leadership in shaping and implementation ofcollaboration agendas: how things happen in a(not quite) joined-up world. Academy ofManagement journal, 43, 6, 1159-1175.

MUNBY, S. (2007) NCSL chief shares six steps tosuccessful school leadership. Nottingham:NCSL. Available online: http://www.ncsl.org.uk/aboutus/pressreleases/pr4-06062007.cfm[30.01.2008].

NCSL. (2006) ECM. Why it matters to leaders.Nottingham: NCSL.

NCSL. (2006) Lessons from extended schools.Nottingham: NCSL.

NOBLE, M. (2006) Leading an extended school.Leicester: ASCL.

OFSTED. (2005). Extended schools: a report onearly developments. London: Ofsted.

PATERSON, F. (2006) New models of headship:Co-headship. Nottingham: NCSL.

PENN, H. AND ANG, L. (2005). Leadingquestions. Nursery World, 105, 3957, 10-11.

WEST-BURNHAM, J. AND OTERO, G (n.d.)Leading together to build social capital.Nottingham: NCSL.

PB32

8

Publications and resources alsoavailable from NCSL:

� ECM Leadership Direct is an onlineResource exploring the implicationsfor Every Child Matters for schoolsand school leaders.www.ncsl.org.uk/ecmleadershipdirect

� NCSL programmes for schoolleaders at all levels.www.ncsl.org.uk/programmes

� Publications and resourcesavailable to download and order.www.ncsl.org.uk/publications

� The Leadership Library is a freeunique resource bringing togethersome of the best leadership andmanagement thinking fromaround the world.www.ncsl.org.uk/leadershiplibrary

� The Tomorrow’s leaders todaycampaign is about finding, developingand keeping great headteachers.www.ncsl.org.uk/tomorrowsleaderstoday

To download this publication or to order acopy free of charge, please visitwww.ncsl.org.uk/publications

National College forSchool LeadershipTriumph RoadNottingham NG8 1DH

T: 0845 609 0009F: 0115 872 2001E: [email protected]: www.ncsl.org.uk

NCSL is committed to sustainabilityin all of its activities, which is why thispublication is printed on environmentallyfriendly paper. To find out more aboutour commitment, visitwww.ncsl.org.uk/sustainability

what we are learning about: leadership of every child matters

Documents