Phase One: Literature Review The Role of the Middle Tier: Lessons from four high-performing education systems - Susan Cousin
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Phase One: Literature Review The Role of the Middle Tier: Lessons from four high- performing education systems Susan Cousin June 2020
Acknowledgements
Thanks go to the former Association of Education Committees Trust who funded this review.
Thanks are also due to Jonathan Crossley-Holland who co-designed the brief and completed
the analyses in Appendices Two, Four, Five, Eight and Nine.
Thanks also go to the project Steering Group for their comments on an earlier draft:
Professor Ron Glatter, Professor Toby Greany, Dame Sue John, Alan Parker and Tom
Richmond.
© Susan Cousin 2020
2Contents
Executive Summary 5
Purpose of the research 7
Context 8
Conceptual framework 10
Part One: Functional Analysis of High-Performing international 11
systems
F1 Recruitment, training and retention of teachers and leaders 14
F2 Support for vulnerable pupils including those with SEND 21
F3 A curriculum that meets the needs of pupils and society. 25
F4 Effective and efficient school improvement. 27
F5 Ensuring accountability and monitoring quality 28
F6 Managing the supply of places and school admissions 31
F7 Future-proofing 32
The Leadership functions of the middle tier 36
Summary of Governance in High Performing Systems 37
Part Two: ‘Place-based’ models of delivery in England 39
Proposed solutions to moving towards a ‘new’ governance model 45
Conclusion 46
References 47
Appendices
One Research Strategy and Methodology 54
Two The case for greater devolution 55
Three The nature of the education system in the four jurisdictions 58
Four Vulnerable children in England 64
Five Admissions in England 69
Six Characteristics of Leading from the Middle 81
Seven The London Challenge: a systems analysis 82
Eight Costing current system 85
Nine Functional Analysis of Governance levels in Proposed 87
solutions to system reform
Tables
Table 1 PISA tables 2015/2018 12
Table 2 Social attainment gaps in PISA assessments 12
Table 3 Resilient students 13
Table 4 Characteristics of selected overseas education jurisdictions 13
Table 5 High and low attainers in the 2018 PISA assessments 27
Table 6 WEFFI rankings: Yidan Prize 34
Table 7 Sample of PISA questions on well-being (2018) 36
Table 8 Decision-making at levels of governance 37
Table 9 Functional analysis of proposed solutions 87
3ABBREVIATIONS
ADCS Association of Directors of Children’s Services
CME Children Missing in Education
CPD Continuing Professional development
EHCP Education Health Care Plan
ESFA Education and Skills Funding Agency
FAP Fair Admissions Protocol
HTB Headteacher Board
ITE Initial Teacher Education
LA Local Authority
LEP Local Enterprise Partnership
LftM Leadership from the Middle
MAT Multi Academy Trust
NAO The National Audit Office
NLE National Leaders of Education
NSS National Support School
Ofsted Office for Standards in Education
OSA Office for Standards Adjudicator
RSC Regional Schools Commissioner
SAT Single Academy Trust
SEND Pupils with special educational needs and/or disabilities
SISS Self-Improving School System
TALIS Teaching and Learning International Survey
TS Teaching School
TSA Teaching School Alliance
4Executive Summary
The purpose of the research is to develop proposals for a set of criteria by which any revised
governance model for the English education system can be judged and which outlines
clearly the role(s) of the ‘middle tier’. The ‘middle tier’ is defined as ‘the system of support
and accountability connecting publicly- funded local authority (LA) maintained schools and
Academies with the DfE’ (Bubb et al., 2019).
The research takes a governance approach to conceptualise the role of the middle tier in a
successful school system, using a functional analysis to identify challenges and solutions to
resolving the tensions between decentralisation and standardisation, excellence and equity.
The research consists of three phases. This rapid literature review (phase 1) is intended to
stimulate discussion about the role of the locality in future governance models. Phase 2
consists of interviews with key stakeholders to seek a range of perspectives on the role of
the middle tier. Phase 3 consists of on-line focus group discussions to seek views on
potential recommendations.
This review is in two sections. Part One summarises literature on four high-performing
systems (Estonia, Finland, Ontario and Singapore) to explore how they organise the seven
governance functions of i) teacher supply, ii) support for vulnerable pupils, iii) the curriculum,
iv) school improvement, v) accountability and quality assurance, vi) admissions and place
planning, and vii) preparing young people for the future. It finds that the recruitment and
training of teachers is managed at national level, with a focus on attracting the best
graduates, training them extensively and preparing them to be able to teach with
professional autonomy. Support for participation for continuing professional development is
positively and significantly related to teachers’ satisfaction with their terms of employment.
All the countries have undertaken a programme of teacher professionalisation, defined
(OECD, 2020) in terms of five pillars: knowledge and skills; career opportunities; a
collaborative culture among teachers; responsibility and autonomy; and status.
High performing jurisdictions strive for both excellence and equity and have taken evidence-
based steps to deliver both. One of their main actions is to reduce segregation between
schools and within schools. There has been a gradual move from systems in which students
were streamed into different types of secondary schools, with curricula demanding various
levels of cognitive skills, to a system in which all students go to secondary schools with
similarly demanding curricula. They have invested in early education and catch-up at each
stage of schooling.
These jurisdictions have recognised there needs to be an alignment of national policy and
school practice, which is determined by culture. The role of the middle tier is to provide
strong leadership in supporting culture change, bringing coordination and ensuring equity
across local systems. This tier is considered the most effective level of the system to be
responsible, with schools, for school improvement: Hutchings et al. (2012: 109) suggested,
“tackling school improvement at area level (rather than national level or individual school
level) has considerable benefits”. The ongoing close monitoring of schools by a strong
middle tier has two main advantages: it is cost effective (the total annual national budget for
assessment in Finland is less than $5 M, Sahlberg, 2015: 95). Importantly, local monitoring
also ensures school improvement is a continuous activity rather than an intervention after
failure, with resources devoted to improving rather than ‘proving’. While there is wide
variation in accountability systems, from Estonian and Finnish systems, built from the bottom
up, to Singapore’s centralised system, all have a middle tier of education professionals,
trained teachers with additional qualifications, as a critical part of the accountability and
monitoring regime. All have abolished national school inspections. The use of data to rank
schools has been replaced with a school excellence or self-evaluation model, whereby a
5school’s improvement plan is agreed with the middle tier and monitored throughout the year.
The philosophy is to steer through information, support and funding, rather than attempt to
control. Previous studies in England (Cousin, 2019a: 157) identified ‘democratic
accountability’ as an important feature of an elected middle tier; the loss of democratic
accountability and resultant issues of legitimacy is a frequent theme in literature describing
changes to the role of local authorities since 2010 (Crawford et al., 2020; Gibton, 2017;
Glatter, 2017; Hatcher, 2014.)
Finally, the systems prepare students for the future in terms of universal digital access, a
focus on student and teacher digital competence and a balance, often hard won, between a
knowledge-rich curriculum and the development of twenty-first century skills. In the current
Covid-19 environment of remote learning, there is much to draw from these examples, not
least that successful use of technology for learning depends upon the acquisition of
independent learning skills, critical thinking and metacognition. Student well-being is an
increasingly important feature of forward-thinking education systems.
The review identifies that many of the features common to high-performing systems can be
found in England: but in pockets of provision. Despite a wealth of publications describing
effective or good practice, the question remains as to how good practice might best be
levelled up across the country. A strong message from the research is that, as systems
become more decentralised, to maintain equity as well as excellence, there needs to be a
coordinating influence across a locality or region.
Part Two of the review summarises the developments, in England, of place-based
approaches to education, which recognise that education is part of a local eco-system and is
affected by social and economic factors outside of the school. There is a wealth of
innovative thought and action striving to make a success of such devolved responsibilities
for governing the English education system. However, unlike the high-performing systems
considered in Part One, which feature strong system alignment and ‘policy connectedness’,
there remain tensions in a system which is seen as fragmented and incoherent. A lack of
consensus about where in the English system responsibility for critical functions should lie is
demonstrated in a functional analysis of recent proposals for further reform. We have not
yet found a balance between autonomy and accountability which covers all six types of
accountability covered in the review, including accountability towards parents and the
community. The latter features strongly in policies and practice in the high-performing
systems. Strengths of the current system in England include the energy of professionals to
engage in local partnerships and devise local solutions to meet the needs of the children
they serve. There is a lack, however, of independent evaluation of these practices, with the
concomitant issue that, while professional knowledge is shared between those schools who
choose to collaborate, it is not shared system-wide for the benefit of all. Concerns about
how well the marketized environment meets the needs of those less able to wield social and
political capital are also pressing.
Susan Cousin
6Purpose of the Research
The research aims to develop proposals for a set of criteria by which any revised
governance model for the English education system can be judged and which outlines
clearly the role(s) of the ‘middle tier’. The ‘middle tier’ is defined as ‘the system of support
and accountability connecting publicly- funded local authority (LA) maintained schools and
Academies with the DfE’ (Bubb et al., 2019). The middle tier in England consists of regional,
sub-regional and local levels.
The research aims to answer three main questions (RQs) and three supplementary
questions (SQs):
• RQ1 How do we define a ‘successful school system’?
• RQ2 What is the role of the ‘middle tier’ in a successful system? (Using a functional
analysis, identify where in the system a number of system functions might be
undertaken (central/State; middle tier; school).)
• RQ3 What solutions and challenges exist for resolving the tensions between
decentralisation and standardisation, excellence and equity?
• SQ 1 What are the key learning points on the implementation of ‘place-based’
reform?
• SQ2 What lessons can be drawn from published cost analyses of comparative
‘systems’ in England?
• SQ3 What lessons need to be considered to ensure all young people leave the
education system equipped for a successful future?
The research consists of three phases (see Appendix One). The purposes of this rapid
literature review (phase 1) are to stimulate discussion about the role of the locality in future
governance models and to inform subsequent phases of the research: phase 2 (interviews)
and phase 3 (focus groups).
The outcomes from the three phases will be written up in a paper to be published and will
include, if appropriate, a commentary on models which might address future needs.
Observing Majone’s (1989) distinction between research and advocacy, where ‘research’
has the purpose of developing complex and conditional explanations and ‘advocacy’ seeks
to identify straightforward solutions (i.e. ‘what works’) that can be used to influence policy,
this review falls into the category of research. It is outside the scope of this review to
propose a new locality model and indeed, it is unclear that a single model might be suitable
for the wide range of localities in England. Instead, it is intended that the research will draw
up a set of principles against which any locality model might be evaluated.
7Context
There has been a global trend since the early 2000s away from hierarchical
‘control/command’ governance of public services towards less bureaucratic, more open,
integrated forms of governance, as the growing complexity of social systems demanded
greater reliance on public engagement and co-production (Cousin, 2019a: 6). England has
been a world-leader in the move towards a self-improving school system (SISS) (Earley and
Greany, 2017: xviii) where school partnerships lead improvement by sharing expertise and
resources and building capacity (Hargreaves, 2012). A government-supported infrastructure
to support the SISS includes National Leaders of Education (NLEs), National Support
Schools (NSSs), Teaching Schools (TSs) and Teaching Schools Alliances (TSAs); most of
the published evaluation of school-led collaborations has been of such formal partnerships
(Greatbatch and Tate, 2019).
According to the OECD, schools in England are given greater levels of autonomy than
elsewhere in the OECD; but questions remain as to whether the autonomy granted is in the
right areas (Schleicher, 2015a, evidence to the Education Select Committee 2015,
paragraphs 20 - 21). School autonomy is, in addition, countered by greater levels of
accountability which, many suggest, curtails schools’ ability to take advantage of the
promised freedoms (RSA, 2013). A strong message from international research is that, as
systems become more decentralised, to maintain equity as well as excellence, there needs
to be a coordinating influence across a locality or region: “The more flexibility in the system,
the stronger public policy needs to be” (Schleicher, 2018: 183) and “we don’t want the
inadequacies of tightly controlled centralization being replaced with the equal flaws of school
and community autonomy” (Fullan, 2006: 96). For choice to benefit all learners, it is argued,
there needs to be a concerted and consistent coordinating effort at a local level.
In some countries, however, concerns have been expressed about the weakening of the
middle tier. Lubienski (2014) has applied the term ‘disintermediation’1 to the diminishing of
intermediate-level institutions in the USA and New Zealand. His review of specific policies
suggests that, rather than devolving power to local agents, many such reforms have been
more successful in creating conditions in which new, non-state actors are able to move into
the space left by receding meso-level institutions. In England, there have been concerns that
the ‘hollowing out’ (after Stoker, 1998) of local government, from the combined increases in
the power of the State over curriculum and standards and of individual schools over finances
and management, has diminished the capacity of LAs to intervene in the organization,
delivery and monitoring of education services, resulting in a ‘missing middle tier’ (Hill, 2012).
Muijs and Romyantseva (2014) found that the local coordination of the school system is one
of the most worrying aspects of the current policy context, as the emphasis on school
autonomy combined with competition often discourages schools from working together and
the reduction in the power and influence of LAs have reduced their scope to fulfil a
coordinating role. This weakness has been highlighted in some areas in the current
pandemic.
There is a growing literature expressing views from across the political spectrum that
England’s system of governance is too centralised, overly expensive and limits local initiative
and innovation in response to changing local circumstances (Raikes and Giovannini, 2020;
Timothy, 2020). A number of suggestions for the next stage of governance reform offer a
degree of consensus that sub-regions are the key level as a vehicle for devolution and as a
route to empowering cities, towns and villages within their region. They call for a re-writing of
the constitution to ensure a real shift in power and funding. The Northern Powerhouse
1
from the field of economics, defined as the removal of intermediaries from a supply chain (Oxford English
dictionary)
8(consisting of 11 LEPs2 out of 35 covering the whole of England), a partnership of business
leaders and local politicians, came together before the 2019 general election with a
manifesto calling for a rebalancing of the economy, to allow local control of investment,
transport skills and schools (Northern Powerhouse, 2019). Similar proposals have been
made by the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) and ‘Devolution Britain’, a think tank
which has influenced the Northern Powerhouse Manifesto. Timothy’s3 (2020) analysis
describes a group who have argued for policies that support ‘somewhere’; i.e. the
recognition of community as fundamental to a strong country and as part of people’s identity;
most notably David Goodheart (2017). Timothy (2020: 224) recognizes the importance of
Metro Mayors but argues as well for a strong single tier of local government complemented
by national and local social enterprises.
The theory of action underpinning these arguments is that local people are in a better
position to understand their needs, how best to meet them and how to mobilize local
capacity. There appears to be growing disillusion with government reliance on market
mechanisms and with ‘remote technocrats’ making decisions on their behalf who do not
consider the importance of local communities. Timothy argues particularly forcefully for the
importance of rebuilding communities, which he sees as being undermined by the combined
forces of globalization, an over-emphasis on markets and centralization of decision-making
(ibid: 183). The 'somewhere', people rooted in their communities, he argues, need be given
back more control. Appendix Two covers these arguments in more detail.
A problem with literature on international systems (e.g. Moorshed et al.’s 2010 study for
McKinsey) is a lack of clarity about where to position the middle tier. Suggestions for an
English solution vary. Hargreaves called for “the creation of a new intermediary between the
individual school and the LA” (2010: 5). Hill (2012: 10) suggested Regional Commissioners,
whose ability to steer the system would come from holding funding agreements for
academies, allocating capital funding for all major projects and disbursing a school
improvement budget allocated by the DfE to each sub-region. In 2014, eight Regional
School Commissioners (RSCs) were appointed with the remit to oversee academies; decide
on applications to convert to academy status; and recruit and monitor sponsors. While Hill’s
vision was for these new commissioners to “gain their legitimacy from being accountable
democratically” (2012: 13), they were appointed by the DfE and not answerable, as LAs are,
to elected members but, initially, directly to the Secretary of State. In 2020 all are civil
servants rather than educationalists. Since 2016 they report to a National Schools
Commissioner (NSC), described as “an increasingly powerful figure in the creation and
expansion of MATs” (Education Selection Committee, 2017: paragraph 5). The PASC report
goes on to warn (2017, paragraph 46):
There is too much emphasis on upward accountability and not enough on local
engagement – MATs are not sufficiently accountable to their local community [who]
feel disconnected from decision-making at trustee board level. [There is] more work
to be done to ensure that MATs are accountable to the communities in which their
schools are located; there must be more engagement with parents and clarity around
the role of local governing boards”.
The Academies Commission (2013) reinforced the need for sustained local scrutiny of the
quality of education. It is unlikely that eight RSCs are able to fulfil the role of 152 LAs in this
regard. Emerging concerns are that the schools who need support do not recognise it,
2
Local Enterprise Partnership: business led partnership between local businesses and local authorities. Role is
to determine local economic priorities and drive economic growth including creating local jobs and oversee the
2014 – 2020 European Structural and Investment Funds Growth Programme in England. LEPs can overlap
geographically and the size, economic make-up and rural/urban split of each of these areas vary considerably .
3 Nick Timothy was a former joint head of the no 10 policy unit under Theresa May.
9without LA monitoring and support, and have neither the will nor the resources to seek it (Gu
et al., 2015); and the challenges for LAs of fulfilling their responsibility towards vulnerable
pupils (Sandals and Bryant, 2014, Bryant et al., 2015).
Meanwhile, LAs and schools have been developing their own approaches to local
collaboration, many driven by a strong moral purpose for the welfare of all students in their
area (Gilbert, 2017). Bryant et al. (2018: 22) note: “The historical relationships between
schools, academies and the LA had played an important part” in how the reform of services
was evolving. However, there is little empirical evidence capturing the successful elements
of such partnerships, made more difficult by changing performance metrics. Phase 2 of this
research, therefore, is a timely and invaluable addition to the understanding of emerging
good practice in the field.
This literature review attempts to bring some clarity to the debate; capture lessons where
they can be learned from international systems; and suggest case studies and research
questions for the next phases of the project.
Conceptual framework
Building on the conceptual approach of Cousin (2019a), the review takes a ‘governance’
approach in order to illuminate the complexities and contestations inherent in discussions of
leading education systems. Cousin (2019a: 12-28) proposes five governance propositions
which enable a nuanced understanding of the research questions:
1. The concept of ‘governance’ is both complex and contested. Theorists (e.g. Kooiman,
2000, 2003) have suggested a global governance trend away from ‘first-order governance’
or hierarchical control, via ‘second-order’ governance (frameworks and standards) towards
‘third-order’ governance (a mature self-regulating system). This normative view is promoted
by international organisations such as the OECD and underpins the vision in England of a
self-improving school system (SISS). However, Cousin (2018, 2019a) contests the
suggestion of a linear shift in the dominant form of governance from hierarchies through
markets to networks, illustrating how the power of the state has not, in fragmenting, been
weakened. All three forms of governance coexist in England resulting in ambiguous
relationships and opaque accountabilities between public and private interests in the field of
education.
2. Governance is the domain of a large number and type of bodies beyond government,
which the government steer ‘at a distance’ (Rose, 1996: 350); those with financial, social and
moral capital have privileged access to influence and control, in an unstable alliance in which
the state is free to end programmes, reassign contracts and close agencies.
3. The ‘tools of the trade’ of governing in such mixed or heterarchical systems include the
policy levers of hierarchical governance (e.g. legislation; funding; performance indicators
such as targets); policy frameworks (e.g. Every Child Matters); and quasi-market
mechanisms such as ‘choice’.
4. A governance approach recognises ‘power’ in the Foucaldian sense that it circulates
between mutually dependent actors.
5. A lack of alignment of policy tools leads to tension in the system which professionals
navigate using differing degrees of agency relative to their position in local and national
hierarchies.
This governance approach – based on the above five propositions - provides useful
concepts for the discussion of the complexities of whole system reform, of policy borrowing
across jurisdictions and of policy implementation, which depends upon a consideration of
questions of power, culture, trust and agency.
10Any system governance arrangements need to balance tensions between consistency and
flexibility, excellence and equity, competition and collaboration, innovation and compliance,
measurable outcomes and wider educational purposes. The analysis builds on the OECD’s
concept of ‘functional decentralisation’, which takes into account the fact that “decision-
making may be decentralised in certain activities and centralised in others” (OECD, 2018:
412). The review aims to identify how four high-performing jurisdictions (Estonia, Finland,
Ontario, Singapore) have responded to these challenges, to capture the solutions or trade-
offs, including where accountability rests. Schleicher (2018) reports a general trend towards
decentralisation; however, no other country has devolved decision-making to schools to the
extent that England has. A significant difference between countries is the choice of which
functions are delegated to schools. For the purpose of this review seven functions are
identified:
Governance functions
F1 Recruitment, training and retention of high-quality teachers and leaders
F2 Support for vulnerable pupils including those with SEND
F3 A curriculum that meets the needs of pupils and society
F4 Effective and efficient school improvement
F5 Ensuring accountability and monitoring quality
F6 Managing the supply of places and school admissions
F7 Future-proofing
Sources
The analysis of high-performing international systems is based on OECD summaries of
PISA data from the 2015 and 2018 assessments; published studies of high-performing
education systems and data from government websites of the four jurisdictions. The 2015
assessments focused primarily on performance in science and the 2018 on reading literacy,
defined as: “understanding, using, evaluating, reflecting on and engaging with texts in order
to achieve one’s goals, to develop one’s knowledge and potential, and to participate in
society”. The analyses build on previously published work of the author (Cousin, 2019a;
2019b).
Sources for the analysis of England’s place-based models were identified by a literature
search using key words (place-based reform; school improvement; locality models of
education; opportunity areas) and include DfE published policies, delivery plans and
commissioned evaluations.
Analysis
Part One: How are ‘middle tier’ functions organised in high-performing international
systems?
Choice of jurisdiction
Four jurisdictions were chosen for this study: Ontario (Canada), Estonia, Finland and
Singapore. Appendix Three gives a brief description of the education system in each
jurisdiction. Choice of jurisdiction was based on four factors. The first was performance in
the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), a worldwide study by the
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) in member and non-
member nations, intended to evaluate educational systems by measuring 15-year old school
pupils’ performance in mathematics, science and reading. Singapore persistently performs at
11the top of the PISA league table in all three subjects. Finland, Estonia and Canada are the
only non-Asian nations to consistently reach the top rankings in PISA.
Position in PISA Tables
Reading Maths Science
2015 2018 2015 2018 2015 2018
Singapore 1 2 1 2 1 2
Estonia 6 5 9 8 3 4
Canada 3 6 10 12 7 8
Finland 4 7 7 16 5 6
UK 22 14 27 18 15 14
Table 1: PISA results 2015 and 2018
The OECD define a successful system as one with both high achievement and high equity.
Equity is a concern of this study, so these measures are an important factor informing the
choice of jurisdictions. In 2015 these four were among only seven jurisdictions that had at
least nine out of ten 15-year olds master the baseline level of proficiency in all three subjects
(OECD, 2016a: 4). Table 2 shows that, while social attainment gaps continue to exist, higher
percentages of disadvantaged students attain at the highest levels in these countries than
on average across the OECD and, with the exception of Singapore, the gaps are smaller. In
Singapore 10% of disadvantaged students achieved the top level in reading in 2018 (against
an OECD average of 3%), showing that “poverty is not destiny”.
Table 2: Social attainment gaps in PISA assessments
In addition, the OECD claim an indication of the equity of a system is the percentage of
resilient students, defined as those “in the bottom quarter of the PISA index of economic,
social and cultural status in the country of assessment [who] perform in the top quarter of
students among all countries, after accounting for socio-economic status (OECD, 2013:
194). Table 3 shows the high percentage of resilient students in Estonia, Canada and
Finland. (Tables 2 and 3 also show the UK’s progress in closing social attainment gaps.)
12Resilient
PISA 2018
Student %
Singapore 10
Estonia 16
Canada 14
Finland 13
UK 14
OECD Avg 11
Table 3: % of resilient students
Overall, the PISA data shows overall high levels of school segregation by socio-economic
status. Schleicher, the Secretary General of the OECD, warns that high levels of social and
ability stratification between schools impacts learning opportunities. In countries where there
is no moderation between school differences, the disadvantaged have only a 1 in 8 chance
of attending the same school as a high achiever. In Canada, Estonia and Finland, by
contrast, disadvantaged students have at least a 1 in 5 chance of having high-achieving
schoolmates.
A third consideration was the desire to cover a range of models of governance and this
review includes all three of Sahlberg’s (2007) global models: ‘anglo-saxon’ (markets, choice
and competition); ‘pacific’ (authoritarian, conformist, high expectations); and ‘Nordic’ (high
status, high trust, devolved responsibilities within national frameworks).
Finally, the selection of jurisdictions is interesting in its inclusion of both a rising star
(Estonia) and a falling one (Finland), although the latter continues to score at the top of
metrics of international performance from ‘educating for the future’ (WEFFI, 2018, 2019) to
‘happiness’ (Helliwell et al., 2020).
An important factor to bear in mind is the relative size of the jurisdictions under review, which
are all small compared with England. Scaling is therefore an issue to be taken into account
when considering the location of middle tier functions and the numbers of schools and
students middle tier bodies might be responsible for:
England Estonia Finland Ontario Singapore
Expenditure on
education as % of GDP 4.2% (UK) 4.7% 5.7% 8% 3.6%
(OECD average 5%)
Number of schools 24,323 515 2,440 4,713 360
Number of students
8.82 0.15 0.54 2.20 0.52
(millions)
Number of districts/LAs 152 79 311 72 -
Population (million) 55.6 1.3 5.5 14.2 5.8
Table 4: Characteristics of selected overseas education jurisdictions
13F1: Recruitment, training and retention of high-quality teachers and leaders
Recruitment and initial teacher education (ITE)
“The quality of an education system cannot exceed the quality of its teachers” (Barber and
Mourshed, 2007) is one of the most-quoted claims in educational reform. A belief in its
accuracy has led to an extensive literature on teacher and leader training and development.
Many studies identify the concentration on selecting and training the best graduates in a
system as foundational to the success of high-performing systems (Jensen et al., 2016).
This is the case in our four systems. In Estonia, Finland and Singapore, teacher education is
paid for completely by the government, and candidates earn a salary while they train. In
Ontario, the government covers about two thirds of the cost of candidates’ training.
Teachers are trained to Masters level in a limited number of select universities.
All four countries operate strict control over the quality of applicants at their entry into
teacher education and are highly selective. Both Singapore and Finland have many more
applicants than are accepted and screen them carefully from top graduates to ensure they
have the attributes that make teachers effective (commitment to the profession and evidence
of the capacity to work well with children) as well as academic ability. The ITE system in
Finland has been relatively stable over a number of years. Only one in 100 applicants pass
the rigorous selection process which includes a written exam on pedagogy, participation in a
school situation and interview (Sahlberg, 2015: 100). Only eight research universities are
accredited to provide teacher training programmes, with a common commitment to a
research-based orientation in order to build a teaching profession who can act with
autonomy, reflection and responsibility in decision-making. The ITE curriculum includes:
educational theory and philosophy, psychology and sociology, curriculum theory, student
assessment, special needs education, and didactics (pedagogical content knowledge) in
their selected subject areas. This means teachers can be trusted to design local curricula
and assessment (within the national framework). Research methodologies and educational
sciences are important and ethics and evaluation are explicitly taught. ITE incudes 15 –
25% time in Teacher Training Schools governed by the universities, where students observe
lessons by experienced teachers, practice teaching observed by supervisory teachers, and
deliver independent lessons to different groups of pupils while being evaluated by
supervising teachers and ITE trainers.
Two features distinguish the teaching workforce in Estonia: the first is the degree of
feminization (e.g. 92% in primary education against an OECD average of 82%, 78% in upper
secondary education against an OECD average of 59%). The second is age: Estonia is
predicting a teacher shortage as 48% of teachers are over the age of 50. There are three
routes into teaching: completing an ITE programme; a pedagogy post-graduate master’s
level; or through the professional qualifications system, by having teacher professional
competencies validated by a teacher professional body, involving specific assessments
(OECD, 2016a). Leaders undertake an additional specific MA programme at the University
of Tartu or the University of Tallinn.
In Ontario, there is a mandatary two-year pre-service teaching programme for candidates
with an undergraduate degree to train as teachers at one of 13 Universities accredited by the
Ontario College of Education, founded in 2001 as part of the drive to professionalise and
standardize teacher training. The expanded ITE programme was designed to ensure teacher
candidates develop pedagogical strategies that offer opportunities to promote deep learning
and 21st century competencies. Around 4,500 ITEs are trained per year. High teacher
retention and falling student numbers have led to an over-supply with new teachers taking
up to five years to gain a permanent post (Edge, et al., 2017: 81).
14Singapore redesigned its teacher education programme in 2001 to increase teachers’
pedagogical knowledge and skills as well as their content knowledge, with a focus on
teaching problem-solving and inquiry-based learning. The National Institute of Education
(NIE) is the country’s only educator training institution. The ITE curriculum includes skills,
knowledge and values such as empathy and the belief that all children can learn and
succeed. The number of accepted students accurately corresponds with the needs in the
labour market after their graduation. Teachers are appointed to schools with the aim of
ensuring that all schools have a fair share of the best teachers (Schleicher, 2018: 129).
Status
Results from the Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS), a five-yearly
international survey of teachers, school leaders and the learning environment in schools,
show that teachers in these four jurisdictions have high-status in society, all ranking above
England which was placed 11th on this measure (OECD, 2013). The 2018 TALIS survey
reconfirms this difference, with the percentage of teachers who feel valued ranging from
72% in Singapore, 63% in Canada and 58% in Finland, compared with just under 30% in
England (OECD, 2020: 80). The four systems have all taken steps to professionalise
teaching. Ontario ended several policies adopted in the 1990s, such as testing and
evaluation requirements that teachers had seen as punitive, which had led to an exodus
from the profession. The incoming Labour government in 2004, instead created a Working
Table on Teacher Development that included teacher representatives, and adopted policies
aimed at providing support and building teachers’ capacity to teach more effectively. The
province now has a surplus of teachers, as do Estonia, Finland and Singapore.
The Ministry of Education in Singapore promotes teaching and links it to the success of the
nation:
“As a teaching scholar, you get to be part of the most influential group of people
anywhere in Singapore. You will have first-hand experience of shaping your students’
thoughts through your words and actions. You will also have the opportunity to
review and implement education policies which will impact many generations to
come. The youths of today are the citizens and leaders of tomorrow. As a teaching
scholar, you shape the future of our nation.“ (MoE, 2020)
Induction of newly qualified teachers
In Estonia each beginning teacher is allocated a mentor from the same school, appointed by
the school director. Mentors have at least three years of experience in pedagogical work
and have to pass specific training in supervision. The mentor supervises the teacher and is
required to provide feedback to the ITE institution from which the beginning teacher
qualified.
In Finland, teachers’ induction and continuing professional development (CPD) are the
responsibility of the school and LEA and there is considerable variability between LAs
(Sahlberg, 2015: 100).
Since 2004, in Ontario, the Ministry of Education has emphasized the need to build collective
professional capacity at all levels of the system and has promoted respect for teachers,
teaching practice and teacher development. The province instituted a mandatory
comprehensive induction programme, The New Teacher Induction Programme (NTIP), that
includes PD and appraisal, as well as an appraisal programme for all teachers that focuses
on development and growth. These policies have served to reverse an exodus from the
teaching profession (Darling-Hammond and Rothman, 2011). The NTIP provides a range of
15supports, including orientation, mentoring, and PD focused on key areas of need identified
by new teachers, including classroom management, communication with parents,
assessment and evaluation, and work with students with special needs.
In Singapore, beginning teachers are given two years of coaching from expert senior
teachers who are trained by the NIE as mentors and have dedicated time for mentoring.
Beginning teachers teach two thirds of an experienced teacher’s timetable and attend
courses in classroom management, counselling, reflective practices, and assessment
offered by NIE and the Ministry.
Continuing professional development (CPD)
The TALIS 2018 report (OECD, 2020: 139) finds: “support available for participation in CPD
is positively and significantly related to [teachers’] satisfaction with their terms of employment.”
It states that, in particular, professional collaboration is positively associated with levels of job
satisfaction (p.157) and with the use of cognitive activation practices (positively associated
with student learning (developing evaluation, integration and application of knowledge). The
OECD associate these practices with the willingness to innovate, as they diverge from a
‘traditional’ teacher-led delivery mode and focus on the creation of cross-curricular skills.
While, according to responses in the TALIS 2018 survey, they are “underutilised” across the
systems participating (only 21% of respondents report experience of them), they are common
in high-performing systems (e.g. 50% in Shanghai; 31% in Finland). Jensen et al (2016) also
report that CPD and collaborative teaching practices are common in high-performing systems.
In Estonia, free training courses are offered by the State and professional subject
associations. Experienced school leaders receive both mentor training and coaching
training. A ‘free market’ has replaced a previously mandated 160 hours of CPD over five
years.
The Finnish state budget allocates about $30–40m each year to the CPD of teachers and
school principals through various forms of university courses and in-service training. LAs in
Finland devote an equal amount of annual funding as the State to professional development.
Additionally, the balance between classroom teaching and timetabled professional
collaboration with other teachers in Finland means that all teachers experience collaborative
learning with their peers. Teachers are entitled to three CPD days annually, funded and
planned by the LA.
Ongoing professional learning opportunities are also integral to every teacher’s job in
Ontario, with the aim of encouraging an innovative culture of learning, encouraging risk
taking and promoting continuous learning, collaboration and capacity-building. (Pellegrino
and Hilton, 2012; Jensen et al, 2016). An annual learning plan is mandatory for teachers and
is negotiated with the school principal. School districts emphasise the value of technology-
enabled teaching and learning (Ontario Ministry of Education, 2016; CODE website) and
offer a variety of grants to assist teachers and leaders to work together on projects, such as
the 2017-18 Teacher Learning and Leadership Program (TLLP). Non-mandatory
qualifications accredited by the Ontario College of Teachers, a self-regulating professional
body, require 120 hours of professional learning.
Singapore introduced the GROW package (Growth, Recognition, Opportunity and Well-
being) in 2007. Teachers are entitled to 100 hours of professional development per year to
stay up to date in their field and improve their practice in addition to 20 hours per week for
shared planning and collaborative learning. In-service courses are designed and funded by
the MIE and the Academy of Singapore teachers although supply/demand issues mean
State funded courses are often cancelled. A commitment to CPD is apparent in resources
16committed, including a Teaching Academy, a teachers network and a lead teacher to coach
and support teachers in each school. Thirty-five teachers per year are selected for
leadership training. As in Ontario, principals move schools every few years (OECD, 2010:
170).
Performance management and career development
The TALIS 2018 report (OECD, 2020) gives detailed data on teacher appraisal, measuring
the incidence of types of data collected as part of appraisal, as reported by participants in the
survey. These include classroom observation (90%), student results in external tests (e.g.
national exams) (93%), student survey responses (82%), assessments of teachers’ subject
content knowledge (70%) and teacher self-assessment (68%). While CPD is reported as a
valid aim of appraisal systems due to its positive impact teacher performance and student
learning, they also report that appraisal is more likely to result in ‘consequences’ (more or less
pay; dismissal) if the school principal has the responsibility for the consequences. Finland
uses fewest of these measures. Responses from England indicate more consequences
arising from appraisal results than any other country responding (p.130). England’s teachers
self-report as the most observed in the OECD in both TALIS 2013 and 2018 and in 2018
reported increased use of assessment of content knowledge (by more than 14 percentage
points compared with 2013). Singapore was second on this measure, Estonia low and
reducing and Finland the lowest.
In Estonia, a system of teacher professional qualifications linked to professional standards
was introduced in 2013, together with a new career structure. This has no formal links to
salary levels and access to its higher levels is voluntary. Its main aim is to serve as a reference
for teachers’ competency development. There are no national salary scales, only the minimum
teacher salary established by the national government following collective negotiations with
teacher unions. In some municipalities, there are collective agreements with teacher unions
which school directors have to respect, leading to considerable variation of teacher salaries
across subsystems (state, municipal, private) and across municipalities. Teacher appraisal
for in-service teachers in Estonia occurs as regular appraisal for performance management in
schools and, on a voluntary basis, as part of the certification process to reach the higher levels
of the career structure (OECD, 2016a: 196-200).
In Finland there is no system wide test or nationally regulated framework for the evaluation
of teachers: this is considered a local affair to increase teacher empowerment. LEAs are
responsible and guidelines for the evaluation framework stem from the educational
objectives of each municipality. Trust based assessment stems from the recognised high
level of training and PD and is based on the development of schools not individual teachers.
The non-hierarchical nature of education (e.g. there are no subject heads) means there is
little career progression in the sense of career steps and roles, but teachers take on a wide
range of responsibilities often done by ‘experts’, external agencies or consultants (e.g. in
curriculum development, assessment and developing teaching and learning) and there is a
wider than average differential in pay between beginning and most experienced teachers.
In Ontario, teachers are entitled to six days of CPD per year and in addition, more than
35,000 teachers take Additional Qualifications (AQ) programmes every year to upgrade their
qualifications and enhance their practice. A Teacher Performance Appraisal (TPA) system
aims to provide meaningful appraisals that encourage professional learning and growth and
teachers are encouraged to include parental and student feedback, although this is not
mandatory. The process was developed in collaboration with key education stakeholders
and is designed to foster teacher development and identify opportunities for additional
support where required. Each teacher is appraised every five years by his/her school
17principal based on competencies that reflect standards of practice set out by OCT (16
competencies for experienced teachers and eight competencies for new teachers).
Singapore has a highly developed performance management system, which spells out the
knowledge, skills, and attitudes expected at each stage of a teacher’s career and, based on
careful evaluation and intensive support, provides a choice of three career tracks: mentor
teachers, curriculum specialists, or principals. The aim is to develop talent in every
component of the education system and ensure progression for teachers with different
strengths.
Leadership development
Cousin (2019a: 176) distinguishes managed systems, which plan for leadership succession
and more devolved systems which rely on self-nomination. Risks of the latter aspiration-led
approach are that the most suitable candidates might not apply; overall insufficient numbers
and a potential lack of diversity. All four systems in this study recruit principals from the
cohort of expert teachers who demonstrate leadership potential. Jensen et al (2017) offer
detailed international comparisons of leadership preparation in high-performing schools
systems in Canada, Singapore, Hong Kong and Shanghai, identifying six common features:
• defined career pathways
• professional standards reflecting the system’s philosophy on how schools improve
including critical reflection
• a partnership of government, university and providers to design a programme with a
conceptual framework and theory of action
• training which includes high-quality action research projects and a collaborative
approach to problem-solving
• CPD as part of the job and integrated with other system elements such as QA and
accountability
• delivery based on principles of adult learning.
Retention over time
The OECD believe “retaining teachers and principals is crucial to the success of an education
system and its schools. Experienced teachers tend to be more effective than novice teachers”.
Experience, particularly in the same school, contributes to the effectiveness of mentoring
(OECD, 2020: 133).
A number of studies suggest different phases of a teacher’s career. Day and Gu (2009)
challenge Huberman’s (1993) observation of a phase of disengagement towards the end of
teachers’ careers, reporting that their four-year mixed methods study found a strong sense
of purpose and agency in experienced teachers. They report that teachers’ sense of
professionalism is impacted in school by the quality of leadership, working conditions and
levels of support including PD and externally by policy and accountability frameworks. The
type and degree of support needed changes as teachers progress through their career and
high-performing systems reflect this.
Academic training is seen as critical to success:
The Finnish example suggests that a critical condition for attracting the most able
young people is that teaching is an independent and respected profession rather
18than just a technical implementation of externally mandated standards and tests.
Teachers’ strong competence and preparedness creates the prerequisite for the
professional autonomy that makes teaching a valued career. (Sahlberg, 2015).
Singapore has only 3% per annum teacher loss. The teacher survey 2018 reports the top
three reasons for staying are: a positive culture with a strong sense of mission; good
compensation and rewards benchmarked against market rates; a wide range of
opportunities for professional growth and development (www.moe.gov.sg).
Local autonomy
Greater local autonomy over managing teachers is associated with stronger alignment of
teachers’ competencies to local needs and more equitable allocation of teachers across
schools, thus supporting the most disadvantaged with a better-qualified teaching workforce
(OECD, 2020).
In Estonia, the school board has a say in appointments. The salaries of teachers and
principals are paid by the local government, from state allocated nationally agreed funds, to
which the local government can add. Schools in Estonia are responsible for half of the
decisions regarding personnel management. However, most of the decisions taken at the
school level are within a framework set by a higher authority and not in full autonomy. Hiring,
dismissal and salaries are all defined within a centrally set framework. Schools only have full
autonomy over the conditions of service. Similarly, the hiring, and dismissal of school heads
are decided at the local level, within a framework set by the central government. Salary
levels of school heads are also determined locally. “This autonomy of local management of
the teaching workforce is a strength in a system where schools are individually judged on
their ability to improve student learning” (OECD, 2016a: 205).
In Finland, LAs own schools and employ teachers, but typically, school principals have
delegated authority to recruit the staff of their schools. The same salary scheme is applied in
all parts of the country and is determined in a national labour contract which the Trade Union
of Education negotiates with the Local Government Employers (a body which promotes the
interests of Finland’s municipalities and joint municipal authorities on the labour market).
Factors affecting pay include: type of school; a personal bonus decided by the Principal that
depends on overall job performance (including feedback from parents, colleagues, and the
principal but not student achievement); extra pay for additional hours on top of the minimum
required teaching load together with other possible compensation. Performance bonuses can
be awarded to a school or cluster of schools as a collective reward for especially successful
work accomplished together. The role of the Trade Union of Education in Finland (OAJ),
established in 1973, has been both a negotiator of the terms of teachers’ employment
contracts and an advocate for education (www.oaj.fi). More than 95% of teachers/principals
in Finland are OAJ members.
The Ontario College of Teachers, established by the provincial government in 1996,
regulates the teaching profession and governs its members. 23 of the 37 council members
are elected by the profession for a term of three years: the other 14 members are appointed
by the provincial government. Its website stresses accountability to the public for education
standards and ethics. Supervision of school leaders and schools are the responsibility of the
superintendents and directors of the 72 Boards of Education (Council of Ontario Directors of
Education (CODE)).
Darling-Hammond and Rothman (2011) suggest the strong performance of Ontario, Finland
and Singapore is partly due to the recognition by system leaders that all policies need to
work in harmony or the systems will become unbalanced. For example, placing too strong an
19emphasis on recruitment without concomitant attention on development and retention could
result in a continual churn within the teaching profession. Another feature of the high-
performing jurisdictions is their continual refinement in the light of feedback. Finland’s
Ministry of Education became concerned that teachers needed more support, so
strengthened induction and professional development. Estonia noted the relatively low
remuneration of teachers’ pay and included in their Lifelong Learning Strategy 2020 a target
to improve teachers’ salaries (see Appendix Three). Ontario’s teacher survey found gaps in
initial preparation in areas like classroom management and the teaching of students with
special needs, so these areas were strengthened in the induction system. Singapore
became concerned that students were too passive in class and amended the curriculum to
place greater emphasis on problem solving and critical thinking. OECD’s PISA assessments
and TALIS surveys of teachers and leaders has played a role in promoting the importance of
these skills in a global economy and society.
In summary, high-performing systems value their teachers and reward them not only with
levels of remuneration equivalent to those of other tertiary educated workers, but with
support and professional development throughout their career. The OECD (2020: 79) report
a positive correlation between the positive prestige of the teaching profession and the
educational achievement of students. To increase teachers’ perceptions of being valued in
society and thereby increase recruitment and retention, the OECD (2020:76) advises
governments allocate adequate resources, ensure career progression and enable
collaborative, supportive working environments.
In England, in line with most education systems in the OECD (OECD, 2020: 56), the DfE
sets the framework and provides funding for ITE. NFER’s ‘Engaging Teachers’ research
found that if teachers felt they were being well-supported, they were less likely to want to
leave the profession (Lynch et al., 2016). However, England is facing a serious shortfall in
the number of teachers needed in publicly funded schools. The total number of teachers in
2018 was 453,000, a fall of 4,000 from a peak in 2016 (Foster, 2019). Recruitment has not
kept pace with increasing pupil numbers and the ratio of qualified teachers to pupils
increased from 17.8 in 2011 to 18.9 in 2018. While the recruitment of initial teacher trainees
was above target each year from 2006-07 to 2011-12, it has been below target in each year
since, with wide variations across subjects. 32.3% of newly qualified entrants in 2013 were
not recorded as working in the state sector five years later: this is the highest five-year
wastage rate on the current series which dates back to 1997 (Foster, 2019: 5). A large
NFER mixed methods study (Worth, 2018) found an increasing rate of experienced teachers
also leaving the profession (from 8.9% in primary schools and from 10.8% to 11.8% in
secondary schools). The percentage of teachers older than 50 in both primary and
secondary schools has decreased from 23% in 2010 to 17% in 2016, a concern given the
above findings on the value of experienced teachers. Overall pupil numbers are expected to
continue rising, driven by a projected 15% increase in the number of secondary school
pupils between 2018 and 2024 which is particularly challenging as secondary schools face
recruitment problems in the English Baccalaureate subjects. The main reasons given for
leaving teaching include increasing administrative workload and excessive monitoring
(Worth, 2018; Foster, 2019; OECD, 2020). It has been suggested (Schleicher, 2019) that
these issues arise from a lack of trust in the profession. This contrasts with the on-going,
supportive monitoring in the high-performing systems, where the intention is to ‘improve,
rather than prove’.
Recent research has found important differences in the retention rates of teachers in
different types of school structure (Worth et al., 2017: 6 found MATs tend to have a slightly
higher than average rate of teachers leaving the profession compared to other school types);
in different regions (DfE, 2016) and for teachers who take different training routes (Allen et
al., 2016a). Shortages disproportionately affect schools that serve more disadvantaged
20You can also read
