How Do Leaders in Multi-Academy Trusts in England Work to Share Knowledge and Align Practices?

• In Event: "Moving Knowledge Around" Within and Between Schools: The Role of National Contexts and Institutional Environments

Abstract

Objective
This paper explores the ways in which Multi-Academy Trusts (MATs) in England work to share knowledge and align practices between member schools and teachers.

Theoretical perspectives
Understanding how schools can support teachers to share expertise has been an implicit focus for research into: school improvement and effectiveness (Hopkins, 2015), school and district leadership (Day et al, 2011; Leithwood and Azah, 2017), and the leadership of change (Hall, 2013). This paper draws on these perspectives, but focusses on the theories of action and decision-making styles that leaders of MATs adopt for moving knowledge around.

Methods and data sources
The paper draws on a recent large-scale mixed methods study of school improvement approaches in MATs. This involved: 23 MAT case studies involving 231 interviews; secondary analysis of 35 interviews with MAT Chief Executives; a national survey of MAT leaders (n=359 responses) and a focus group with case study leaders. The case study sample was stratified to include MATs in three performance bands (above/below, average) and by size (small - 3-6 schools, medium – 7-14 schools, large – 15+ schools).

Findings and argument
All the case study MATs invested in professional and leadership development for staff, usually with an emphasis on ‘sharing best practices’, although such practices had rarely been evaluated. Most MATs had mechanisms for designating ‘expert’ practitioners and using them to provide support to lower performing schools and to facilitate subject networks. A minority were engaged in disciplined innovation; for example, identifying a common issue based on data and then focussing on it collectively, with an emphasis on evaluation and shared learning.

A key question for leaders is whether, when and how to align or standardise practices across the group. Most saw benefits in ensuring that effective practices were applied consistently, but most also expressed concern that this could reduce professional ownership and limit contextualisation. In practice, aligning practices is often contentious, with some schools and practitioners actively resisting change.

MATs adopt different approaches to alignment in different areas (assessment, curriculum, pedagogy) and with different schools (i.e. greater prescription with lower performing schools). Examples range from highly codified and standardised approaches to more organic models that rely on peer collaboration and knowledge sharing. The former examples are associated with a directive decision-making style and centralised delivery structure, while the latter rely on a facilitative style and decentralised structure. A minority of MATs seek to embed ‘enabling routines’ (Peurach and Glazer, 2011) as a way of supporting knowledge sharing and building consistency without necessarily prescribing specific practices.

Significance
Several school systems have equivalent structures to MATs (e.g. Dutch school boards, Charter Management Organisations) and the findings have broad implications for how system leaders mobilize knowledge to advance practice, performance, and outcomes, as well as the way in which newly emergent environments create affordances and complexities that shape these efforts.

Author

• Toby Michael Greany, University of Nottingham