Even with a world-class model there can be teething problems and issues with capacity, training and power imbalances. (Headteacher)
This article presents a practitioner perspective on peer review, summarising, from a range of interviews with headteachers and system leaders, the benefits and challenges of implementing peer review in England. It focuses on the growing trend towards peer review in voluntary area-based collaborative groups.
Area-based education partnerships (AEPs)
AEPs have developed in England as a result of changes to education governance since 2010i. The Area-based Education Partnerships Association defines education partnerships as:
school-led, local organisations that include all types of schools with the central purpose of raising standards. They take responsibility for the quality of education in a local area; bridge the divide between different types of schools; provide a framework to allow schools to work together and encompass local authorities (LAs) and schools across all phases and types. Member organisations define themselves by locality. There are different models in operation but all must be commercially sustainable. (https://aepa.org.uk)
AEPs were mainly established to fulfil LAs’ statutory duty for school improvement, with some AEPs developing to include other functionsii. Practitioners are enthusiastic about the potential of these partnerships as a holistic solution to local issues and an antidote to the competitive governance environment resulting from the marketisation of education provisioniii.
In 2020, partnerships were underway in over 30 local areas and were varied in terms of remit and governance - some are LA-majority control, others school majority control; some are private companies, others charities, some a mixture of the two. They include areas small enough for people to know faces and engage in depth (e.g. Ealing, Tower Hamlets, Camden), and larger areas, e.g. Surrey, with over 400 schools. Almost all partnerships have a commission for school improvement from the LA. Advocates argue that they are effective due to the blend of democratic accountability of the LA and the professional and moral accountability of school leaders who voluntarily come together for the good of all young people in an area. “Many schools describe their commitment to their local partnership as stemming from pride in and a sense of belonging to a place, as well as shared moral purpose to do the best for all the children and young people in the local community”iv.
A common strategy adopted to fulfil the aim of improving all schools in an area is peer review. This chapter summarises from recent empirical research, implementation issues to be considered in making peer review an effective means of school improvement in voluntary collaborative groups of schools.
Choosing a model for peer review
In England, several models of peer review have been developed, including:
- Education Development Trust’s School Partnership Programme;
- models arising from partnerships between universities and schools, e.g. the London Centre for Leadership in Learning’s Research Informed Peer Review;
- practitioner-designed models developed as an alternative to the national inspection framework, e.g. the NAHT’s ‘Instead’, the SSAT’s Peer Review Programme and the Challenge Partners’ QA Review.
A growing literature captures the benefits and challenges of the range of peer review models in different settingsv vi vii viii.
Commonly-cited benefits of using an established peer review model include:
- The motivation and engagement which comes from a collective moral purpose and shared vision
- A clear model of change underpinned by research and understanding of cultural change
- Planning, quality assurance and a sustainable business model
- Effective continuing professional development (CPD) for leaders and teachers
- Increased trust arising from an inclusive culture of openness and transparency
- Mutual accountability which counters competitive tensions
Common challenges include:
- A model of sustainable funding
- Reconciling the purposes of the collaboration with the current accountability mindset in a high-accountability system
- Agreeing and keeping to a core purpose
- A lack of evaluative and/or feedback skills
- Maintaining the right balance of challenge and support
Most collaborative groups spend a short period investigating different models before choosing one. For some, this investigation is intensive, although it mainly consists of speaking with peers who lead or have experience of peer review, rather than looking at evidence of impact or reading evaluation reports, few of which have yet been published. However, in implementing the chosen process of peer review, school groups often adapt the model to their local context, sometimes in ways which diverge significantly from the original. An example is one area which modelled their peer review system on the Challenge Partners’ QA review, but did not use reviewers external to the area; for Challenge Partners, the use of experienced independent reviewers to lead each QA review is considered “a necessary condition for robust peer reviews”ix.
Adaptations can arise from different or competing purposes of peer reviews, which are not always articulated or fully understood at the start of the process. In the above example, the partnership’s aims of creating equality between schools and ensuring that the peer reviews remained non-judgemental, led to a decision that local headteachers would take turns to lead the peer reviews. Evaluations found inconsistency in the implementation of the peer review process, resulting in a lack of faith in the outcomes of the review; experienced external reviewers were introduced in the revised model.
Agreeing and keeping to a core purpose
AEPs are driven by a clear sense of collective moral responsibility for all children in the local area. Headteachers and LA leads find AEPs empowering and motivating, offering the potential to reduce social attainments gaps which are widening again as Covid-19 exposes societal inequalities:
A major benefit of effective ‘place-based’ reform is the provision of essential “glue” or coordination, by mobilising a collective sense of responsibility to reduce competition which drives local hierarchies and increases the effects of disadvantage. It also places a focus on contextual factors which can provide barriers to achievement or offer solutions. In addition, it has the potential to increase cost-efficiencies, provide external quality assurance and prevent the ‘reinvention of the wheel’.x
Peer reviews in collaborative groups are intended to reinforce the sense of belonging to an area and for school improvement to result from the sharing of contextually-relevant practice between schools. Having signed up to the collective moral purpose to work for the benefit of all pupils in an area, schools are enthusiastic to share practice and offer mutual support. Feedbackxi suggests that schools find peer reviews more useful than external inspection, as peers understand local needs and challenges and schools feel able to openly explore areas for improvement, as reports from reviews are not published. The partnership can use the collective reviews to target local issues in a coherent improvement plan and share learning about what is working.
There can, however, be tensions between the collective purpose and the needs of individual schools. Some headteachers report that their commitment to the partnership needs to be balanced with the individual priorities of their school, particularly when they are close to an Ofsted inspection. While the literaturexii xiiiemphasises the need for all schools in a partnership to be equal, with reciprocal benefits, in reality, local hierarchies exist, due to a range of factors including the nature of the national accountability system which labels schools on an Ofsted scale and in league tables of examination results. In some contexts, not all schools feel they gain equal benefit from the process:
The issues with the triad model are: if one school has little experience of how to conduct a peer review and triangulate evidence, and is not confident in the model, they find it difficult to accurately review a stronger school. For strong schools, it is the right thing to do to help other schools that are less strong, but they can find it a frustrating process because they are not challenged and they learn nothing from it. We are supposed to train each other but the reality is schools are fragile institutions and from one review to the next you can have a change of leadership team and people step into the role with no training. (Headteacher)
Peer review and accountability issues
It is important to ensure mutual benefits for all those participating in the review process as well as to reinforce the collective commitment to all pupils in the area. While AEPs are open to all schools in an area, gaining full coverage is often a challenge. In some cases, headteachers opt out of the peer review element of the AEP, preferring not to be reviewed by schools they are geographically close to. This in turn can lead to those headteachers who opted in, the majority, criticising the non-participating schools as lacking in collective commitment to the partnership or the locality. Introducing external, Ofsted-trained reviewers to join the review teams and ensuring more intensive training for those senior leaders participating in the reviews, can alleviate these issues. Debate remains on how to resist pressures for the reviews to become more like mini-Ofsted inspections and remain true to the wider vision for improvement of area-based approaches.
One suggested solutionxiv is to introduce area-based accountability, by using area-wide data to derive a measure of local accountability for all schools, so that schools’ successes are mutually dependent, stressing that all are part of a local service. Wider measures might include destinations, employment, mental health, well-being and non-cognitive attributes which are felt to be better predictors of long-term success.
Developing the right metrics
Self-evaluation is seen as a necessary first stage in an effective peer review system. Most schools use the Ofsted inspection framework to guide their self-evaluation and school development plan. Some AEPs have sought a wider range of metrics to reflect the collective aims of the partnership. The benefits of completing self-evaluation against a ‘balanced score card’ have been frequently discussed. It is arguedxv that Ofsted gives an overall excellence grade, whereas parents need to know about particular features important to them, e.g. languages, SEND support, Art, etc. The score card might be a profile that looks at student commitment, their well-being, some form of description of extra-curricular activity, as well as academic performance and inclusion. The metrics for the score card should be nationally set, after consultation, and local priorities then added. Several education systems offer examples, including Ontario, Israel, Victoria in Australia, Finland and the new system in Wales that involves peer review.
Peer reviews in collaborative school groups are not primarily seen as a preparation for Ofsted inspections, but as a means of strengthening school self-evaluation and improvement and addressing place-based issues. Schools use other review methods in addition to peer reviews, such as external consultants or LA link officers, to conduct independent reviews which are closer to mock inspections. One studyxvi found that 80% of questionnaires returned from 22 schools in a partnership reported using additional reviews in addition to the peer review and that governors were particularly keen to have these judgements. The non-judgemental and low-threat/high-challenge approach of peer reviews appears to be highly valued by participants, even though they do not currently have a formal status.xvii There is, however, a danger that if schools have to choose between the ‘mock inspections’ and the peer reviews, the latter will become financially unsustainable as pressures continue to mount on schools’ resources.
Consistent findings from evaluations that peer reviews deliver “exceptional professional development”xviii, have led somexix to suggest that they should form part of a remodelled national accountability system which rebalances the current emphasis on ‘proving’ towards a greater focus on ‘improving’.
Developing the right skills
Reviewers need to be highly-trained and highly-skilled in order for the process of review to find the right balance between support and challenge. It is also important that those ‘reviewed’ are trained in receiving and evaluating feedback. Building capacity within schools is a challenge with current levels of resourcing. While some partnerships are finding innovative solutions, the need to generate funds is a constant theme:
Because budgets are limited, you have to be outward-facing and offer services to generate money - which changes the dynamic from being there to help schools to being there to make money. It can get in the way of the moral imperative. Schools don’t want to pay because budgets are tighter (Headteacher)
Building in the skills to fulfil a cross-school role at any level is important, but found to be “rarely done”xx, although it was a feature of the London Challenge which has been taken forward in Challenge Partners. Where it is done well, headteachers report increased confidence in their evaluation skills and value the opportunity to develop new skills in a safe environment. Leadership of a partnership, or of a voluntary peer review process, is different from school leadership and not all headteachers find the transition a natural one.
Professional development needed for peer review
CPD in the following areas needs to be considered when setting up peer reviews in collaborative school groups:
1. Establishing and maintaining the right conditions
Gilbertxxi stresses the importance of getting the conditions right before school-to-school support can be effective, by establishing the following:
- Trust
- Honesty
- Openness
- Willingness to share
- Collective moral purpose
- Financial sustainability
The positive rhetoric surrounding school collaboration is often challenged by the realities of implementation. Leaders of the partnership need to be skilled in negotiating power relationships; navigating tensions in conflicted governance environments; finding an appropriate funding model; and planning for sustainability. Many partnerships have an under-developed, in-articulated or missing theory of change, which limits their effectiveness in bringing about sustainable improvementxxii xxiii xxiv. It is worth making the theory of change explicit at the start of the process and building in review points to check how far it is working. An understanding of cultural change is critical. The most powerful form of CPD for reinforcing the ethos of the process comes from modelling and coaching; for the novice reviewer to review alongside an expert reviewer.
2. Planning and reflection
There is a need to establish at the planning stage - in which all participants should be involved - how the process will work. This is particularly important in managing expectations and reinforcing the right ethos. For example, who will lead and coordinate the process? Will judgements be given by the review team; by what process are conflicting judgements handled? How will recommended actions be followed-up; how will support identified be resourced? The process is opt-in, but loses credibility if nothing happens as a result: whose role is it to monitor progress? The process must be seen to be rigorous, if it is to be valued. A leader with exceptional skills is needed to make such partnerships work, to keep all the key players on board, which is a challenge in a devolved system, with different headteachers having different agendas and a mix of MAT CEOs, maintained schools and LAs.
3. Evaluating accurately
Peer review training and conducting peer review is reported to have a positive impact on sharpening evaluation skills and leaders’ understanding of school improvement. Reviewers need to be able to scrutinise data and other evidence; understand that moving practice from one place to another is problematic and requires sensitive and subtle adjustments; facilitate the learning of other professionals.
Summary of ingredients for successful peer review
A sense of ‘place’ and ‘community’ are powerful drivers for participation in peer reviews organised by area-based education partnerships. Peer review offers a ‘high-trust, low-stakes’ approach to school improvement and exceptional professional development.
Headteachers feel able to honestly share areas of strength and weaknesses and to test their school’s self-evaluation. The process of being in other schools allows reviewers to see how things might be done differently and to take solutions back to their own school. There can be a sense of excitement and belonging generated in local partnerships; some report being less competitive than before.
The lack of evaluation of both AEPs and of peer review models gives rise to inconsistency in the implementation of chosen models in groups of schools. To be successful, there needs to be adequate investment of time for planning and training, and skilled leadership to establish and maintain the right conditions within which peer review will deliver results.
The peer review process benefits from a degree of externality, to ensure the expertise and experience required to deliver success. Tangible improvement is necessary to make the investment of time seen to be worthwhile. Certain features of the English system provide challenges for groups of schools collaborating for the benefit of all children in an area: competitive local environments where schools compete for declining numbers of students; a high-stakes accountability framework with narrow, single school metrics. Peer review, underpinned by robust self-evaluation and external validation, offers a mechanism for rebalancing towards a more supportive, medium-stakes system. In reducing the competition which drives local hierarchies, it might also help to reduce the negative effects of disadvantage.
Susan Cousin, Associate of UCL Centre for Educational Leadership
References
- Gilbert, C. (2017) Optimism of the will: the development of local area-based education partnerships.
- London: London Centre for Leadership in Learning
- Cousin, S. (2021) Developing a new locality model for English Schools: Phase 2 Analysis of Interviews, BELMAS
- Cousin, S. (2021) ibid
- Gilbert ibid page 4
- Godfrey, D. (ed) (2020) School Peer Review for Educational Improvement and Accountability: Theory,
- Practice and Policy Implications, Springer
- Cousin, S. (2019) System Leadership: Policy and Practice in the English Schools System, London, Bloomsbury
- Matthews, P. and Ehren, M. (2017) ‘Accountability and improvement in self-improving school systems’ in Earley, P. and Greany, T. (eds) School Leadership and Education System Reform, Bloomsbury
- Matthews, P. and Headon, M. (2015) Multiple Gains: An independent evaluation of Challenge Partners’ peer reviews of schools IOE Press, UCL
- Matthews, P and Headon M. (2015) ibid page 2
- Cousin, S. and Crossley-Holland, J. (2021) Developing a new locality model for English Schools: Summary report, BELMAS, page 38
- Cousin, S. (2021) ibid
- Cousin, S. and Gu, Q. (forthcoming) ‘Collaboration, system Leadership and Partnerships across Schools’ in Greany, T. and Earley, P. School Leadership and Education System Reform (2nd edition) Bloomsbury
- Hargreaves (2012) A self-improving school system: towards maturity, NCSL
- Cousin, S. (2021) (ibid) pages 47, 48
- Cousin, S. (2021) ibid page 47
- Siddiqui, S. (2019) An exploration of the early stages of a peer review model being introduced within a new learning partnership. Peer Review: Friend or Foe? MBA dissertation, UCL
- Cousin, S. (2019) System Leadership: Policy and Practice in the English Schools System, London, Bloomsbury, page 187
- Matthews, P. and Ehren, M. (2017) (ibid) page 49
- Cousin, S. and Crossley-Holland, J. (2021) (ibid)
- Cousin, S. (2021) ibid page 28
- Gilbert, C. (2017) ibid
- Hargreaves D. (2012) ibid
- Robinson, V. (2018) Reduce Change to Increase Improvement, NY: Corwin
- Gilbert, C. (2017) ibid