Education Endowment Foundation:Schools Partnership Programme

Schools Partnership Programme

Education Development Trust
Implementation costThe cost estimates in the Toolkits are based on the average cost of delivering the intervention. 
Evidence strengthThis rating provides an overall estimate of the robustness of the evidence, to help support professional decision-making in schools.Not given for this trial
Impact (months)The impact measure shows the number of additional months of progress made, on average, by children and young people who received the intervention, compared to similar children and young people who did not.
-
Project info

Independent Evaluator

IOE, UCL's Faculty of Education and Society logo
IOE, UCL’s Faculty of Education and Society

Whole-school improvement programme using self-review, peer review and school-to-school support.

Pupils: 110000 Schools: 300 Grant: £721,533
Key Stage: 2 Duration: 5 year(s) 8 month(s) Type of Trial: Effectiveness Trial
Completed March 2023

The project

One of the Education Development Trust’s (formerly CfBT) flagship projects is the Schools Partnership Programme (SPP). This is based around partnerships of 3 – 7 schools working through a three part programme involving: self review; peer review; and follow up school-to-school support.

Schools are trained in how to effectively undertake a continuous cycle of self review, peer reviews and follow up school-to-school support. Senior and middle leaders are the key participants, and each cluster nominates​“Improvement Champions” who receive extra support to develop their facilitation skills and evidence-based approaches to school improvement.

EEF summary

School peer review is a popular approach to school improvement, and this model in particular has had significant reach already. The model itself is informed by international literature about school improvement, such as the work of Michael Fullan and Viviane Robinson.

The programme is intended to build capacity and capability across clusters of schools so they can gradually take more responsibility for their own development and maturity and lead their own improvement. Over time, local areas will own the SPP model, and continue to develop it so it has impact locally. The SPP provides frameworks and tools, training and professional support, and is designed to incorporate and build on schools’ existing best practice.

Due to COVID-19 the primary outcome for this evaluation was not collected and so no measure of impact on attainment is reported. Key conclusions are based on qualitative data from the implementation and process evaluation (IPE). Teacher surveys found self-reported positive impacts on ownership of partnership and school improvement aims and the deepening of trust. While based on small numbers (and therefore to be taken with caution), many of these benefits appeared to be more deeply felt in schools with higher levels of pupil deprivation.

The Improvement Champion role was felt to develop teachers and middle and senior leaders in collaborative school improvement. Where this role was carried out well, participants in host schools reported the coaching approach helped engender full staff ownership of improvement aims. However, capacity issues made the execution of these roles and continuity very difficult, especially in relation to leadership and other staff churn.

Were the schools in the trial similar to my school?

Project type: Effectiveness TrialKey Stage: Key Stage 2Subject: Cross curriculum
  • 422 English state-funded primary schools took part in the trial. These were divided in 89 clusters (average cluster size of just over 5). All recruited schools received the intervention
  • The baseline survey had 339 responses from the treated schools total of 422 primary schools (80%).
  • This trial used a matched difference in difference design – where recruited clusters of schools were compared to matched and statistically similar schools.

Could I implement this in my school?

Delivered by: School LeadersParticipant group: Whole School Intervention length: 3 years
  • Leaders from the clusters attend 4 days of training, alongside undertaking 2 structured peer reviews, each taking 1 – 2 days.
  • Most survey participants rated the SPP resources, such as the review framework and training materials, as being of very high quality. Participants felt that feedback received in reviews was mostly of high quality and had sharpened their ability to identify, act upon, and follow up on improvements, including being more evidence-informed.
  • Schools had a wide variety of improvement aims, which were directly related to the outcomes of the peer review, many of which changed during the evaluation especially during the second year of peer reviews where a different line of enquiry was agreed. Nevertheless, most participants felt that there had been a positive overall impact on pupils in their schools.
  • The Improvement Champions role was particularly highly valued. The participants, who were often teachers or middle leaders as well as more senior leaders, were taught how to lead improvement workshops in schools other than their own school within the partnership. They worked in pairs and used skills of coaching and facilitative tools to facilitate evidence-based school improvement workshops and developed their ability to lead similar discussions in their own school.
  • There were significant capacity challenges, especially for smaller schools or where the headteacher did not feel there were suitable staff to undertake these roles. This was mitigated by larger schools having more than one IC and sharing them across the partnership.
  • The programme is available and provided by the Education Development Trust.

Downloads