Schools - impact of Regional Improvement Collaboratives on pupils and practitioners: review

Part 3: Desktop Review, Focus Groups and Additional Submissions

Key Themes

• since their establishment, RICs have continued to deepen collaboration across local authorities and other partners, and increase their reach to practitioners.
• while the majority of schools have not engaged in and may not be aware of the support provided by their RIC, evidence provided to this Review demonstrates significant further progress and development since 2021.
• where practitioners are involved in RIC activities, evaluative feedback is strong.
• to further extend the impact of collaborative working, greater clarity is needed on local, regional and national roles and responsibilities in the provision of educational improvement support.

Introduction

While the majority of new information and evidence considered in this Review was provided by each RIC in their review submissions and supporting evidence, this section summarises the findings of the Desktop Review, Focus Group Discussions and additional submissions which were invited from and submitted by teaching and staff unions and representatives.

Desktop Review

A review of previously published material was undertaken as part of this Review, by the Education Analytical Services Division of the Scottish Government. This included national policy statements on the establishment of the RICs, external reports and/or evaluations referencing the collaboratives, and two previous external reviews of the RICs undertaken by Research Scotland and published in February 2019 and December 2021.

Selected findings from the desktop review of published materials included the following (regarding the reach and impact of RICs):

• the second RIC review, published in December 2021:
  • noted that it was found that difficult to discern, from attainment data, the exact impact of RICs on educational improvement.
  • reported that there was a high level of confidence among regional and national stakeholders in RIC structures, governance, decision making and leadership arrangements, with increased collaboration reported across all local authorities.
  • reported views that the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic had encouraged more collaboration between schools and local authorities resulting in strong relationships and increased support for RICs – the rapid expansion of the use of digital communication technologies during COVID was also recognised as a driver for increased collaboration within each region.
  • found examples of the RICs collaborating across regions, including collaborating on resources for pupils with additional support needs, e-learning and assessment and moderation. It was also noted that, through performing a range of roles at both regional and national level, Education Scotland played an important role in sharing approaches across the RICs and in co-ordinating national practice.
  • found that found that RICs provided a wide range of learning opportunities for school staff, including through professional learning and leadership development, pedagogical and digital learning support, staff networks and leadership support.
  • suggested that awareness of the RICs increased when staff were involved in RIC activities, but also noted that there remained challenges to raising awareness with schools and staff.
  • found that RICs were aligning regional priorities with the National Improvement Framework (NIF), with school improvement plans and other local authority plans, and that the NIF appeared to have the greatest influence over priorities.
  • found that RICs were able to demonstrate progress with regional activities, demand and the profile of participants and schools engaging in those activities, but that due to the other system interventions and inputs running concurrently, it was extremely challenging to quantify the scale of the direct RIC impact, particularly the impact on/for pupils.
  • recognised that RICs were still in their infancy and that collaborative working would take time to develop.
• the review Professor Ken Muir’s report Putting Learners at the Centre: Towards a Future Vision for Scottish Education, published in March 2022:
  • challenged the second RIC Review’s positive assessment of support for the RICs and noted that practitioners felt that the work of the RICs had yet to have meaningful impact.
  • reiterated the need to raise awareness and extend the visibility of the RICs and make sure that people at all levels in the education system, particularly class teachers and support staff, understand the role of the RICs.

A key observation that this Review has made when considering the Desktop review, is the significant progress that has been made and evidenced by each RIC in the period since the previous RIC Review reported in December 2021. As the evidence examples referenced in this report demonstrate, since 2021 RICs have evidenced significant developments in:

• focusing and substantively extending their support offer to increased numbers of practitioners and leaders.
• further deepening collaboration and engagement between authorities across RICs and with other partners.
• the robust use of data, evidence and evaluation to strengthen the supports provided to establishments and practitioners, and to focus the efforts of partners in supporting improvement.

Focus Group Discussions and Additional Submissions

Focus Group Discussions

As outlined in Part 1 of this report, three focus group discussions were held as part of this review, involving a total of 39 individuals with previous experience of working with and/or being supported by a RIC.

Participants provided their views on the understanding that any comments shared or highlighted in this report would not be attributable. This report does not therefore refer to or quote directly focus group comments on specific RIC workstreams or programmes but seeks instead to reflect the common themes raised in those discussions.

Focus Group Themes:

In general, focus group attendees across each of the participant groups, RICs and sectors were:

• positive on the added value provided to pupils and practitioners, in relation to the RIC activities they had experience of:
  • these views were mainly expressed as professional judgements, however, it was also highlighted that the data supports that conclusion (including reference to RIC examples referenced elsewhere in this report).
  • some participants expressed the view that RICs had added significant value in the programmes they had experienced.
• very positive about their personal and professional experience with their RIC, including the benefits for their own professional practice and development (where applicable) and on the creation of both formal and informal professional networks.
• positive around the use of knowledge, data and evaluation in shaping and ensuring the responsiveness of RIC support, including knowledge of the regional and local contexts, key data measures and programme evaluations from practitioners:
  • increased visibility in supporting self-evaluation and reflection by practitioners was identified by some participants as a particular strength.
• very positive around the use of research, the sharing of latest pedagogy and practice examples, including across and between authorities which was not routinely supported before the RICs:
  • research on moderation and latest pedagogy were highlighted as particular RIC strengths and areas for further expansion.
• p ositive on the continued maturing and deepening of collaboration within RICs and with partners, including:
  • strengthened collaboration between Local Authorities, including between system leaders, and through school leaders and practitioners collaborating with colleagues in other authorities.
  • continued development of relationships and shared delivery with Education Scotland, Universities, Colleges, Third Sector and other partners.
• very positive on the added value for practitioners of sharing professional knowledge, skills and confidence through RIC staff workshops, events and specialist networks:
  • the value of practitioner-led networks, supporting teacher agency and empowerment without excess bureaucracy, was also highlighted as a particular strength by some participants.
  • the central role of local authority staff within each RIC and in leading/supporting programmes was also identified by a number of participants as a positive factor in securing buy-in and increasing traction with practitioners.
  • the option to collaborate at different levels and scales, e.g., through RIC networks, school or professional clusters/families etc., and for structured feedback was identified by some as particular benefits of RIC network approaches.
  • it was also suggested however that the move towards self-sustaining networks in some/many RIC areas would still require support.
• very positive on the expansion and flexibility of online professional learning, case studies and other virtual/online resources facilitated by the RICs:
  • the region-wide availability of focussed resources to support improvements to learning teaching and assessment, and online platforms/resources for learners, were identified by some participants as significant developments in providing greater equity of access, particularly in remote and/or rural areas.
  • it was also however highlighted that face-to-face support and interaction remained important in certain circumstances and a number of participants recommended a hybrid approach going forwards.

Participants from some sectors also highlighted the following:

• some expressed a view that programmes they were involved in, including professional learning, would be unlikely to be available for some authorities in that region without the governance, capacity and regional focus provided by the RIC:
  • the value of senior leaders coming together across local government and other partners was identified as a strength of the RICs and as a vehicle to developing and maintaining a shared understanding and collective focus/workplan across larger areas.
  • this included some programmes initially developed as pilots within schools and then rolled out to scale across a RIC.
  • some noted that in addition to supporting greater equity and quality of support, coming together under a collective regional offer has also reduced local authority duplication in some areas.
• a number of participants commented on a ‘cluttered landscape’ and suggested a need for greater clarity in respect of system roles for the provision of learning support to pupils and practitioners.
  • Some suggested that such clarity could further strengthen the reach and impact of regional working and reduce the turnover of regional staff/secondments.
• some participants suggested a need for further work to streamline support communications to schools/practitioners – to minimise overlap and provide clarity across national, regional and local support offers.
• some participants highlighted the importance in bringing positive challenge to their RIC from external partners – this was identified as a strength in some current arrangements.

Additional Submissions:

Unions representing teachers and school leaders were also invited to submit their views and any information they could share on members’ views and/or interactions with the RICs, which may be relevant for consideration in this Review. As with the focus group discussions, the information presented below is not attributed to any individual organisation or member and reflects the themes captured through these submissions.

Unions representing teachers and school leaders highlighted the following:

• while some positive examples of RICs were demonstrated, all indicated that the majority of their members (school leaders and teachers) had limited or no contact with their RIC:
  • many commented that the majority of members had little or no knowledge of the support provided by their RIC.
  • some commented that RIC activity and decision making, including in the design of RIC plans and in considering the workload impact, is too far removed from teachers.
  • some commented directly that there was limited evidence on the positive impact of RICs for members.
• some commented that there remained confusion and overlap between the roles and support provided by the RICs, by local authorities and by Education Scotland, which included:
  • one commented that there was potential for overlap/conflict between national and regional levels, including between regional professional learning support and the National E-Learning Offer.
  • one commented that there remained a reluctance for some local authorities to fully engage with and share resources through their RIC, and thereby to minimise overlap and maximise the impact for schools.
  • one commented that information for staff in relation to areas of the curriculum, particularly where sensitivities exist, should be provided consistently and in a timely fashion across the country.
• some expressed the view that there was inconsistency of offer and variability of approach between the RICs:
  • some commented that the benefits which some RICs have brought have not been universally seen in other areas.
  • one noted the difference in geographic coverage between the RICs.
  • one commented that the rigour and approach of RICs was also variable.
• further comments expressed by single respondents also included:
  • one commented that RICs do not follow the ‘meso-level’ approach and that RIC plans/activities can be perceived as top-down, with limited buy-in and understanding of the regional vision at school level.
  • one commented that there has not been meaningful engagement with the professional associations on regional approaches which impact on the quality of learning and teaching and/or have potential to impact on terms and conditions of service
  • one commented that tensions between the Scottish Government and COSLA on RIC funding were limiting the potential RIC impact.
  • one commented that RIC funding could be directed through the individual member authorities to focus on local initiatives/support.

Conclusions

RIC Reach and Visibility

The evidence summarised in this section presents a mixed picture. The views of those directly involved in RIC activities, as evidenced in previous RIC Reviews and in the focus group sessions for this Review, are supportive of the added value provided by those initiatives. However, the additional submissions and the findings of previous reviews suggest that RIC activities are not perceived as reaching or involving the majority of schools, and both visibility of and engagement in those activities has been variable.

It should be noted that this evidence has not been triangulated and in many cases was presented as the views/positions of individuals and/or organisations. Further research would be required to robustly assess the level of practitioner awareness of and engagement in RIC activities.

RIC Development and Evolution

The desktop review, in particular the findings of the two previous RIC Reviews, does suggest a continued evolution of the RICs over time, with an evidenced increase of the scale and reach of regional activities and in cross-authority collaboration between the first and second RIC Review. This was evidenced particularly in response to the Covid pandemic and the development of online platforms and resources, and also through increased local authority confidence and buy-in to the regional governance and strategic planning arrangements.

The new information provided by RICs to this Review has also evidenced a further and continued increase in the number of pupils, practitioners and school/ELC leaders involved in RIC programmes.

Clarity

A theme from both the focus group discussions and additional submissions is the call for greater clarity on the roles, responsibilities and relationships of different system levels in the provision of improvement support to schools and ELC establishments, particularly between local authorities, RICs and national bodies.

Impact

Focus group participants highlighted many positive impacts on their professional practice, knowledge and confidence as a result of their involvement in RIC activities. While the focus group discussions and elements of the desktop review include strong support for regional working from practitioners and leaders, and while improved outcomes can be more directly linked to some school and cohort-focussed activities, all recognise that, similar to other system inputs, it is difficult to quantify the overall impact of regional working.