Abstract
Networking and collaboration in educational settings have become increasingly important in terms of supporting innovation and policy developments in many educational systems. However, to date, the role and action of the middle tier remains an under-researched area, especially in the United Kingdom. This paper draws on findings from a study of district level (local authorities (LAs)) capacity to broker and facilitate school-based networks within a context of complex multiple agendas. The study, funded by the Department for Education and Skills (DfES) Innovations Unit and the National College for School Leadership (NCSL) involved 19 LAs over a two-year period. The authors worked as second order action researchers supporting local authority staff develop a range of strategies to broker and facilitate school-to-school networks. This paper draws on Habermassian notions of a critical theorem to describe the construction and use of a new theoretical framework outlining the strategies adopted by the middle tier officers within the project.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Ainscow, M., & West, M. (Eds.). (2006). Improving urban schools: Leadership and collaboration. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Altrichter, H. (2005). The role of professional community in action research. Educational Action Research, 13(1), 139–145.
Barber, M. (2003). Deliverable goals and strategic challenges-a view from England on reconceptualising public education in networks of innovation: Towards new models for managing schools and systems. Paris: OECD.
Capobianco, B. M., & Feldman, A. (2006). Promoting quality for teacher action research: Lessons learned from science teachers’. Action Research, 14(4), 497–512.
Castells, M. (2002). The internet galaxy: Reflections on the internet, business and society. Oxford: OU Press.
Chapman, C. (2008). Towards a framework for school-to-school networking in challenging circumstances. Educational Research, 50(4), 320–403.
Church, M., Bitel, M., Armstrong, K., Fernando, P., Gould, H., Joss, S., et al. (2002). Participation, relationships and dynamic change: New thinking on evaluating the work of international networks. London: University College London.
Clarke, J., & Newman, J. (1997). The managerial state. London: Sage.
Corry, D., & Stoker, G. (2002). New localism: Refashioning the centre-local relationship. London, UK: The New Local Government Network (NLGN).
Creplet, F., Dupouet, O., & Vaast, E. (2003). Episteme or practice? Differentiated communication structures in a biology laboratory. In M. Huysman, E. Wenger, & V. Wulf (Eds.), Proceedings of the first international conference on communities and technologies; C&T 2003. NL: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
DfES. (2004). Every child matters: Next steps. London: TSO.
DfES. (2005a). Education improvement partnerships: Local collaboration for school improvement and better service delivery. London: TSO.
DfES. (2005b). Higher standards; better schools for all. London: TSO.
Elliot, J. (1989). Academics and action research: The training workshop as an exercise in ideological deconstruction. San Francisco: Paper presented to the American Educational Research Association.
Glendinning, C., Powell, M., & Rummery, K. (Eds.). (2002). Partnerships, new labour and the governance of welfare. London: The Policy Press.
Habermas, Y. (1973). Theory and practice. Boston: Beacon Press.
Hadfield, M. (1995). Conceptualising equal opportunities. Unpublished PhD thesis. Nottingham Trent University. England.
Hargreaves, D. (2003). Education epidemic. London: Demos.
Hargreaves, A., & Fink, D. (2006). Sustainable leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
Melucci, A. (1996). Challenging codes: Collective action in the information age. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
NCSL. (2005). The learning project: How local authorities, schools and others are networking to enhance learning and well-being. Nottingham: NCSL.
NCSL. (2006). Spreading innovation across local authorities: Networking and collaboration. Nottingham: NCSL.
Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of the American community. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Sullivan, H., Barnes, M., & Matka, E. (2006). Collaborative capacity and strategies in area-based initiatives. Public Administration, 84(2), 289–310.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. Oxford: OU Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Chapman, C., Hadfield, M. Supporting the middle tier to engage with school-based networks: Change strategies for influencing and cohering. J Educ Change 11, 221–240 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-009-9125-y
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-009-9125-y