Leading Place-Based Interventions to Improve Outcomes in Low Socio-economic Settings

  • Christopher ChapmanEmail author
  • Alison Drever
  • Maureen McBride
  • Craig Orr
  • Sarah Weakley
Part of the Palgrave Studies on Leadership and Learning in Teacher Education book series (PSLLTE)


This chapter offers a much-needed exploration of the challenge of moving beyond narrow conceptions of leadership for learning in the context of school leadership. The authors locate leadership for learning within a broader place-based and multi-agency approach to tackling inequalities and improving outcomes for young people living in low socio-economic settings. Drawing the principles of collective impact and the evidence from place-based approaches, the authors chart some of the early experiences of developing Children’s Neighbourhoods Scotland in the East End of Glasgow and reflect on developments, opportunities, and challenges as a practical example of leadership for learning in a broader setting.


  1. Batty, E., Pearson, S., Wilson, I., Coldwell, M., Steill, B., & Willis, B. (2018). Children’s community evaluation report 2017. Sheffield Hallam University. Retrieved from:
  2. Browne, J., & Hood, A. (2016). Living standards, poverty and inequality in the UK: 2015–16 to 2020–21. London: Institute for Fiscal Studies. Retrieved from:
  3. Brunner, R., & Watson, N. (2015). What can the capabilities approach add to policy analysis in high-income countries? (What Works Scotland working paper). Retrieved from:
  4. Bynner, C. (2016). Rationales for place-based approached in Scotland (What Works Scotland working paper). Retrieved from:
  5. Chapman, C. (2018). Public service leadership: What works? (What Works Scotland working paper). Retrieved from:
  6. Chapman, C., Watson, N., & van Amersfoort, D. (2017). What works in public service leadership: Exploring the potential (What Works Scotland working paper). Retrieved from:
  7. Christie Commission. (2011). Report on the future delivery of public services by the Commission chaired by Dr Campbell Christie. Retrieved from:
  8. Clunie, N., & Leman, L. (2017). Children’s neighbourhoods context report. Retrieved from:
  9. DuBrow, W., Hug, S., Serafini, B., & Litzler, E. (2018). Expanding our understanding of backbone organizations in collective impact initiatives. Community Development, 49(3), 256–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dyson, A., Kerr, K., Raffo, C., & Wigelsworth, M. (2012). Developing children’s zones for England. London: Save the Children.Google Scholar
  11. Glasgow Indicators Project. (2012). Neighbourhood profiles: Parkhead and Dalmarnock. Retrieved from:
  12. Greater Shankill Children and Young People Zone. (2018). Generation Shankill Zone. Retrieved from:
  13. Grossman, A. S., Lombard, A., & Fisher, N. (2014). Strive together: Reinventing the local education ecosystem. Boston: Harvard Business School. Retrieved from:
  14. Hall, M. (Ed.). (1995). A new beginning: Shankill think tank. Newtownabbey, UK: Island Publications.Google Scholar
  15. Hanleybrown, F., Kania, J., & Kramer, M. (2012). Channeling change: Making collaborative impact work. Stanford Social Innovation Review. Retrieved from:
  16. Harlem Children’s Zone. (2018). Our results. Retrieved from:
  17. Henig, J., Riehl, C., Houston, D, Rebell, M., & Wolff, J. (2015). Putting collective impact in context: A review of the literature on local cross-sector collaboration to improve education. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University. Retrieved from:
  18. Henig, J., Riehl, C., Houston, D., Rebell, M., & Wolff, J. (2016). Collective impact and the new generation of cross-sector collaborations for education. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University. Retrieved from:
  19. Joseph Rowntree Foundation (JRF). (2014). Closing the attainment gap in Scottish education. Retrieved from:
  20. Kania, J., & Kramer, M. (2011). Collective impact. Stanford Social Innovation Review. Retrieved from:
  21. Kania, J., & Kramer, M. (2013). Embracing emergence: How collective impact addresses complexity. Stanford Social Innovation Review. Retrieved from:
  22. Scottish Government. (2018). Poverty and income inequality in Scotland: 2015/16. Retrieved from:
  23. Sen, A. K. (2009). The idea of justice. London: Penguin.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Strive Partnership. (2016). 2015–16 Partnership report: Every child, every step of the way, cradle to career. Retrieved from:
  25. Sullivan, H., & Skelcher, C. (2002). Collaborating across boundaries. London: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. United States Department of Education. (2018). Programs: promise neighborhoods. Retrieved from:
  27. Welsh Government. (2017). Written statement – Children first. Retrieved from:
  28. Whitehurst, R., & Croft, M. (2015). The Harlem children’s zone, promise neighborhoods, and the broader, bolder approach to education. Washington, DC: Brown Center on Education Policy, Brookings Institute. Retrieved from:
  29. Wilkinson, R., & Pickett, K. (2010). The spirit level: Why equality is better for everyone. London: Penguin.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christopher Chapman
    • 1
    Email author
  • Alison Drever
    • 2
  • Maureen McBride
    • 2
  • Craig Orr
    • 1
  • Sarah Weakley
    • 1
  1. 1.University of GlasgowGlasgowScotland
  2. 2.Children’s Neighbourhoods ScotlandGlasgowScotland

Personalised recommendations