LESSONS FROMLONDON SCHOOLS:INVESTIGATINGTHE SUCCESSSam Baars, Eleanor Bernardes, Alex Elwick, Abigail Malortie,
Tony McAleavy, Laura McInerney, Loic Menzies and Anna Riggall

WELCOME TO CfBT EDUCATION TRUSTCfBT Education Trust is a top 30* UK charity providing education services for
public benefit in the UK and internationally. Established over 40 years ago,
CfBT Education Trust has an annual turnover exceeding £100 million andemploys more than 2,000 staff worldwide. We aspire to be the world’s leading
provider of education services, with a particular interest in school effectiveness.
Our work involves school improvement through inspection, school workforce
development and curriculum design for the UK’s Department for Education, theOffice for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted), local
authorities and an increasing number of independent and state schools, freeschools and academies. We provide services direct to learners in our schools
and in young offender institutions.
Internationally we have successfully implemented education programmes
for governments in the Middle East, North Africa and South East Asia andwork on projects funded by donors such as the Department for International
Development, the European Commission, the Australian Department of
Foreign Affairs and Trade, the World Bank and the US Agency for International
Development, in low- and middle-income countries.
Surpluses generated by our operations are reinvested in our educational
research programme.
Visit www.cfbt.com for more information.
*CfBT is ranked 27 out of 3,000 charities in the UK based on income in Top 3,000 Charities 2010/11
published by Caritas Data

The views and opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily
represent the views of CfBT Education Trust or Centre for London.
© CfBT Education Trust 2014

WELCOME TO CENTRE FOR LONDON
Centre for London is a politically independent, not-for-profit think tank focusedon the big challenges facing London. Through its research and events, the Centre
acts as a critical friend to London’s leaders and policymakers, promotes a wider
understanding of the challenges facing London, and develops long-term, rigorousand radical policy solutions for the capital. It looks for support from a mixture ofprivate, voluntary and public sector funders and works collaboratively with its
supporters, drawing on their experience and expertise. Launched in 2011, theCentre is quickly developing relationships with sister organisations across the globe.
Find out more about our work at www.centreforlondon.org
Centre for London is a registered charity and a company limited by guarantee. Company Number: 8414909.
Charity Number: 1151435.

WELCOME TO LKMcoThis report was written with the support of the education and youth ‘think-andaction tank’, LKMco. LKMco believes that society has a duty to ensure children
and young people receive the support they need in order to make a fulfillingtransition to adulthood.
We work towards our vision by carrying out policy research and campaigning
as well as working directly with schools, teachers, and education and youth
organisations. We are a social enterprise, which means we generate ourincome from the work we do and use it to fund more work on the issues which
our experience and research tell us make a difference to young people.
www.lkmco.org.uk / @LKMco / info@lkmco.org

LESSONS FROMLONDON SCHOOLS:INVESTIGATING THE SUCCESSSam Baars, Eleanor Bernardes, Alex Elwick, Abigail Malortie,
Tony McAleavy, Laura McInerney, Loic Menzies and Anna Riggall

CONTENTS
Forewords

2

About the authors

4

Acknowledgements

5

Executive summary

6

Background

6

Aims

6

Methods and approach7

Key findings

7

Chapter 1: Introduction

14

Aims and research design

16

A chronology of educational reform in London

17

What follows

19

Chapter 2: The improvement in London schools

20

The performance of London’s secondary school pupils today

22

Access to further and higher education

27

The performance of London’s education workforce and schools

28

Improvement at school level in London

31

Perceptions of the London transformation

36

Summary

43

Chapter 3: The London advantage

44Part 1: The London context and its link to the success story

46

Part 2: Enabling factors for London’s success

54

Summary

61

Chapter 4: Support and challenge

62Part 1: Assessing the contribution of different interventions

64

Part 2: Common themes that link together the London reforms

88

Summary95

Chapter 5: Leadership

96

Part 1: Leadership at different levels of the system

99

Part 2: Qualities of effective leadership in London

108

Summary

117

Chapter 6: Lessons from London

118

References

122

Appendix A: Methods

129

LESSONS FROM LONDON SCHOOLS INVESTIGATING THE SUCCESS | 1

FOREWORDSSTEVE MUNBY
Chief Executive, CfBT Education Trust
The London story is of national and international significance.
The remarkable transformation of outcomes in the schools of
the capital provides hope for those educators worldwide who
are trying to improve learning and life chances, particularly
for disadvantaged students. This report analyses the natureand causes of the changes in London schools and demonstrates that it is possible
to tackle the link between poverty and underachievement. The methods usedin London can be used elsewhere. The key ingredients – data literacy, powerfulprofessional development and intelligent accountability – can be replicated in othertowns and cities. The London story is above all about the power of purposefulleadership at every level of the system. From national politicians to headteachers,
leaders were responsible for driving the changes. One of the most innovative
aspects of the London renaissance is the role of headteachers as system
leaders, taking responsibility not just for their own schools but other schools intheir communities. London has shown that the theory of system leadership canbe turned into an exciting ‘high impact’ reality. I applaud the work of London’sconsultant headteachers and advocate this approach to all who are interested insustainable school reform.

Steve Munby
Chief Executive, CfBT Education Trust

2 | LESSONS FROM LONDON SCHOOLS: INVESTIGATING THE SUCCESSBEN ROGERS
Director, Centre for London
Few things matter more to a city than the quality of its public
services, including its schools but also its health, social,
employment, police and probation services, to mention justsome. These services make a direct contribution to the wellbeing and life opportunities of the city’s residents, and, lessdirectly, but no less importantly, to the city’s standing and prosperity.
As this report demonstrates, over the last decade London schools have improved
dramatically. From being one of the worst-performing regions in the country,
London is by some way the best. And it is serving its poorer pupils particularly
well, an achievement unequalled by any other world city.
This report set out to understand exactly how this improvement came about. We
hope that the insights and lessons offered will be useful to London and national
politicians, policymakers and school leaders, as they continue to build on recent
success. The approaches that have been so successful in London are also readily
applicable to school systems in other cities and nations. I believe, too, that otherpublic services – in London and elsewhere – could helpfully learn from all that has
been achieved for London’s schools, and we look forward to taking this research
into new territory at Centre for London.

Ben Rogers
Director, Centre for London

LESSONS FROM LONDON SCHOOLS: INVESTIGATING THE SUCCESS | 3

ABOUT THE AUTHORS (listed alphabetically)
Sam Baars is Research Associate at LKMco. He recently completed a PhD in Social
Change at the University of Manchester, exploring how young people’s aspirations
are shaped by the areas they live in. He is the author of a forthcoming review on thelevers of local economic development for the ESRC Knowledge Navigator for Local
Government, and has published on the role of embedded research in engaging
academic social science with society.
Eleanor Bernardes is Associate at LKMco. She has over ten years’ experience
as a teacher and educator, both in the UK and internationally. As a secondary
school coordinator for literacy, she was closely involved in the development of both
the Opening Minds Curriculum and the new International Baccalaureate Careers
Certificate. She holds a Masters with Distinction in Educational Leadership from the
University of Warwick.
Alex Elwick is Research Officer at CfBT Education Trust. He undertook an AHRCfunded PhD at Newcastle University investigating non-formal learning in museums
and art galleries and has been a British Research Council Fellow at the Library ofCongress, Washington DC. He has written reports on education in youth custodyand the UK digital divide, and edited a number of collections of practitioner research.
Abigail Malortie is Associate Director and a co-founder of Centre for London. She
is currently studying for a Masters in Social Theory and Urban Studies at the London
School of Economics, and holds degrees in history and law. A qualified solicitor, shehelped establish Centre for London as an independent organisation, where she now
oversees the operations, while also conducting and managing research projects.
Laura McInerney is Research and Policy Partner at LKMco. She is also a Guardiancolumnist, regular feature-writer for the TES and author of the book The Six
Predictable Failures of Free Schools... and how to avoid them. Laura has recently
returned from the US where she spent two years studying education policy on a
Fulbright Scholarship.
Tony McAleavy is CfBT’s Research and Development Director, with corporate
oversight of the educational impact of all CfBT’s activities and CfBT public domain
research programme. Tony has worked extensively on school reform in many
countries, particularly in the Middle East. He has an MA in Modern History from St
John’s College, University of Oxford.
Loic Menzies is Director of LKMco and a Tutor for Canterbury Christ Church
University’s Faculty of Education. He was previously Associate Senior Manager andHead of History and Social Sciences at St George’s RC School in London. Before
that he was a youth worker. He now specialises in education policy and research,
youth development, social enterprise and school-based teacher training.
Anna Riggall is CfBT’s Research Manager and is responsible for delivering CfBT’s
programme of public domain research and overseeing research activity in thebusiness. Anna has a background in teaching and educational research. She has
an MA in Education and Development Studies and is nearing completion of a PhD
in education.

4 | LESSONS FROM LONDON SCHOOLS: INVESTIGATING THE SUCCESSACKNOWLEDGEMENTSOUR THANKS GO TO:•	Chris Cook, Professor Ruth Lupton and Dr Polina Obolenskaya for sharing theiranalyses with the research team•	NFER for conducting the seven focus group interviews•	The following schools for taking part in the focus groups: Fortismere School,
Kingslade Foundation School, Morpeth School, St Paul’s Way Trust School and
The Albany School•	Jan Lawrance, Matt Davis and Jen Hall at CfBT Education Trust for theiradditional analysis work and helpful comments•	Brell Wilson at Centre for London for her significant contributions to the research•	the academic advisers: Professor Chris Husbands (Institute of Education),
Professor Pam Sammons (Oxford University), Professor Ruth Lupton(Manchester University), Professor Becky Francis (Kings College London), Dr
Rebecca Allen (Institute of Education), Dr Vivienne Porritt (Institute of Education,
Centre for Leadership of Learning) and Sam Freedman (Teach First)•	John Howson, Siobhan Tuohy-Smith, Jo Hutchinson, Jonathan Simons, Sarah
Hewitt, Jay Allnutt and John Sinnott for their support, particularly with data.

LESSONS FROM LONDON SCHOOLS: INVESTIGATING THE SUCCESS | 5

EXECUTIVE SUMMARYBACKGROUND
Informed commentators both in the UK and internationally increasingly reference
the remarkable improvement journey of London’s schools since the turn of the
century. If the claims made for educational improvement in London are true
they represent an important case study in urban school reform. There is a need,
therefore, for an investigation of the nature and possible causes of the changes in
London’s schools.

AIMS
This research seeks to investigate the claim that London schools have improved
dramatically since 2000. We have reviewed the evidence of transformationalchange and explored possible reasons for the development in London’s schools.
The project was guided by three questions:•	Is the success of London’s schools as real as has been suggested?
•	If the success is real, in what ways have schools improved and for what
reasons?
•	What can we learn for the future of school improvement, for London andbeyond?
The resulting report provides readers – such as teachers, school leaders andpolicymakers – with a detailed review of what has happened across London.
It provides a comprehensive synthesis of previous evaluations of the London
schools’ journey and of the distinctive elements which are perceived ascontributing to improvement. Most importantly, it draws conclusions intended
to inform current debates on educational policy reform in a very practical sense,
providing an agenda for action.

6 | LESSONS FROM LONDON SCHOOLS: INVESTIGATING THE SUCCESSMETHODS AND APPROACH
Focusing on the period between 2000 and 2014, a mixed-methods approach has
been used, combining:•	a literature review of academic research, media reporting, online blogs and otherwebsite materials•	a review and analysis of quantitative and qualitative data on pupil and school
performance•	semi-structured interviews with 25 leading experts who have a perspectiveon the London story, including staff currently or previously involved in the
management of key education reforms, academics, headteachers, civil servantsand politicians•	focus group interviews with teachers and school leaders in five schools acrossfour key London boroughs•	semi-structured interviews with 25 senior local authority (LA) directors, members
and independent consultants.
As ‘policy in action’, none of the major London reforms were planned with aconcurrent rigorous evaluative element or any randomised controlled trial (RCT)element. While this limits the ability of any subsequent review to make firm claims
for cause and effect, our approach allows us to present the most detailed analysis
to date of the London story. In-depth interviews with all the key stakeholders in thistransformation provide a greater level of understanding than has previously beenpossible, while detailed counterfactual quantitative analysis provides compelling
support for the impact of these initiatives.

KEY FINDINGS
Our research has generated five key findings:
1.	London schools have improved dramatically since 2000.
2.	The improvement cannot be explained in terms of the advantages that London
has over the rest of England.
3.	The improvement was assisted by a set of factors that we describe as‘enabling’, these include issues relating to resourcing: finance, teacher
recruitment and school building quality. Improvement in these areas enabled
improvements to flourish but London’s success was not fundamentally causedby these factors.
4.	Four key school improvement interventions provided the impetus for
improvement – London Challenge, Teach First, the academies programme
and improved support from local authorities. Our research identifies common
features that link together all of these interventions.
5.	The improvement of London schools depended upon effective leadership at
every level of the system.

LESSONS FROM LONDON SCHOOLS: INVESTIGATING THE SUCCESS | 7

LONDON SCHOOLS HAVE IMPROVED DRAMATICALLY
We conclude that there has indeed been a marked shift in the quality of provisionin London schools using the best data available. Judged by relative performance inexaminations and in Ofsted inspections, London schools now outperform schools
in the rest of England and achieve the highest proportion of students obtaining five
good GCSEs, the highest percentage of schools rated ‘outstanding’ by Ofsted,
and the highest GCSE attainment for pupils from poorer backgrounds. The superior
performance of London schools is apparent using both government-imposed
key indicators and other metrics that are less susceptible to ‘gaming’ by schools.
Ofsted considers that the quality of both teaching and leadership in London schools
is substantially above the level found in England as a whole. London is the topperforming region in England using other measurements, such as the percentage ofstudents leaving school and remaining in further or higher education. The pattern of
improvement has been particularly marked in inner London, which is impressive, as
it has a higher level of deprivation than outer London.
Our interviews with expert witnesses confirmed this picture of improvement andhigh performance. The great majority of interviewees spoke in highly positive terms
about the ‘turnaround’ in the fortunes of London schools and the current high levelof performance. For many of our interviewees, issues of culture, leadership and
expectations constituted key areas of weakness at the beginning of the century.
Several confirmed low-level expectations in some schools, particularly those serving
deprived communities, as a major barrier to better outcomes. Interviewees repeatedly
spoke of the prevalence of a lazy and pessimistic assumption that radical improvement
was not possible in the outcomes for students from deprived backgrounds.
Many interviewees believed that the weakness of London schools in 2000 was
sometimes overstated but that there was a public perception of school crisis at thestart of the century, linked to a political and media discourse about the universallyappalling nature of the schools of London at that time. As a result there was acrisis of parental confidence in state schools, particularly those of inner London.
This led many parents to send their children on very lengthy journeys acrossLondon to escape from local schools with poor reputations and some of thosewith sufficient means to choose private schools.
In the years between 2003 and 2010 the perception of crisis abated. Teacher
recruitment and retention improved. Although problems remain, several of ourinterviewees shared a view of the characteristics of London schools today which
included the following features:• schools that were self-confident institutions, with well-motivated staff• highly effective leadership with less ‘firefighting’ and crisis management•	schools as data-driven organisations, with high levels of data literacy atleadership level•	strong networks linking schools with one another for purposes of improvement
and joint practice development• a new culture of high expectations and ‘no excuses’ for underperformance•	optimism that challenged the inevitability of the connection between poverty andlow outcomes.

8 | LESSONS FROM LONDON SCHOOLS: INVESTIGATING THE SUCCESSTHE IMPROVEMENT CANNOT BE EXPLAINED IN TERMS OF ‘CONTEXTUAL’ ADVANTAGES THATLONDON HAS OVER THE REST OF ENGLAND
To what extent can the London transformation be attributed to wider contextual
issues? We explored the concept of a ‘London advantage’ based on the ideathat there may be distinctive and beneficial contextual features of the situation in
the capital that explain the improvement. We assessed three areas of potential
advantage:•	
Gentrification – Have changes to the socio-economic profile of the London
population contributed to the transformation?
• Ethnicity – Can the distinctive ethnic mix of London explain the improvement in
London schools?
•	
Opportunity – Do greater levels of economic and cultural opportunity in
London, compared to the rest of England, provide an important stimulus forlearning and achievement?
The data and research evidence does not support any of these explanations as
being sufficient to explain the improvement in quality.
Gentrification
The improvement in educational performance results from the better performanceof all students, including poor students, and not the displacement of deprived
students by more advantaged groups. Compared to the rest of England, London
did not in fact gentrify more than other regions as a whole between 2001 and2011. While particular boroughs in London did change in terms of the local
socio-economic profile of the population, there is no strong correlation between
gentrification levels and rates of GCSE improvement (based upon the percentageof pupils gaining five A*-C over the same time period).
Ethnicity
The improved educational outcomes have been shared across all the major ethnic
groups within the London population, including students from a white ethnic
background. At borough level there is no strong correlation between the level of
ethnic diversity and educational performance.
Opportunity
London has been the most economically successful and culturally rich partof England for centuries, including those years in the 1980s and 1990s when
London schools performed much less well. While recognising the beneficial impactof London’s economy and cultural assets, and noting that pupil aspirations in
London are higher than elsewhere in the country, these factors cannot explain thetransformation of London schools between 2000 and 2014.

LESSONS FROM LONDON SCHOOLS: INVESTIGATING THE SUCCESS | 9

THE EXCEPTIONAL IMPROVEMENT WAS ASSISTED BY, BUT NOT FUNDAMENTALLY CAUSEDBY, RESOURCING ISSUES RELATING TO FINANCE, TEACHER RECRUITMENT AND SCHOOL
BUILDING STOCK
Finance
The financial resources available to London schools increased significantly during
the first decade of the century, and London schools were funded more generously
than others. However, London schools have always received more money thanschools in other regions including during the years when London performed poorly
relative to other regions. While increased funding may well have been an enabling
factor in driving school improvement it was certainly not a substantive causal
factor in London’s remarkable transformation.
The recruitment of teachers and headteachers
London schools struggled to attract teachers and headteachers at the start ofthe century. These problems were particularly acute in inner London. Recruitment
subsequently improved but vacancy rates in London have generally remained
higher than the national average and so the capital does not enjoy an advantage
in the ‘absolute supply’ of teacher and leaders. However, the recruitment situation
has moved from crisis point to one where the challenges are more in line withthose faced elsewhere.
School buildings
There was a substantial investment in the rebuilding and refurbishment of London
secondary schools from 2003 onwards under the Building Schools for the Future(BSF) and academies programmes. For some London teachers and headteachers
such investment does appear to have been a positive motivating factor andimproved the environment for learning but there is no conclusive evidence that
this raised educational standards and it cannot account directly for the London
transformation as it was a national programme.
These factors almost certainly played some part in creating the enabling conditions
for transformation. Changes in funding, teacher and headteacher recruitment andthe quality of school buildings all contributed to creating an environment in whichchange could flourish. These changes may have been necessary but they were
not by themselves sufficient to explain the transformation.

FOUR KEY SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT INTERVENTIONS PROVIDED THE IMPETUS FOR IMPROVEMENT
Several significant reforms and initiatives took place in London between 2000 and2014. These included four key interventions: London Challenge (2003–2011), thereplacement of failing schools with new schools known as ‘academies’ in London(2002–present), the Teach First programme (2003–present), and improvements inthe quality of support and challenge provided by local authorities (throughout).
We conclude that each of these interventions played a significant role in driving
improvement. Evaluations of each of these interventions have overall been positive,
although the absence of RCT evidence makes it impossible to identify the precise
gains from each set of activities. The exact causal mix also varied from boroughto borough because there were variations in the level of involvement in London
Challenge, variations in the effectiveness of local authority activity, variations in thelevel of ‘academisation’ and variations in the level of input from Teach First.

10 | LESSONS FROM LONDON SCHOOLS: INVESTIGATING THE SUCCESSThe different reforms appear to have acted in combination: there was no single‘magic bullet’. London Challenge was viewed very positively but engaged someschools and local authorities more than others. Some reforms – such as TeachFirst and the introduction of academies – were relatively small in scale between
2003 and 2010, but may have had an indirect effect beyond those directly
involved.
Although the interventions are sometimes perceived as rival solutions they sharedcertain school improvement features and collectively transmitted some common
messages about school improvement. These are discussed below.
The importance of data and data literacy
One of the most important developments in London since 2000 has been thegrowth in data use and data literacy. In our interviews with stakeholders there
was virtual unanimity in the identification of data analysis and data literacy as key
both to powerful accountability and well-targeted school improvement support.
This preoccupation was not the exclusive property of any particular group and all
the major initiatives seemed to have strong foundations in the use of educational
metrics. The different actors in the London story are therefore linked by a common
preoccupation with the effective use of educational data as an instrument fortransformation.
The need for a new culture of accountability
According to our expert witnesses and teacher focus groups, today’s London
schools are characterised by a high degree of accountability through performance
management. Our key witnesses talked in favourable terms about the way that
underperformance by leaders or teachers is now challenged. The new cultureof accountability is made possible by the data revolution. The ‘forensic’ analysis
of performance metrics makes possible a new professional dialogue about
effectiveness at every level: classroom, school, local authority or academy chain.
The power of highly effective practitioner-led professional development
While the schools of London are more accountable places than ever, andprofessionals are subject to significant external and internal scrutiny, there havealso been interesting developments in the field of professional support. Highsupport through effective professional development characterised London
Challenge, Teach First and the work of the best local authorities and highperforming academy chains. Some of the forms of professional developmentthat arose from London Challenge represented a paradigm shift in the way thatprofessional learning is conceived. Outstanding practitioners – such as National
Leaders of Education and outstanding schools, for example through Teaching
School status – were given an opportunity to improve performance levels across acommunity of schools. In this way the theory of ‘sector-led improvement’ (the ideathat school improvement should be driven by the system itself rather than imposed
top-down) was made a reality.

LESSONS FROM LONDON SCHOOLS: INVESTIGATING THE SUCCESS | 11

THE IMPROVEMENT OF LONDON SCHOOLS DEPENDED UPON EFFECTIVE LEADERSHIP AT
EVERY LEVEL OF THE SYSTEM
Our expert witnesses and focus groups of teachers revealed evidence ofleadership effectiveness throughout the education system: national government,
regional agencies and initiatives, ‘middle tier’ organisations such as local
authorities, and academy chains and schools. There was a virtually unanimousview that this was a key factor in the transformation of London schools.
Political leadership
One major lesson from the London school improvement story is the importance ofhigh-level sponsorship from policymakers. Under the Labour governments of 19972010 the reform of London schools was supported by politicians at Cabinet level
and their key advisers. London also benefitted from having an education ministerwith a specific brief for London schools. London Challenge was highly unusual
as an intervention because it was sustained for eight years. Current initiatives
by the office of the Mayor of London explicitly build upon the achievements of
London Challenge. Other policies, such as Teach First and the use of academies,
have received even more sustained political support and, unusually, the politicalsponsorship continued after a change of government in 2010.
A shared concept of leadership
Our expert witnesses came from different leadership constituencies. At the sametime they demonstrated a leadership concept based on ideas of ‘possibility’ and‘coherence’. The key components of this concept were as follows:•	Transformational leadership was driven by moral purpose, and a strong sensethat leaders’ first responsibility was to optimise outcomes for learners and not
to promote the ‘provider interest’. This moral purpose and sense of advocacy
meant that leaders needed at times to challenge or confront a provider interest,
represented by underperforming groups of professionals either at school or local
authority level.
•	Moral purpose is not enough; it requires leverage. Our group of leaders believedthat moral purpose could be translated into effective leadership action throughthe ‘relentless’ and ‘forensic’ use of data: potentially powerful management
information about the performance of students could be used to identify andchallenge local authorities, schools and individual teachers whose performance
was sub-optimal.
•	Challenge must be combined with support and recognition that whileaccountability was essential, simply ‘demonising’ others through, for example, aname and shame approach could be counter-productive.
•	Support was typically based on a coherent ‘theory of change’. Effective
leaders went far beyond criticism and exhortation. The leaders we interviewed
typically possessed a set of ideas about how schools and classrooms could beorganised differently, and how the performance of teachers could be enhanced
through effective professional learning. These leaders had a theory of changethat could be applied to specific examples of underperformance.

12 | LESSONS FROM LONDON SCHOOLS: INVESTIGATING THE SUCCESSExceptional personal leadership
Many of the individuals who were involved in the London story were consideredby their peers to be exceptional leaders. The person who attracted the greatest
number of comments about his individual contribution and distinctive leadershipstyle was Tim Brighouse. He was closely followed by the senior civil servant,and now academy chain leader, Jon Coles. Other agencies were characterisedby personal excellence and commitment. The study of Tower Hamlets as ahigh-performing local authority identified the contributions of Christine Gilbert
and Kevan Collins. Teach First has been led energetically and successfully fromthe beginning by Brett Wigdortz, and he has given the organisation a distinctive
character, particularly in terms of its moral purpose. Key academy chains witha strong London profile, such as ARK Schools and the Harris Federation, havebenefitted from leadership of a high order and, like Teach First, a substantial
measure of leadership continuity over the last decade. The evidence suggeststhat exceptional leaders at all levels in the system were critical to the success ofparticular initiatives in London.
The role of the expert headteacher as a system leader
Developments in London, particularly via London Challenge, have contributed to
new thinking about leadership in the context of ‘sector-led improvement’ and therole of outstanding headteachers as system leaders. London provided a context
for the development of thinking about National Leaders of Education and teaching
schools which, from as early as 2006 and 2010 respectively, became national
government policy. Exceptional individuals demonstrated the need for consultant
leaders to be supported through quality assurance and careful training.
Within and outside London Challenge there was a widespread view that ‘system
leaders’ had a responsibility that went beyond the individual institution where
they were currently working. Successful system leadership, therefore, requireda change in the mindset of the best school leaders. In addition to a professional
responsibility for the life chances of students at their own school, system leaders
accepted that they had a shared and collective responsibility with other schoolleaders for the well-being of all students in their community.

LESSONS FROM LONDON SCHOOLS: INVESTIGATING THE SUCCESS | 13

CHAPTER 1:

INTRODUCTION
Our study confirms that London schools have made extraordinary progressover the last decade. From appearing to be one of the worst-performing
regions in England, the capital is now the best, with the highest proportion of
students obtaining five good GCSEs, the highest percentage of schools rated‘outstanding’ by Ofsted, and the highest GCSE attainment for pupils from poorer
backgrounds. There is growing national and international interest in the journeytaken by London schools and various explanations have been advanced to
explain their improvement.

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

With public figures increasingly calling for the successes in London
to be replicated across other regions and cities, understanding thereasons for London school improvement is of urgent importance.

Methodologically, the approach we have taken uses the best data and evidence
available to review the nature and causes of the changes in London schools. We
conclude that there has indeed been a dramatic shift in the quality of provision in
London schools and we identify the most likely causes of these changes.
The methods offer insightful analysis of the London story, although there arelimitations associated with the evidence that circumscribe this study and the extent
to which definitive claims can be made about cause and effect. A key questionis the extent to which we really understand the effect of the different policies andeducational interventions that contributed to this remarkable transformation.

When asked to explain the change in London schools one of our interviewees
replied that we simply do not understand the relative effect of different
interventions: ‘The honest answer is we don’t know the reasons. Because we did
no randomised controlled trials, we didn’t say, “This group will be part of this, thisgroup will be part of this, this group will have both interventions”, so it’s very hard
to know.’
Another interviewee made a similar point when asked for any evidence to support
her strongly-held belief that the use of data was central to the transformation of
London schools. She replied that the only evidence was highly qualitative and shetalked about the absence of ‘real evidence’:‘I think it’s quite difficult to talk about it in terms of real evidence, because I
don’t think there’s a lot of hard evidence. I don’t think there were any RCTs
[randomised controlled trials] done at the time, so I don’t think you’re goingto get anything other than qualitative issues happening in relation to all of
that.’LESSONS FROM LONDON SCHOOLS: INVESTIGATING THE SUCCESS | 15

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

At a time when the Cabinet Office is recommending that policy should be basedon hard evidence, these observations are important. This stance is open to
criticism; such evidence can identify what works but cannot always explain
how or why. On the positive side, all of the major London ‘reforms’ have been
retrospectively evaluated by highly competent experts but in no case can we
speak with complete confidence about cause and effect. It is important to notethat even if such research methods had been conducted, the pattern of national
and local reform was so complex that controlling for effects would be unreliable.
Clearly impact assessment needs to address the ‘counterfactual’ question: what
would have happened if the intervention had not taken place. The best method
in social science research for answering that counterfactual question is the use ofa randomly allocated control group identical to those who receive the so-called‘treatment’. In the absence of full RCTs, weaker evidence can be based on ‘quasiexperimental’ data that retrospectively matches subjects of the intervention withsimilar subjects who were not part of the intervention. The best evidence from
London is of this quasi-experimental nature, supplemented by some insightful
qualitative research.
As a result, one of the key lessons from the London success story is theimportance of giving impact assessment – through the use of robust quantitativeand qualitative methods – more initial prominence in the design of education
reforms and reforms in other important areas of social policy.

AIMS AND RESEARCH DESIGNThis research sought to investigate, using the best evidence, the contextual,enabling and causal factors underpinning London’s success. The project was
guided by three questions:• Is the success of London’s schools as real as has been suggested?
•	If the success is real, in what ways have schools improved and for what
reasons?
•	What can we learn for the future of school improvement, for London andbeyond?
This research has adopted a mixed-methods approach combining qualitative
semi-structured interviews with experts on the London story, analysis of existingdata of both a quantitative and qualitative nature, focus groups with staff inschools and interviews with individuals in local authorities (LAs). Gathering andanalysing the views of expert witnesses was an important part of the research
design and the report draws heavily upon the insights of this ‘elite’ group of
professionals who brought a range of specialist perspectives and standpoints.
(Further details about the methods used are included in Appendix A.)
We are particularly indebted to Chris Cook for allowing us access to his analyses– scrutiny of which enabled careful consideration of some possible explanatory
factors often mentioned in the context of the changes seen in London. The workof Cook has been drawn upon several times in this report.

16 | LESSONS FROM LONDON SCHOOLS: INVESTIGATING THE SUCCESS…ONE OF THE KEY LESSONS FROM
THE LONDON SUCCESS STORY
IS THE IMPORTANCE OF IMPACTASSESSMENT – THROUGH THE
USE OF ROBUST QUANTITATIVEAND QUALITATIVE METHODS.

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTIONA CHRONOLOGY OF EDUCATIONAL REFORM IN LONDON
Since the end of the Inner London Education Authority (ILEA) in 1990, London’s
educational governance has been arranged as 33 geographically small LAs. This
report refers to inner and outer London boroughs and the figure below shows thecategorisation of these LAs.
Figure 1.1: Inner and outer London boroughs

22
16

24

5
1

18

26
21
27

11
8

13

31
28

25
15

10

12

2

7

30

3

6

14

4

33

23

17

9

29
32

20

19

Source: DfE, 2013a1

Camden12

Tower Hamlets

23

Greenwich

2

City of London

13

Wandsworth

24

Harrow

3

Hackney

14

Westminster

25

Havering

4

Hammersmith and Fulham

15

Barking and Dagenham

26

Hillingdon

5

Haringey

16

Barnet27

Hounslow6

Islington

17

Bexley28

Kingston upon Thames

7

Kensington and Chelsea

18

Brent

29

Merton8Lambeth19

Bromley30

Redbridge

9

Lewisham

20

Croydon31

Richmond upon Thames

10

Newham21

Ealing32

Sutton11

Southwark

22

Enfield

33

Waltham Forest

LESSONS FROM LONDON SCHOOLS: INVESTIGATING THE SUCCESS | 17

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

London Challenge has been widely credited for London’s educational success.
The London Challenge programme began in 2002 and was implemented fullyin 2003 after the appointment of Tim Brighouse to the position of Chief Advisor
for London Schools in September 2002. The first policy document relating to
the London Challenge programme was published in April 2003, which set out
the key elements of the scheme and its priorities for action across the capital.
London Challenge was not one single programme or set of actions, but rather acombination of approaches – including many which existed before the creation of
the policy – which together focused on school improvement in London (Ogden,
2013: 22). The approach was rolled out in two phases, with the first (2003–2008)
focusing on secondary schools, particularly in five key boroughs, and the second(2008–2011) including primary schools.
Other key milestones in the story of London include the launch of Teach First in 2002
(with its first cohort starting to teach in London schools in 2003); the expansion of
the London Challenge programme to the Black Country and Manchester in 2008
(under the rebranded ‘City Challenge’ title); and ultimately the announcement in
December 2010 that the Challenge programme would end under the new coalition
government.
In addition to these specific interventions, the creation of city academies from 2002
(allowed for in the Learning and Skills Act 2000), and the change in the academies
programme from 2010 (when the Academies Act enabled all maintained schools
to convert to academy status) as well as initiatives which pre-date the period thisreport will focus on (such as the Excellence in Cities programme, launched in1999), were all key aspects of the school improvement reforms in London.

18 | LESSONS FROM LONDON SCHOOLS: INVESTIGATING THE SUCCESSCHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

WHAT FOLLOWSThe next chapter takes a critical look at the success story assessing the degree towhich London has improved. It presents the evidence for the remarkable journeyof pupil attainment and the quality of schools, leadership and teaching. It also
examines in detail the perceptions of the expert witnesses who were interviewed
and offers new insight into what those who experienced the changes view as themost remarkable.
Chapter 3 discusses some contextual and enabling factors often causally
associated with London’s educational achievements and considers the extent towhich these do offer explanations for the improvement. For example, gentrification,
ethnicity, the wealth of opportunity in London, funding, teacher recruitment andnew school buildings have all been associated with the transformation that has
taken place in London. Closer analysis suggests that there is no strong evidence
to support such hypotheses. Instead, such factors are either contextuallyinteresting or played an enabling role in the changes that have taken place.
Chapter 4 considers the nature of the key education ‘reforms’ that took placein London, particularly in the years 2003–2014. This chapter considers several
key interventions, programmes and policies that the evidence does suggest
offer explanation of the London success. Chapter 5 considers the system andschool level changes relating to leadership that contributed to supporting theimprovement journey in the capital.
The report offers concluding remarks which comment on the factors that appear
to have driven the success in London, a discussion about the transferable
elements of the story in London and the key lessons that come out of this workthat may be applied anywhere – in the UK or beyond.

LESSONS FROM LONDON SCHOOLS: INVESTIGATING THE SUCCESS | 19

CHAPTER 2:

THE IMPROVEMENT
IN LONDON SCHOOLS
London’s schools have shown exceptional improvement. Up-todate evidence shows that pupils in London do better at GCSE
than they do elsewhere in England, this is markedly so for pupils
receiving free school meals. Ofsted data shows that there havebeen important developments in the quality of teaching andleadership too.

CHAPTER 2: THE IMPROVEMENT IN LONDON SCHOOLSIt has become the received wisdom that London schools improved
dramatically between 2000 and 2014. Is this a justifiable view? This
chapter tests the evidence for the claim of transformation.
It draws upon:•	data which shows, quantitatively, the changes that have taken placein some key educational inputs and outcomes•	qualitative data collected from interviews with 25 key individuals who haveworked in high-level positions related to London schools since the early
2000s and focus group interviews with teachers in London schools.

Using these sources we conclude that there has indeed been a dramatic
improvement in London schools. Our interviews allowed us to reflect, qualitatively,on some of characteristics of this change which include improvements not only
in outcomes but also in school culture and critically the extent to which education
professionals became more determined and more confident about ensuring thatpoverty did not necessarily lead to underachievement.

LESSONS FROM LONDON SCHOOLS: INVESTIGATING THE SUCCESS | 21

CHAPTER 2: THE IMPROVEMENT IN LONDON SCHOOLSTHE PERFORMANCE OF LONDON’S SECONDARY SCHOOLPUPILS TODAY
The most up-to-date evidence paints a compelling picture of educational successin London’s schools now. Pupils in London do better at GCSE than they doelsewhere in England; this is particularly the case for pupils receiving free school
meals (FSM) especially in inner London. A greater number of London’s pupils
progress to higher education (HE) than in the rest of England (HEFCE, 2012: 3).
Data from 2013 suggests that London’s state secondary school pupils were thebest performing in the country. Across the capital, 64.4 per cent of pupils achieved
five or more GCSEs at grades A*-C including English and mathematics, compared
to a national average of 60.2 per cent. Attainment was highest in the outer London
boroughs – where over 65 per cent of pupils achieved five or more A*-C grades
including mathematics and English. Inner London was also above the national
average despite the fact that it is an area of relative socio-economic disadvantage.
Figure 2.1: 2013 GCSE attainment by region

Source: DfE, 2013aIn terms of attainment, changes in the available measures make tracking progressdifficult, but in the late 1990s London schools were outperformed by those in therest of England. In 1997/98, 32.4 per cent of pupils in London achieved five or
more A* to C grades at GCSE, including English and mathematics, compared to34.2 per cent of pupils in the rest of England. London schools closed the gap,
and since 2003/04 have consistently achieved better results than the rest of thecountry, continuing to improve at a faster rate.

22 | LESSONS FROM LONDON SCHOOLS: INVESTIGATING THE SUCCESSDATA FROM 2013 SUGGESTS THATLONDON’S STATE SECONDARYSCHOOL PUPILS WERE THE BESTPERFORMING IN THE COUNTRY.

CHAPTER 2: THE IMPROVEMENT IN LONDON SCHOOLS

Figure 2.2: London compared to the rest of England

LONDONENGLAND EXCLUDING LONDON

Source: Hansard, 2013

In today’s world of league tables and high accountability, schools are sometimes
accused of ‘gaming’, for example focusing their resources on ‘borderline students’to push them over the Grade C threshold at the expense of the educational
needs of other students who are not near the C-D borderline. This claim clearlyraises important ethical issues. For some it also casts suspicion over the London‘success story’ by raising doubts about the validity of the metrics as a truemeasure of student outcomes. This accusation was considered and rejected by
the Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission report (2013) which used aslightly different measure to ‘factor out’ C-D borderline gaming. The Commission
calculated the proportion of pupils achieving eight A*-Bs in London, andconcluded that performance was higher than other regions for all pupils, including
those from both economically advantaged and disadvantaged groups. Thisappears to show that even controlling for gaming, London’s pupils are exceeding
expectations.

LESSONS FROM LONDON SCHOOLS: INVESTIGATING THE SUCCESS | 23

CHAPTER 2: THE IMPROVEMENT IN LONDON SCHOOLS

Figure 2.3: Pupils achieving eight or more A*-Bs at GCSE
(excluding equivalents), 2011/12

DISADVANTAGEDNON DISADVANTAGED

ALL PUPILS

Source: Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission, 2013: 191

The UK has been criticised for having education systems that are inequitablebecause outcomes are strongly linked to parental socio-economic status – thepassive acceptance of the negative correlation between poverty and educational
attainment has come under increasing scrutiny in recent years. Figure 2.3 above
suggests that the performance of London pupils goes against this particulargrain. Disadvantaged students in London do almost as well as all students in
the North East or in Yorkshire and Humber. Further analysis shows that thesuccess of London’s pupils extends across the continuum of wealth and poverty.
Nationally, the performance of pupils on FSM is typically lower than for pupils
who do not receive FSM; this is true for pupils in London too but not to the same
extent. In some regions (like the South East), pupils who receive FSM are only
half as likely as their peers to secure five or more A*-C grades including English
and mathematics at GCSE. London has a far higher proportion of pupils whoare eligible for FSM (24 per cent in London rising to 34 per cent in inner London)
but the gap between pupils receiving FSM and those that do not is narrower
in London than elsewhere in the country (Social Mobility and Child Poverty
Commission, 2013: 191).
The trend is exaggerated in inner London where the attainment of pupils receiving
FSM is even closer to that of non-London pupils who do not receive FSM.

24 | LESSONS FROM LONDON SCHOOLS: INVESTIGATING THE SUCCESSCHAPTER 2: THE IMPROVEMENT IN LONDON SCHOOLS

PUPILS FROM MOST DIFFERENTETHNIC HERITAGE GROUPSPERFORM BETTER IN LONDON
THAN IN THE NATION AS A
WHOLE.

Figure 2.4: Attainment gaps in 2013

5 A*-C E&M DISADVANTAGED

5 A*-C E&M NOT DISADVANTAGED(NB: ‘Disadvantaged’ is defined as those children in receipt of free school meals.)
Source: DfE, 2013a

The good performance of London’s more disadvantaged pupils is also borne out
by other statistics. Young people’s attainment at Key Stage 4 was shown to beaffected by area-level deprivation (DCSF, 2009a: 17). The Income Deprivation
Affecting Children Index (IDACI) ranks postcodes based upon the proportionof children under 16 living in ‘income-deprived families’. In each of England’s
regions there was a gulf between the attainment of young people from the mostand least deprived IDACI deciles. This difference is smallest in London, where
the performance of young people from deprived areas is markedly better thanin the rest of the country. Analysis by Cook which compares the performance ofLondon’s most deprived pupils (as defined by their IDACI rankings) suggests thatthe attainment of such pupils in London who enter secondary education with low
attainment at Key Stage 2 do relatively well at secondary school (Cook, 2013a: 9).
Pupils from most different ethnic heritage groups perform better in London thanin the nation as a whole. The graph below demonstrates that attainment varies
between ethnic groups but that white, mixed, Asian and Chinese pupils attain
more in London than pupils nationally.

LESSONS FROM LONDON SCHOOLS: INVESTIGATING THE SUCCESS | 25

CHAPTER 2: THE IMPROVEMENT IN LONDON SCHOOLS

Figure 2.5: Attainment by ethnic group in 2012

ENGLANDLONDON

Source: DfE, 2013a

The performance of higher and lower performing schools shows some interesting
nuances in performance and success. It also illustrates some of the complexitiesof the London data because the pattern that emerges is more positive for the
relatively weaker schools and less positive for the academically stronger schools.
The following table (figure 2.6) summarises how the performance of schools
has changed since 2001 (broken down by percentiles of performance) – it gives
the percentage point increase in the performance of different percentiles andcompares the percentage point change in London to the national change. Column
A gives the percentage point change for each percentile based on national figures.
Column B shows the same but for London and column C shows the percentage
point difference – if the number is zero there is no difference between the change
in the national performance of schools and those in London at this performancelevel. If the number is negative this shows that London has in fact improved lessthan the national average and if the number is positive this indicates that London
has improved beyond the national figure.
The change in outcomes of the lower-performing schools in London during theperiod 2001–2013 has improved more than the national figures; however, the rate
at which top-performing schools in London have improved appears to have beenslower than the rate of top-performing schools elsewhere in the country.

26 | LESSONS FROM LONDON SCHOOLS: INVESTIGATING THE SUCCESSTHE CHANGE IN OUTCOMES
OF THE LOWER-PERFORMINGSCHOOLS IN LONDON DURING THE
PERIOD 2001–2013 HAS IMPROVED
MORE THAN THE NATIONALFIGURES.

CHAPTER 2: THE IMPROVEMENT IN LONDON SCHOOLS

Figure 2.6: Percentage point increases over time nationally and in London
Column A

Column B

Column C

Percentileof A*-C
performance

Percentage pointchange in performance(five A*-C) of the nth
percentile 2001-2013(National)

Percentage pointchange in performanceof the nth percentile
2001-2013 (London)

Percentage point
difference in change(London-National)

100th

0

0

0

90th

5

1

-4

80th

19

16

-3

70th

29

28

-1

60th

33

33

0

50th

36

39

3

40th

38

43

5

30th

41

45

4

20th

43

46

3

10th

44

46

2

Source: DfE performance tables
NB: This data was compiled from individual performance tables spanning the period 2000-2013. The
table summarises how the performance of schools has changed at different levels of the distribution inschool performance. It gives the percentage point increase in the performance of different percentiles andcompares the percentage point change in London schools to the national change.

ACCESS TO FURTHER AND HIGHER EDUCATION
A positive picture emerges when one considers the destinations of London school
students. Based on the most recent government data, which follows the 2008/09
Key Stage 4 cohort, London has the highest rate of progression to post-16
education, with 87.6 per cent of pupils going on to, or remaining in education after
completing Key Stage 4, compared to a national average of 84.7 per cent (DfE,2012). Young people in London – particularly outer London boroughs – are also
more likely to progress to higher education (HE) than young people from any otherregion. The most recent data indicates a dramatic gap: an HE participation ratefor London of 43 per cent, rising to 45 per cent in outer London, against a national
average of 35 per cent. London also experienced the largest increase in HE
participation rates between 2000/01 and 2005/06 (HEFCE, 2012: 3). More recent
data from HEFCE documenting the gap between HE participation rates in London
and other regions shows: ‘the gap [in participation rates] between London andthe other regions has widened – for example the gap between London and theSouth East [the next closest region] widened from two percentage points to eightpercentage points.’ (HEFCE, 2013: 20)

LESSONS FROM LONDON SCHOOLS: INVESTIGATING THE SUCCESS | 27

CHAPTER 2: THE IMPROVEMENT IN LONDON SCHOOLSTHE PERFORMANCE OF LONDON’S EDUCATION WORKFORCE
AND SCHOOLS
While judgements about teaching quality are notoriously difficult to make and canbe unreliable (Coe, 2014), Ofsted data suggests important developments in thequality of teaching and leadership in London.
At the turn of the century inspectors reported relative weaknesses in the quality ofteaching in London schools, compared to the national picture: nine per cent fewer
secondary schools in London than England as a whole were judged to be good or
better in terms of quality of teaching between 2000 and 2003 (Ofsted, 2006).
Figures 2.7 and 2.8 below show the difference between Ofsted judgements on
overall school quality, quality of teaching and leadership 2000–2013. The available
data for the years 2000–2003 through to 2005–2006 (figure 2.7) is based upon
only those schools inspected within each individual time period. The data in the
2009–2013 bar chart (figure 2.8) is based on the Ofsted judgement for all schools
at each time-point. Due to the changing nature of how Ofsted reported theirdata, the charts need to be approached with some caution; however, what theseshow is that at the beginning of the first decade of the century London schools
were not performing well compared to schools nationally. What followed was adramatic improvement – particularly in the years 2005 and 2006. Since then,based on inspection data from all London schools, the evidence indicates steady
improvements from 2009 to 2013.
Figure 2.7: Difference between percentages of secondary schools judged goodor better in London and England (2000–2006)…LONDON SCHOOLS WERE NOTPERFORMING WELL COMPAREDTO SCHOOLS NATIONALLY. WHATFOLLOWED WAS A DRAMATIC
IMPROVEMENT.

OVERALLQUALITY OF TEACHING

Source: Ofsted, 200628 | LESSONS FROM LONDON SCHOOLS: INVESTIGATING THE SUCCESSEFFECTIVENESS OF LEADERSHIPCHAPTER 2: THE IMPROVEMENT IN LONDON SCHOOLS

Figure 2.8: Difference between percentages of secondary schools judged goodor outstanding in London and England (2009–2013)

OVERALLQUALITY OF TEACHINGEFFECTIVENESS OF LEADERSHIP

Source: Ofsted, 2014

The Ofsted data above suggests that there were improvements in teacher quality,
the effectiveness of leadership and management and overall effectiveness. By
the end of the period, teaching in London was judged good or outstanding in 85
per cent of secondary schools (73 per cent nationally), leadership was judged
good or outstanding in 89 per cent of secondary schools (79 per cent nationally)
and overall 85 per cent of schools were judged good or outstanding (72 per centnationally).1

1

All figures are correct as of 31 August 2013 (Ofsted, 2014).

LESSONS FROM LONDON SCHOOLS: INVESTIGATING THE SUCCESS | 29

CHAPTER 2: THE IMPROVEMENT IN LONDON SCHOOLS

Figure 2.9: 2013 Ofsted judgements about teaching and leadership quality
LONDON(outstanding)
ENGLAND(outstanding)
LONDON (goodor outstanding)
ENGLAND (goodor outstanding)(NB Data is for all secondary schools as of 31 August 2013)
Source: Ofsted, 2014

The figure above gives an impressive snapshot of Ofsted’s view of the performanceof schools in London compared to England, in terms of the proportion of goodor outstanding provision. London outperforms the national pattern using every
measure. The performance gap is considerable for both all schools and thoseschools that were the most economically deprived (Ofsted, 2014).

30 | LESSONS FROM LONDON SCHOOLS: INVESTIGATING THE SUCCESSCHAPTER 2: THE IMPROVEMENT IN LONDON SCHOOLS… IF YOU ARE A PUPIL FROM
A DEPRIVED BACKGROUND INSCHOOL IN LONDON IN 2012 YOU
ARE LIKELY TO ATTAIN BETTERRESULTS THAN A SIMILAR
NON-LONDON PUPIL, AND YOUR
CHANCES ARE EVEN BETTER
THAN THEY WERE IN 2004.

IMPROVEMENT AT SCHOOL LEVEL IN LONDONThe analysis reveals a narrative of improvement for London schools and also
demonstrates that London had a substantial proportion of excellent schools at
the turn of the century – the beginning of the period of transformation (Bradon etal., 2002). At this point London was characterised by variability – in 2001 London
had greater proportions of weak schools than the country as a whole but also
impressive numbers of strong schools compared to the rest of the country. Thispattern of variability was particularly marked in inner London (ibid.).
The school improvement capacity of London schools has been particularly
impressive. Ofsted inspections reveal that on average in England overall, 49 percent of schools judged less than good between 2005 and 2013 were successful
in raising their grade to good or above when re-inspected (Menzies, 2013);
in London the figure is 64 per cent. This difference of 15 percentage points isremarkable.

CLOSING THE GAP BETWEEN RICH AND POORAs well as enjoying success on broad measures of effectiveness, the ‘tail’ of
underperforming schools and schools in more deprived areas has reduced overthe past ten years in London.
When context is taken into account, equivalent measures excluded andincremental scores2 applied to each GCSE, it looks as though much of the country
has stalled while London has pulled further ahead in terms of pupils’ performance.
The figure below plots results for each percentile of IDACI, so for increasing levelsof deprivation and for pupil performance. This is shown at two points in time –2004 and 2012. It clearly shows that high levels of deprivation and low levels of
educational performance are correlated. Even in 2004 the link between poverty
and achievement in London was much weaker than in the rest of the country –so London was a more ‘equitable’ place to be educated. Put simply, if you werea pupil from a deprived socio-economic background you were likely to performbetter than someone from outside London with a background like yours. The 2012
data shows a pattern of greater equity in London schools but it also shows thatbetween 2004 and 2012 there has been a marked improvement for pupils in the
more deprived half of the population. This move towards greater equity is not seenin the figures for the rest of the country. So again, put simply, if you are a pupil froma deprived background in school in London in 2012 you are likely to attain better
results than a similar non-London pupil, and your chances are even better thanthey were in 2004.

	Each grade is worth one more ‘point’ than the grade below it, rather than there being a ‘C’ grade ‘cliff edge’as is the case with the A*-C measure.

2

LESSONS FROM LONDON SCHOOLS: INVESTIGATING THE SUCCESS | 31

CHAPTER 2: THE IMPROVEMENT IN LONDON SCHOOLS

Figure 2.10: London and England excluding London performance by IDACI percentile in 2004 and 2012

ENGLAND EXCLUDING LONDON 2004

ENGLAND EXCLUDING LONDON 2012

LONDON 2004

LONDON 2012

(NB Based on GCSE points, excluding equivalents and controlling for background factors)
Source: Cook, 2014

Some of the data presented thus far has suggested a difference in performance between inner and outer London, indicating
more marked improvement in inner London. Using borough level figures to calculate the average proportion of pupils
achieving five or more A*-C grades in inner and outer London boroughs we see that at the turn of the century, inner London
boroughs performed dramatically below the national average. Even in 2008 they were still 3.4 percentage points behind therest of the country. Since then they have drawn level with the national average, and in 2009 they overtook the rest of thecountry for the first time – a lead they have since extended.

32 | LESSONS FROM LONDON SCHOOLS: INVESTIGATING THE SUCCESSCHAPTER 2: THE IMPROVEMENT IN LONDON SCHOOLSIT WAS NOT ENTIRELYSURPRISING THAT INNERLONDON PERFORMED RELATIVELYPOORLY IN THE LATE 1990S GIVENTHE SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONTEXT.

Figure 2.11: Performance of inner and outer London compared to Englandoverall (2000–2013)

INNER LONDON BOROUGH AVERAGEOUTER LONDON BOROUGH AVERAGEENGLAND

Source: DfE performance tables

As Bradon et al. noted, ‘Students attending inner London schools do better thanmight otherwise be expected, given that they often start with at least two strikes
against them (poverty and mobility)’ (2002: 28). What is particularly interesting tonote is that a pattern of improvement was already emerging by the late 1990s.
Several years before such reforms as London Challenge and the introduction ofacademies and Teach First, inner London had begun to close the gap. This wasnoted by the Government at the time of the start of London Challenge in 2003:‘Performance in London schools is improving. In 1987, just under 11 percent of inner London pupils achieved five good O-levels (compared to 26.4
per cent nationally); today 41 per cent achieve five good GCSEs (compared
to 49.5 per cent nationally) narrowing the gap between inner London andnational performance’ (DfES, 2003: 18).

LESSONS FROM LONDON SCHOOLS: INVESTIGATING THE SUCCESS | 33

CHAPTER 2: THE IMPROVEMENT IN LONDON SCHOOLS

By 2002, over 30 per cent of pupils receiving FSM in London achieved five
A*-C at GCSE, compared to around 26 per cent nationally – and FSM pupils in
inner London did particularly well (DfES, 2003: 18). So even in the early 2000s,
before London Challenge and academies and despite high levels of deprivation,
the capital’s schools were demonstrating capacity to improve. The sustained
and accelerating improvement since then has meant they have subsequently
outperformed the rest of the country. While all regions in figure 2.12 below show
a trend of improvement, London’s rise through the regional ranks since 2005 isparticularly impressive.
Figure 2.12: London’s performance between 2005 and 2012 compared toother regions
LONDON
SOUTH EAST
ENGLANDNORTH WEST
WEST MIDLANDSNORTH EAST
EAST OF ENGLAND
EAST MIDLANDSSOUTH WESTYORKSHIRE AND HUMBER

Source: DfE, 2013a

While the overall picture is that inner London improved more markedly than outer
London, there were significant variations at borough level in both areas of thecity. The performance of schools within some outer London boroughs improved
relatively rapidly: Barking and Dagenham saw improvements in GCSE attainment
between 2004 and 2011 of above 25 percentage points, compared to a London
average of 21 percentage points. Meanwhile some inner London boroughs
improved relatively slowly over the same time period: for example Camden
improved by 17.4 percentage points, marginally behind the average improvementin the rest of England (outside London) of 17.5 percentage points (see figure 2.13).

34 | LESSONS FROM LONDON SCHOOLS: INVESTIGATING THE SUCCESS

WHILE THE OVERALL PICTURE IS
THAT INNER LONDON IMPROVED
MORE MARKEDLY THAN
OUTER LONDON, THERE WERESIGNIFICANT VARIATIONS AT
BOROUGH LEVEL IN BOTH AREAS
OF THE CITY.

CHAPTER 2: THE IMPROVEMENT IN LONDON SCHOOLS

Figure 2.13: 2004–2011 improvement by London borough

INNER LONDONOUTER LONDON

Source: DfE, 2013a

Despite these anomalies the figure above shows that borough level school improvement was typically greater in inner London
boroughs.
It is interesting to consider the improvement trajectory of London schools before and after the change of government in2010. The figure overleaf (figure 2.14) shows the proportion of pupils achieving five good GCSEs including English andmathematics from 2005 to 2013 in inner London compared to the national picture for all state-funded schools in England.
Since eclipsing performance across England in 2010, the rate of improvement in inner London schools has continued to
exceed the national rate in 2012 and 2013.

LESSONS FROM LONDON SCHOOLS: INVESTIGATING THE SUCCESS | 35

CHAPTER 2: THE IMPROVEMENT IN LONDON SCHOOLS

Figure 2.14: Inner London GCSE performance compared to national
performance between 2005 and 2013

INNER LONDONENGLAND

Source: DfE, 2013aPERCEPTIONS OF THE LONDON TRANSFORMATION
Our research involved interviews with 25 expert witnesses with experience relevantto the story of London schools. The group consisted of academics, politicians,
government advisers, school leaders, programme leaders and educationalists
who were either active during the period in driving the changes in London or havebeen key figures in the debate around the changes in more recent years. Theinterviews are sources of rich qualitative data that illuminate the story of London’stransformation. In this section they add interesting qualitative insight into thechanges that have been documented quantitatively thus far in this chapter. In
interviews this group of experts were asked to reflect on the way London schools
have changed over the last 10 to 15 years. They were unanimous that there had
been dramatic improvements in school quality, although some were keen to qualify
this analysis with reference either to remaining problems today or to the complexityof the improvement narrative. Most had a very positive view of the strength
today of the London school system. The following comments are typical of theirassessment of change over time:

36 | LESSONS FROM LONDON SCHOOLS: INVESTIGATING THE SUCCESSCHAPTER 2: THE IMPROVEMENT IN LONDON SCHOOLS‘From being the worst performing region in England to the best performing
region in England in a period of not much more than ten years is a very
considerable achievement.’ (Former headteacher)‘London schools are, I think, pretty undisputedly the best in the country
now, which was not the case ten years ago [...] I think most of our best
schools, although not all of them [...] [our] world class schools, are in
London.’ (Political adviser)‘The [...] 2011 data showed that the poorest one per cent of children by
postcode do as well as children in the average postcode by wealth in therest of the country. That’s a pretty stunning statistic.’ (Political adviser)‘[London has] exceptional density of outstanding schools and very effective
schools, some exceptional leaders and systems leaders, architects of new
developments across London and nationally. [London has had the] biggest
rate of improvement and highest outcomes for children. [It’s] the only global
city in the world where that’s the case.’ (Policy specialist)
Our interviewees confirmed, broadly speaking, the patterns derived from the data
described in the first half of this chapter in such areas as:•	London moving over time from being the educational ‘poor relation’ of the
English regions to ‘best in class’•	substantial improvements in teaching quality and outcomes as measured byexam results•	a particularly beneficial impact of London schools on the performance ofrelatively disadvantaged students•	a differential rate of improvement between inner and outer London, with thegreater gains seen in inner London.

LESSONS FROM LONDON SCHOOLS: INVESTIGATING THE SUCCESS | 37

CHAPTER 2: THE IMPROVEMENT IN LONDON SCHOOLSTHE BAD OLD DAYS?
Although our interview structure invited comment on the situation since 2002/03,
several of the interviewees went further back and spoke about London schools
in the 1980s. These experts typically saw the situation in the 1980s as worse
than at the turn of the century and supported the proposition that aspects of the
London improvement process were already under way by the year 2000. One
highly experienced participant described the schools of 2000–2003 as, ‘a lot better
than they were in the seventies and eighties’. Another mentioned how the ILEA of
the 1980s was seen by many as ‘a basket case’ and the inner London schoolsof the time were perceived by some as ‘hopeless’. One participant described her
own experience as a teacher in London schools in the 1980s in graphic terms andidentified a prevalent culture of low expectations and poor leadership: ‘Two of themwere quite frankly awful, and had no links with any other school [...] Staff didn’t talkabout education, headteacher hid in the office because too frightened that there
might be a disruption! And people just said, well [...] what can you expect?’
Some interviewees expressed a belief that there had been ‘green shoots’ of
improvement in the late 1990s, which predated the reforms of 2003: London
Challenge, Teach First and the first sponsored academies. Several interviewees
spoke positively of the Excellence in Cities initiative of the new Labour governmentand other changes, such as the beginnings of the transformation of some local
authorities, all of which predated the reforms of the years 2003–2010.

A DYSFUNCTIONAL SCHOOL CULTURE
For many of our interviewees, issues of culture, leadership and expectations
constituted key areas of weakness at the beginning of the century. Several
confirmed the existence in some schools, particularly those serving deprived
communities, of low level expectations as a major barrier to better outcomes.
Interviewees repeatedly spoke of the prevalence of a lazy and pessimistic
assumption that radical improvement was not possible in the outcomes forstudents from deprived backgrounds. One described schools at the time as beingorganised in the ‘producer interest’ rather than as places that put the interest oflearners first, commenting that they were ‘group[s] of independent organisations
whose principal purpose was the promotion and protection of employment ofstaff, with outcomes in performance of children in most but not all schools being
secondary to the benefits and the interests and issues of staff’.
An experienced director of children’s services talked about the ‘grossunderachievement’ of the time. For her, and for many other respondents, afundamental problem was a professional culture of complacency: ‘There were too
many people who accepted the fact that poverty [...] and initial underachievementof children was something that couldn’t be turned around’.
Another interviewee, who was a former senior civil servant, described some of theschools of the early 2000s as seriously dysfunctional institutions: ‘You wouldn’t
feel safe in the corridor necessarily. You would find a huge amount of disruption inlessons [...] learning environments which were depressing and unpleasant to be in’.

38 | LESSONS FROM LONDON SCHOOLS: INVESTIGATING THE SUCCESSCHAPTER 2: THE IMPROVEMENT IN LONDON SCHOOLSA PERIOD OF PROFESSIONAL ISOLATION
In addition to cultural problems linked to questions of expectations, the expert
witnesses frequently identified two barriers to improvement when reflecting on thesituation in London schools in the early 2000s:• difficulties in teacher recruitment• the professional isolation of schools.
The experts identified the difficulties in the recruitment of good teachers as one of thechronic problems that beset school leaders at the turn of the century. Some describedthe daily grind of trying to ensure that pupils had teachers, which had a corrosive
effect on the work of leaders and distracted them from efforts to secure organisational
improvement. For others, dealing with recruitment difficulties was seen as an essential
first step towards transformation. As one interviewee said: ‘If you’ve got the rightpeople, then you’ve got a chance. If you haven’t, you’ve got no chance’.
The period 2000–2003 was seen as a time of low collaboration by school leaders– the interviewees who had been headteachers felt isolated. Although headteacher
networks existed they were not a place for the discussion of educational issues.
Interviewees repeatedly talked about the fragmentation and isolation that they
thought typified the period. There were many effective school leaders but there
was an absence of collegiality and of the practical mechanisms needed for joint
professional learning and the mobilisation of knowledge.
Our interviewees said that schools in the early 2000s had, in some cases, a weak
professional culture – practitioners at all levels in education were not effectively working
together either in schools or between schools, there was a complacency about
underperformance and there was little focus on pupil outcomes. They also lacked
some of the technical skills needed for high performance, the skills that they referred toas undeveloped related to pedagogical expertise, understanding about how children
learn and data literacy. One interviewee summed this up as a combined weakness ofskill and will: ‘They didn’t have the [...] forensic understanding of how different children
were performing and they didn’t have the real hunger to make the difference in termsof turning that around for those young people’.

THE EXPERTS IDENTIFIED THE
DIFFICULTIES IN THE RECRUITMENT
OF GOOD TEACHERS AS ONE OF THE
CHRONIC PROBLEMS THAT BESETSCHOOL LEADERS AT THE TURN OF
THE CENTURY.

A COMPLEX STORY
While some interviewees portrayed a stark picture of spectacularunderachievement in about 2000, others were keen to give what they saw as amore balanced picture and to emphasise that there was in fact a great range ofperformance at the turn of century. Some commented on the variability in school
effectiveness, the context of severe disadvantage that faced many London schools
and the complexity in the changes that took place between 2003 and 2014.
They described as common a view that the nuances were ignored 10–15 years
ago and the same nuances were in danger of being ignored today. A respectededucationalist commented that: ‘Schools... were probably unfairly maligned at the
beginning of the century. I mean, I think they were considered to be very bad, butthey were, probably, not doing that much worse, or even slightly better than therest of the country, it’s just they have very high disadvantaged populations’.

LESSONS FROM LONDON SCHOOLS: INVESTIGATING THE SUCCESS | 39

CHAPTER 2: THE IMPROVEMENT IN LONDON SCHOOLSA PUBLIC DISCOURSE OF CRISIS
While the statistical evidence presented alongside the views of experts suggeststhat the quality of London schools was mixed and the reality complex, the media,
politicians and many ordinary Londoners took a different view: London schools
were bad. Some interviewees drew attention to the existence of a political andmedia opinion about the universally appalling nature of the schools of London at
the start of the century. Some suggested that many parents, particularly middleclass parents, accepted the common media image of unmitigated failure, and thatas a result there was a crisis of parental confidence in state schools, particularly
those of inner London. This, they said, led many parents to send their children
on very lengthy journeys across London to escape from local schools with poor
reputations and some to choose private schools. Two interviewees talked about
how the Conservative politician, Oliver Letwin, spoke publicly, and in the view of
one interviewee outrageously, about how he would ‘rather beg on the streets’ than
send a child of his to his local comprehensive school in Lambeth. Another talked
about how Tony Blair and the media, particularly the Evening Standard, acceptedand promoted a somewhat simplistic concept of London schools in difficulty:‘Well, again I don’t think they were ever as bad as Tony Blair and the Evening
Standard made out, because I think he listened a lot to the chatteringclasses [...] However, there’s absolutely no doubt that some […] it’s hard toscore it, but I would say some 20 per cent of them [...] were in a pretty badstate’. (Senior educationalist)

LONDON SCHOOLS TODAYInterviewees described how many of the barriers to improvement had been
dismantled since the early 2000s. The teacher recruitment challenge had receded,
ensuring both better teachers and more time for school leaders to focus on school
improvement. The attitude of ‘what can you expect with these kids?’ had been
replaced by a ‘no excuses’ culture in many schools and local authorities. Schools
were now more likely to have a strong professional culture and a commitment
to continuous improvement. A senior figure in the management of the London
Challenge programme commented: ‘Well I would characterise them as outwardlooking on the whole; wanting to find out what works; and endlessly seeking to
improve what they’re up to’.
One issue that occurred repeatedly in discussions with this group of interviewees
was a sense of how a degree of collegiality and collective responsibility had
replaced the fragmentation and isolation of the past. Some schools at the turn ofthe century were characterised as ‘ghettoes’. The schools of 2014 were described
contrastingly by one headteacher as part of a ‘movement’ with a strong ‘esprit decorps’.

40 | LESSONS FROM LONDON SCHOOLS: INVESTIGATING THE SUCCESSA SENSE OF COLLEGIALITY AND
COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITYREPLACED THE FRAGMENTATION
AND ISOLATION OF THE PAST.

CHAPTER 2: THE IMPROVEMENT IN LONDON SCHOOLS

When describing London schools today the themes that emerged from manyof the interviews related to strengthened organisational capacity and a selfconfidence about how to ensure school effectiveness. This organisational
confidence was fundamentally attributable to more self-confidence on the partof school leaders. Often interviewees linked this to an increase in ‘pride’: aneducationalist commented that ‘There’s been a massive shift with how London
schools feel about themselves [...] and I think there’s a pride in the education
system in London that just wasn’t there in 2003’. This professional pride derived
from a sense of professional effectiveness or efficacy. This in turn generated agrounded optimism and a belief that improvement and beneficial change waswithin the control of professionals. One experienced headteacher expressed thisview strongly; comparing his current practice to his experience in 1999, he said:‘It’s such a feeling of a lot more optimism. There seems to be a lot more possible
and there’s a lot more in our control’.
In summary, several of our interviewees shared a view of the characteristics of
London schools today which included the following features:• schools that were self-confident institutions, with well-motivated staff• highly effective leadership, with less ‘firefighting’ and crisis management•	strong networks linking schools with other schools for purposes of improvement
and joint practice development• a new culture of high expectations and ‘no excuses’ for underperformance•	optimism that challenged the inevitability of the connection between poverty andlow outcomes.

LESSONS FROM LONDON SCHOOLS: INVESTIGATING THE SUCCESS | 41

CHAPTER 2: THE IMPROVEMENT IN LONDON SCHOOLSA POLITICIAN’S PERSPECTIVE
One of our interviewees was a senior politician who, in a ministerial
capacity, had oversight of aspects of the London story. It is perhaps
instructive to look in some detail at his account of the context and thechanges to London schools over the past 10–15 years.
‘Well, I think the reality is that there was huge variety – and I thinkthat was one of the problems that led to a sort of loss of faith in a
lot of London schools. There was a lot of variety between different
schools so there were some schools that were doing fantastic things
and there were boroughs in London where performance was high. So
some of the boroughs that are cited as very successful, like Camden
for example, to be fair the schools there, by and large, were doing
well prior to London Challenge. So the position wasn’t the same
everywhere but undoubtedly it’s the case that there were schools thatwere letting down communities in many parts of London with verysignificant underperformance, that resulted in parents in those areas
not having faith in those schools. So either opting to go to schools
way away from where they lived because they were the schools they
had faith in. Or in some cases, choosing to go privately because theyfelt they didn’t have faith in the state schools. That included parentsof quite modest means who might go privately because they didn’t
have that faith.
‘I think the biggest change is that London is now seen as a very
attractive place for teachers to come and teach. So whether that’s
new young teachers or whether it’s people who are already inteaching, whether it’s people coming into teaching later on in life.
You know, I remember simply as a constituency MP in London andthen as the minister, that there were huge challenges recruiting andretaining good teachers in London. Partly because of the cost ofliving in London but a lot because of pupil behaviour, the sense that
London schools were very, very difficult places to work. I think thatwhat London Challenge and other things created was a situation
where it was seen as positively a good thing to come and teachin London and to be a leader in London. So I think the big, bigchange is that, which has then contributed to the improvement in
performance in the schools.’

42 | LESSONS FROM LONDON SCHOOLS: INVESTIGATING THE SUCCESSCHAPTER 2: THE IMPROVEMENT IN LONDON SCHOOLS

UNFINISHED BUSINESSThere were some dissenting voices among the interviewees who suggested
that caution was needed as the situation is as complex today as it was in
2000–2003. As the head of one academy chain said, ‘London schools are ahuge mix and I’m not sure I think there’s a unified story.’ Others pointed out thatthe transformation was quite localised: ‘It’s focused on some key boroughs –Tower Hamlets, Newham, Lewisham, Hackney, Westminster – that have seen
really dramatic improvements’. One of our interviewees was anxious that thestory of transformation should not be overstated. This head of an academy chainemphasised the weakness of some schools today:‘We are still finding, although there are fewer of them, we are still finding
completely dysfunctional schools [...] badly failing their young people. So in
the midst of this area which no question has improved significantly I think
it would be very hard to say it is world class or anyone is satisfied with it
because there are still some really poor failing schools.’
Interviewees commented on the momentum for further improvement. Somewere worried that there was a fragility to the improvements, and were concernedthat some forms of assistance to schools, such as London Challenge and local
authority school improvement services were no longer available. One interviewee
who had played a major role in the management of London Challenge described
the way the gap between London and the rest of the country was widening over
two years after the end of London Challenge in 2011. For him this was evidenceof the ‘legacy’ of London Challenge, with an implication that the ‘afterglow’ ofLondon Challenge would not last forever. Others saw the same phenomenon
differently and speculated about the extent to which London had in effect achieved‘take-off’ as a self-improving system: ‘The London school improvement system isself-sustaining. In 2012, London was the only region of the country whose GCSE
results improved’. Another interviewee, an ex-senior Ofsted figure, commented: ‘I
think there’s a vibrancy now, and a self-belief within the London schools that they
can continue to improve.’

THERE’S A VIBRANCY NOW, AND A
SELF-BELIEF WITHIN THE LONDONSCHOOLS THAT THEY CANCONTINUE TO IMPROVE.

SUMMARY
This chapter has taken a critical look at the quantitative evidence and concluded
that education and outcomes in London have undergone dramatic improvement
since the early 2000s. The testimony of the experts adds to this picture illuminating
the changes and transformation from inside the schools and the education
system. The following chapters turn their attention to scrutinising the quantitativeand qualitative data to establish reasons for the success and draw out the lessons
that may potentially translate to school improvement policy on a different stage.

LESSONS FROM LONDON SCHOOLS: INVESTIGATING THE SUCCESS | 43

CHAPTER 3:

THE LONDONADVANTAGE
This chapter is in two parts. The first explores the extent to which gentrification,
ethnicity and opportunity have played a role in the improvements. Part 2 considers
the three other factors that go beyond the organisational effectiveness of theschools of London: education funding, investments in school buildings andrecruitment of teachers.

CHAPTER 3: THE LONDON ADVANTAGE

Performance data suggests that London schools have beentransformed since 2000 in terms of outcomes for students. So themore difficult to answer question is: why?
Broadly speaking there are two types of potential cause:•	changes in the external context within which London schools operated• changes in the internal effectiveness of London schools.

Part 1 of this chapter considers the extent to which the London transformation
can be attributed to wider contextual issues. We explore the idea that London
experienced some kind of ‘advantage’: that there may be distinctive and beneficial
contextual features of the situation in the capital that explain the improvement, forexample the gentrification of some London boroughs; the different ethnic make-upof the capital’s schools; and the relative wealth of opportunity that London boasts.
Collectively these ideas are referred as the ‘London advantage’. Based on an
analysis of contextual data, we have assessed these components of the ‘London
advantage’:•	
Gentrification – have changes to the socio-economic profile of the London
population contributed to the transformation? School performance worldwide isheavily influenced by the economic and parental background of students. If thesefactors have changed in London, that could constitute a major causal factor.
•	Ethnicity – London is different from much of the rest of England in terms of theethnic background of its population. For example, nationally, approximately 80 per
cent of secondary pupils are white, whereas in inner London the figure is nearer
30 per cent, and 50 per cent in outer London (DfE, 2013b). Student outcomesfor different ethnic groups vary and some commentators have identified culturaldifferences in attitudes to education across ethnic groups. Can the distinctive ethnic
mix of London explain the improvement in London schools?
•	
Opportunity – do greater levels of economic and cultural dynamism in London,
compared to the rest of England, provide an important stimulus for learning andachievement?

LESSONS FROM LONDON SCHOOLS: INVESTIGATING THE SUCCESS | 45

CHAPTER 3: THE LONDON ADVANTAGE

We conclude that these factors do not offer a convincing causal explanation
for the disproportionate success of the capital’s schools over the last decadecompared to the rest of England. We conclude that, based upon the available
evidence, neither gentrification nor ethnicity nor better opportunities constituteexplanations for the London improvement.
Part 2 of this chapter considers three other factors that go beyond theorganisational effectiveness of the schools of London:• education funding• investment in school buildings• teacher recruitment.
In areas such as funding or teacher recruitment a ‘threshold of sufficiency’ wasachieved that created a favourable context for change but these changes did
not guarantee transformation. Addressing these matters helped London schools
but they did not directly cause the dramatic improvement in London schools. At
best addressing these issues provided a benign context for school improvement;these factors had an enabling quality but did not constitute key levers for school
improvement.

PART 1: THE LONDON CONTEXT AND ITS LINK TO THE
SUCCESS STORY
THE IMPACT OF GENTRIFICATION
Although some districts in London have changed their socio-economic
character in recent years this cannot explain the better outcomes of London
schools. The London improvement is a story of achievement on the part ofdisadvantaged students in London rather than a narrative about the displacementof disadvantaged students by higher-performing, more advantaged students. As
chapter 2 showed, poor pupils are likely to do better in school in London than they
are elsewhere in the country. Evidence from the international literature suggeststhat social background factors are often powerful determinants of variation in
pupil achievement (Harris et al., 2006: 410; Hamnett and Butler, 2013: 317).
Other studies have identified the significance of parental occupation, income
and qualifications (Perry and Francis, 2010: 5). Overall London does not have aparticularly privileged population. According to government statistics, deprivationin London in 2013, as measured by the proportion of pupils receiving FSM, washigher than the national average (24 per cent compared to 15 per cent nationally;
and in inner London this difference was even more marked, with 36 per cent ofpupils receiving FSM) (DfE, 2014a). This gap has remained relatively stable sinceat least 2003 (when 24 per cent of London pupils were eligible for FSM compared
to 14 per cent nationally) (DfE, 2013c). These figures suggest that a greater
proportion of London’s children and young people experience disadvantage thanis the case nationally; this makes the success of London’s schools particularly
impressive (as shown in chapter 2).

46 | LESSONS FROM LONDON SCHOOLS: INVESTIGATING THE SUCCESSIN AREAS SUCH AS FUNDING
OR TEACHER RECRUITMENT A‘THRESHOLD OF SUFFICIENCY’
WAS ACHIEVED THAT CREATEDA FAVOURABLE CONTEXTFOR CHANGE BUT THESE
CHANGES DID NOT GUARANTEETRANSFORMATION.

CHAPTER 3: THE LONDON ADVANTAGE

Compared to the rest of England London did not in fact gentrify3 more thanother regions as a whole between 2001 and 2011. At the same time, particularboroughs in London did change in terms of the local socio-economic profileof the population. The rate of gentrification was overall greater in inner London
rather than outer London. Few researchers have looked closely at the impact ofgentrification in London.
The following chart shows the rate of gentrification in the regions of England
between 2001 and 2011 based on census data. It shows that London was not, in
relative terms, a region that gentrified more than other regions.
Figure 3.1: Gentrification by region, 2001–2011

Source: ONS, 2013

The next figure (figure 3.2) uses census data to plot the rate of gentrification
across the London boroughs. There is dramatic variability in terms of the rate ofgentrification, from places like Tower Hamlets and Islington, that have witnesseda change in population profile to many outer London boroughs that have been
relatively unaffected by gentrification.

	Gentrification is defined here as the change in the percentage of people (from the total population of
the geographic region) belonging to the two highest socio-economic classes (higher managerial andprofessional, and lower managerial and professional) between 2001 and 2011. Higher and Lower Managerial
occupations (HLM) are the top two categories in the National Statistics Socio-economic classification.

3

LESSONS FROM LONDON SCHOOLS: INVESTIGATING THE SUCCESS | 47

CHAPTER 3: THE LONDON ADVANTAGE

Figure 3.2: Gentrification in London, 2001–2011

INNER LONDONOUTER LONDON

Source: ONS, 2013

As can be seen from figure 3.3 there is no significant correlation between the varying levels of gentrification and the rates
of improvement in the achievement of five good GCSEs in the individual London boroughs. Comparing, for example, twoboroughs from either end of the spectrum in terms of gentrification (Tower Hamlets and Merton) it is possible to see that
although Tower Hamlets experienced a 6.9 percentage point increase in HLM (indicating considerable gentrification) andMerton has increased by 1.2 percentage points, their improvement in terms of GCSE performance (students achieving five+A*-C) has been almost identical (46.0 percentage points versus 45.8 percentage points). A senior figure in Tower Hamlets put
the improvement in the borough down to a great drive in the 1990s in primary education – particularly in reading and English
language, and not to the gentrification of the borough. She argued that this had a knock-on effect years later as thesechildren progressed to secondary school literate: ‘If you chart the real improvement it’s because the kids going to secondary
school x number of years later could read, in my view.’ Meanwhile an education director from Southwark said: ‘I don’t think
we improve the schools in Southwark by getting middle-class kids in. I think the middle class realised what a good deal theschools were after we’d improved them.’

48 | LESSONS FROM LONDON SCHOOLS: INVESTIGATING THE SUCCESSCHAPTER 3: THE LONDON ADVANTAGE

Figure 3.3: Change in GCSE results (2001–2011) and gentrification

R2 = 0.0657

LONDON BOROUGHS
Source: ONS, 2013 and DfE, 2013a

For many of our interviewees it was poverty rather than gentrification that was adriver for change. Some research participants were vocal about the way in which
the relative prevalence of poverty in London had been a catalyst for improvement
during the last 10 years. They articulated a determination to tackle the link
between poverty and outcomes that they said characterised the decade. One
senior figure behind the London Challenge programme commented that what
happened in London was proof ‘that poverty is not an excuse for failure’ and thepolicies and programmes of the day promoted ‘a no-excuses culture’ which was a
direct challenge to what had gone before.

LESSONS FROM LONDON SCHOOLS: INVESTIGATING THE SUCCESS | 49

CHAPTER 3: THE LONDON ADVANTAGEETHNICITY
Another potential explanatory contextual factor concerns the ethnicity of pupils
in London schools. There are proportionally fewer white pupils in London than in
the rest of England – in inner London the figure is about 30 per cent and in outer
London around 50 per cent (DfE, 2013b).
London’s ethnic mix makes it a highly diverse and complex city – there is a greater
range of ethnicities in the city then elsewhere in the country and the concentrationof these ethnic groups varies across different areas of the city. In addition to this
there have been higher levels of pupil mobility in London (Machin et al., 2006),
which in part are due to the inward flow of migrants.
There is an extremely limited connection between levels of ethnic diversity andeducational performance from borough to borough. Plotting borough level diversity
against five A*-C performance shows that boroughs that differ widely in terms of
their diversity are performing similarly well educationally. Simply ‘being diverse’
therefore does not explain London’s recent success. The following chart shows
the GCSE performance of pupils in different boroughs mapped against an index ofdiversity, from boroughs with little ethnic diversity to those with high levels of ethnic
diversity. There is no strong association between performance levels and diversity
levels.
Figure 3.4: Borough level diversity and attainment in 2011

R2 = 0.182

LONDON BOROUGHS
Source: DfE, 2013a; Tower Hamlets Council, 2013: 14

50 | LESSONS FROM LONDON SCHOOLS: INVESTIGATING THE SUCCESSCHAPTER 3: THE LONDON ADVANTAGE

Analysis of trend data in GCSE performance for different ethnic groups reveals aninteresting pattern. All ethnic groups have improved their performance in London
considerably and in addition gaps have closed between them. Between 2004
and 2012 the attainment of black pupils in London increased by 36 percentage
points, white pupils by 29 percentage points, and pupils of mixed ethnicity by 28
percentage points. As a result, gaps between different groups have shrunk: while
Chinese and black pupils still make up the top and bottom of the distribution,
the difference in their attainment has narrowed from 37 percentage points to 14
percentage points. The London improvement cannot be attributed to specificethnic groups. The performance of all large ethnic groups, including white pupils,
has improved. The figure below (figure 3.5) shows that Chinese, black, Asian,mixed ethnic groups and white pupils have all improved (ONS, 2014).
Figure 3.5: Attainment by ethnicity in London between 2004 and 2012

WHITE

WHITE PUPILS HAVE NARROWEDTHE GAP BETWEEN THEMSELVESAND THE TWO HIGHESTPERFORMING GROUPS – PUPILSOF CHINESE AND ASIANHERITAGE

MIXED

ASIAN

BLACK

CHINESE

Source: ONS 2014

White pupils constitute one of the significantly improved groups. White pupils havenarrowed the gap between themselves and the two highest-performing groups –pupils of Chinese and Asian heritage.
Similarly, figure 3.6 shows that London’s white pupils were the only groupthat actually improved attainment levels, beyond the national average level of
improvement, between 2004 and 2012. This is evidence again that the improved
outcomes for London schools have involved better outcomes for white students,
and cannot be simplistically attributed to the contribution of non-white ethnic
groups.

LESSONS FROM LONDON SCHOOLS: INVESTIGATING THE SUCCESS | 51

CHAPTER 3: THE LONDON ADVANTAGE

Figure 3.6: Change in attainment 2004–2012 by ethnic group

ENGLANDLONDON

Source: ONS, 2014

The data suggests that something extraordinary has taken place in London, not just forsome ethnic groups but for all ethnic groups. This is an important point, and one thatindicates (whilst recognising that London’s overall improvement rate has benefitted fromenormous gains made by minority groups concentrated there) that London’s success is
not a consequence of the difference in cultural educational values displayed by different
ethnic groups in the capital.

OPPORTUNITY
Do London pupils benefit from the economic and cultural dynamism of the city? While
London may be a city where large numbers of pupils live in poverty and experiencedisadvantage, it is also a place of employment opportunities and higher-than-averagesalaries. London has higher job density than any other region (ONS, 2014) and almost
25 per cent more businesses per head compared to the national average (Centre for
Cities, 2014: 33). Could it be that as a consequence of this dynamic environment,
London’s pupils, regardless of ethnicity, aspire higher than their non-London
counterparts (Kintrea et al., 2011)? The two factors could in theory reinforce each other– simply by living in London young people have access to a centre of economic, socialand cultural opportunity and possess a greater drive to succeed. In the words of one
interviewee: ‘aspiration is higher in London because it is where people come to change
their futures’. This is a contextual feature that some of the interviewees said London had
capitalised upon: ‘London has this opportunity to present to children a much clearer
sense of the relationship between what they are doing and a life of opportunity’.

52 | LESSONS FROM LONDON SCHOOLS: INVESTIGATING THE SUCCESS

WHILE LONDON MAY BE A CITY
WHERE LARGE NUMBERS OF
PUPILS LIVE IN POVERTY AND
EXPERIENCE DISADVANTAGE, IT ISALSO A PLACE OF EMPLOYMENTOPPORTUNITIES AND HIGHERTHAN-AVERAGE SALARIES.

CHAPTER 3: THE LONDON ADVANTAGE

Can the vibrancy of an economy influence attitudes towards education? Lupton
suggests that the context of local economic opportunities may feed into educational
attainment via its role in shaping young people’s educational aspirations andexpectations (Lupton, 2004: 16). Pupil aspirations in London do appear to differ
significantly from elsewhere. Data from the large-scale Understanding Society
survey reveals statistically significant differences in the occupational and educational
aspirations of 11–15 year olds from London and the rest of the UK (Understanding
Society, 2014). The tendency of pupils in London to have high aspirations is also
supported by the findings from a large-scale longitudinal study of young people
in England which found that 12 year olds were more likely to strongly agree withthe statement ‘having a job or career in the future is important to me’ in London
compared to all other regions (APPG on Social Mobility, 2013: 46).
Figure 3.7: Aspirations and attitudes to schoolwork of 11–15 year olds

LONDONREST OF UK

Source: Understanding Society, 2014

A ‘London effect’ on aspirations is also suggested by Kintrea et al. in their studyof 13 and 15 year olds’ occupational aspirations in Nottingham, Glasgow andNewham (Kintrea et al., 2011: 42).

LESSONS FROM LONDON SCHOOLS: INVESTIGATING THE SUCCESS | 53

CHAPTER 3: THE LONDON ADVANTAGE

In addition to possible links between economic dynamism and aspirations, accessto cultural capital might in theory contribute to enhancing pupils’ engagement at
school. Some studies, such as evaluations of the government-funded Creative
Partnership programme, have tentatively suggested that schools and culturalagencies working together could produce tangible improvements to pupils’
educational attainment (Durbin et al., 2010: i; Davies, 2011: 7). An Ipsos MORI pollin 2010 also found that teachers in London were more likely to take their pupils
on school-arranged trips than those from other areas of the country: ‘Two-thirdsof teachers in London schools (65 per cent) say their pupils will visit an archive or
library, which is twice the proportion of teachers in the East Midlands (34 per cent)and the East of England (33 per cent)’ (Ipsos MORI, 2010: 9).
The fact that these cultural resources are unusually available in London does notmean that they are accessed by all schools in London. Overall the evidence for acausal link between London’s success and its cultural capital is relatively weak andits explanatory power for London’s success is limited.
London has been the most economically successful and culturally rich part ofEngland for centuries, including those years in the 1980s and 1990s when London
schools were notorious for underachievement. While recognising the beneficial
impact of London’s economy and cultural assets, these factors do not seem to bea convincing explanation for the transformation of London schools between 2000
and 2013. Our assessment of the question of opportunity leads us to conclude
that while the dynamism of London is of value to young people in the city it does
not constitute a major cause of the London improvement.

PART 2: ENABLING FACTORS FOR LONDON’S SUCCESSPart 1 addressed fundamentally non-educational context issues: gentrification,
ethnicity and opportunities derived from the economic and cultural dynamism of
London. This section, Part 2, considers a set of specifically educational context
issues that have been associated with the improvements in London. These include
school funding, the supply and quality of the workforce, and school buildings.
Collectively, we argue that these constitute a set of benign enabling factors
important to the London story but that, alone, they do not explain the success.

FUNDINGAt national level both capital and revenue spending on education have increased
since the early 1990s – education spending as proportion of GDP increased
from 5 to 6.2 per cent of GDP between 1991/92 and 2009/10 with the largest
increases taking place between 2001/02 and 2004/05.
Funding in London varies more widely between the capital’s schools thanelsewhere (Allen et al., 2012). Gibbons and colleagues (2011) found significant
differences in the funding available to very similar schools, for example between
Haringey and Hackney.

54 | LESSONS FROM LONDON SCHOOLS: INVESTIGATING THE SUCCESSFOR THOSE SCHOOLS THAT DO
MAKE FULL USE OF LONDON’SCULTURAL CAPITAL THERE IS NO
STRONG EVIDENCE OF OVERALLIMPACT.

CHAPTER 3: THE LONDON ADVANTAGE

Chowdry and Sibieta (2011) have described the complexities involved in the formulae for school funding. In this context,
simply comparing local authorities’ basic per-pupil funding therefore does not provide a very reliable measure of relative
funding levels. We therefore use data from local authority Outturn Statements and the schools’ annual returns to compare
total funding, surpluses and deficits over time in London and other regions. In this way it is possible to see how London
schools’ position has changed over the last decade.
Funding per pupil has increased dramatically in the last decade and has been consistently higher in London compared toother regions. London has received consistently more revenue income per pupil than other regions but there has not been a
consistent trend of divergence between the capital and other regions.
Figure 3.8: Total revenue income per pupil by region (local authority maintained schools only)
LONDONEAST OF ENGLAND
WEST MIDLANDSENGLAND
SOUTH WESTNORTH EAST
EAST MIDLANDSYORKSHIRE AND HUMBER
SOUTH EASTNORTH WEST

Source: DfE, 2013dThis higher level of funding cannot of itself explain the improvement in London schools. London has always been funded at
a higher level than other regions, and of course costs have been higher in the capital than elsewhere (Allen 2012) so it would
be wrong to assume a mechanistic relationship between funding and London schools’ performance. Researchers differ in
the importance they accord to funding as an influence on pupil achievement: Gibbons et al. (2011) and Levačić et al. (2005)
reported modest gains in pupil achievement in response to increases in funding. Others remain sceptical and consider there
to be little compelling evidence that spending by itself leads to improved outcomes (see for example Hanushek, 1986, 1989,
1996, 2003 and Allen et al., 2012).

LESSONS FROM LONDON SCHOOLS: INVESTIGATING THE SUCCESS | 55

CHAPTER 3: THE LONDON ADVANTAGE

One feature that has attracted little attention is the level of deficits for state-fundedschools. Widespread deficit funding suggests a sense of crisis. In reality the causeof a deficit might be financial mismanagement rather than an objective shortageof resources. Nevertheless, if many schools are running a substantial deficit
this might indicate a sense among headteachers of the insufficiency of funding.
Our analysis of school deficits suggests that the ‘deficit crisis’ appears to havedecreased over time. At the turn of the century the proportion of London schools
with deficits was in line with the national average but London schools’ deficits wereon average 40 per cent higher than outside London (DfE, 2013d). Between 2000
and 2010 the proportion of schools in deficit dropped across the country and in
London. In London the size of the deficits also dropped markedly – from 68 percent above national average in 2001/02 to 27 per cent above in 2011/12.
The evidence suggests that the financial resources available to London schools
increased significantly during the first decade of the century, and London schools
were funded more generously than others. The ‘deficit crisis’ receded during theseyears. While it is wrong to claim a direct causal link between increased spending
and educational outcomes, the sense that schools were sufficiently funded
constitutes an important threshold point or precondition for transformation.

RECRUITMENT OF TEACHERS AND SCHOOL LEADERS
Filling teacher vacancies has been a problem in London for many years. The issue
reached critical proportions by 2001, when the vacancy rate hit a peak of 3.5
per cent (5.2 per cent in inner London), significantly above the rate for the restof England (1.0 per cent) (DCSF, 2009b). The problem was most acute in thoseunderperforming schools most in need of good teachers. One of our interviewees
recalled this sense of crisis at the turn of the century:‘When I think back to one or two of them, Phoenix High School, when it wasin special measures, and William Atkinson [was the headteacher], it was anightmare school. He couldn’t attract enough staff to even put one person
in front of every class, but he was determined that he knew how to turnit round [...] Now of course he can recruit teachers without any problem,
because they want to come to a successful school.’

56 | LESSONS FROM LONDON SCHOOLS: INVESTIGATING THE SUCCESSCHAPTER 3: THE LONDON ADVANTAGE

BY 2004 VACANCY RATES HAD
RETURNED TO THE SAME LEVELAS IN 1999 AND REMAINEDAROUND 0.5 PERCENTAGE POINTSLOWER THAN IN THE LATE 1990S
THROUGHOUT THE LATE 2000S.

Figure 3.9: Advertised vacancy rates in school 1997–2009

LONDONENGLAND excluding London

Source: DCSF, 2009b

The problems at the turn of the century were particularly acute in inner London.
In 2001 a Greater London Assembly Report suggested that the inner London
vacancy rate was more than double the outer London rate (2001: 17), confirmed
by DCSF figures which show that the rate was 5.2 per cent in inner London and2.6 per cent in outer London (DCSF, 2009b). For headteachers at the time thiswas a source of considerable frustration. As Ross and Hutchings note, only twothirds of posts at the turn of the century were filled at the first round of recruitment
and schools reported that about half of the posts were ‘difficult to fill’ (that is threeor fewer applications), and a fifth ‘very difficult’ (Ross and Hutchings, 2003: 22-33).
Many of the recruited teachers were hired on a temporary basis: seven per centof secondary posts were filled by supply teachers (ibid.). The situation was worsein the schools and boroughs that served the most disadvantaged pupils, with astatistically significant correlation between secondary schools’ GCSE performanceand the ease of recruitment (Hutchings et al., 2000: 82-89). A Strategy Unit reportin 2001 stated that vacancy rates were seven times the national average in themost deprived London boroughs (Strategy Unit, 2001: 92).
The problem at the turn of the century was extreme, but it was also short-lived.
By 2004 vacancy rates had returned to the same level as in 1999 and remained
around 0.5 percentage points lower than in the late 1990s throughout the late
2000s.

LESSONS FROM LONDON SCHOOLS: INVESTIGATING THE SUCCESS | 57

CHAPTER 3: THE LONDON ADVANTAGE

Figure 3.10: Teacher turnover rates 2002–2009

LONDONENGLAND

Source: DCSF, 2010

Not only was recruitment challenging at the turn of the century, but retention
was also problematic. The retention situation improved over the following years.
In 2004 London had a 21.4 per cent turnover rate4 compared to 18.3 per centnationally (DCSF, 2006). As with recruitment, the turnover problem in inner London
was more marked than in outer London; for example in 1997/98, inner London
teacher turnover was 2.5 percentage points higher than the equivalent figure forouter London (Bradon et al., 2002). Teacher turnover rates improved during thesecond half of the decade. By 2007 the level of teacher turnover in London was
broadly in line with the national average.

CRISIS IN RECRUITMENT OF SCHOOL LEADERS
London schools have long found it harder to recruit headteachers comparedto other regions in terms of the supply of school leaders (as measured by readvertisement rates). One of our interviewees, who had studied leader shortages
as part of a Teacher Training Agency project at the end of the 1990s described thesituation at the start of the century:‘There was a shortage of leadership: [and a ] big shortage of teachers in
the middle. If you just look at the age range of teachers in London, thenalthough the age profile of teachers all together at that time was sort of
humped like that: you had more younger and more older and a gap in the
middle, but London had an extreme gap in the middle.’ (Academic)

4	The number of full-time teachers in the region who leave their job and move to another job in another schoolor industry

58 | LESSONS FROM LONDON SCHOOLS: INVESTIGATING THE SUCCESSNOT ONLY WAS RECRUITMENT
CHALLENGING AT THE TURN OF
THE CENTURY, BUT RETENTIONWAS ALSO PROBLEMATIC.

CHAPTER 3: THE LONDON ADVANTAGE

Her view, echoed by several other interviewees, was that talented young teachers
often began their working lives in London but then left to pursue their careers
elsewhere creating the ‘extreme gap in the middle’ and thereby contributing to along-term leadership succession challenge.
Figure 3.11: Headteacher posts needing to be re-advertised 1998-2011

3 YR AVERAGE 1998/9-2000/2001

3 YR AVERAGE 2003/04-2005/06

3 YR AVERAGE 2008/9-2010/2011

Source: Howson and Sprigade, 2012: 13

Our analysis of data from Howson and Sprigade, as seen in figure 3.11,
demonstrates an interesting trend in headteacher recruitment. As with the supplyof teachers, differences in the supply of leaders between London and otherregions have narrowed in recent years – while recruitment of leaders has become
more difficult elsewhere in most of England, it has become easier in inner London(and the percentage increase in re-advertising in outer London has been smaller
than in other regions). Re-advertising rates in inner London were previously up to
three times the rate of other regions but although inner and outer London continue
to have the highest re-advertisement rates, they are now almost on a par with theSouth East and East of England.
The evidence for both teachers and school leaders is consistent: there was a crisisin the recruitment of both teachers and headteachers at the start of the century.
This was particularly acute in inner London. The problem was a barrier to thetransformation of quality: it would have been hard for London schools to improveas much as they have if the vacancy rate had remained at its early 2000s peak.
The teacher shortage problem has now been dramatically reduced which makes it
easier for schools in inner London to succeed.

LESSONS FROM LONDON SCHOOLS: INVESTIGATING THE SUCCESS | 59

CHAPTER 3: THE LONDON ADVANTAGE

Vacancy rates in London have generally remained higher than the national averageand so the capital does not enjoy an advantage in the ‘absolute supply’ of teacher
and leaders. It would therefore be wrong to argue that London schools are blessedwith a particularly ample supply of school leaders and teachers. However, therecruitment situation has moved from crisis point to one where the challenges are
more in line with those faced elsewhere. The achievement of a degree of control
and stability in the field of recruitment constituted another ‘threshold point’ thatcreated an environment conducive to transformation. By itself this does not explain
the transformation – London’s vacancy rates are no better than those throughout
England, but the end of the recruitment problem was an important enabling factor
in the London story.

SCHOOL BUILDINGS
Many of London’s secondary school buildings were in a poor state by the late
1990s. This was part of a national problem across the state school estate. In
2000, 80 per cent of school buildings had exceeded their design life (Strategy
Unit, 2001) and substantial capital funding was needed. In 2003 the government
announced the Building Schools for the Future (BSF) programme with anaspiration to rebuild half of the secondary schools of England and to remodel orrefurbish the rest between 2005 and 2020. The programme was axed by the new
coalition government in 2010. London schools were significant beneficiaries ofthe programme. In 2005 the DfES stated that £1.3 billion was being invested inrebuilding London schools (DfES, 2005a: 1). Capital investment was also a key
feature of the early academies programme, with sponsors making contributions ofaround £2million per school, much of which was devoted to enhancing the school
environment.
There is no conclusive evidence from the wider literature that investment inschool buildings will lead to better educational outcomes (Higgins et al., 2005).
Opinion is divided on the impact of BSF and other initiatives to improve thephysical environment, and there is certainly no compelling evidence that the
new school buildings were a direct cause of better outcomes. The NAO statedin 2009 that it was ‘too early to measure BSF’s effectiveness in improving thequality of education’ (NAO, 2009: 9). Following on from the controversial decision
to stop BSF in 2010 there has been a fierce debate about the effectiveness ofthe programme. When Michael Gove scrapped the scheme in July 2010, he told
Parliament that BSF had been characterised by ‘massive overspends, tragic
delays, botched construction projects and needless bureaucracy.’ He added that
there was ‘no firm evidence’ of improved results as a result of school renovation(Vasagar, 2012). A report commissioned by Partnership for Schools – the agency
that managed BSF – told a much more positive story of schools where attendanceand GCSE results had improved (PfS, 2010).

60 | LESSONS FROM LONDON SCHOOLS: INVESTIGATING THE SUCCESSCHAPTER 3: THE LONDON ADVANTAGE

This range of opinions was reflected in our interviews with key stakeholders who
expressed diametrically opposed views:‘Research that’s shown it doesn’t make a difference is tosh. You know,
categorically. You’re far more likely to get a better school in the newbuilding.’ (Interviewee)‘You can do this in a cardboard box if you have got great people.’(Interviewee)
Our discussion with London teachers in focus groups elicited unprompted
positive comments about the impact of BSF. Teachers saw new buildings not asa mechanistic cause of improvement but as a symbol of renewal and a useful
resource for professionals who were keen to transform outcomes for students.
Our view is that the substantial investment in the buildings of London secondary
schools, while not a direct cause of the city’s transformation, did constituteanother enabling factor. For some teachers and headteachers it does appear tohave been a positive motivating factor. Put another way, professionals were at thevery least less likely to blame the school fabric as a cause of underachievement
and this assisted in the development of a new ‘no-excuses’ culture.

SUMMARY
The remarkable improvement in London schools cannot be explained awaywith reference to external non-educational factors such as the changing socioeconomic profile of the city (or gentrification), the distinctive ethnic profile of thecapital or the range of economic and cultural opportunities provided by London.
There is some truth to the idea that London has an advantage over other regions,but the London advantage does not explain the dramatically improved outcomesof the last decade.

THERE IS SOME TRUTH TO
THE IDEA THAT LONDON HAS
AN ADVANTAGE OVER OTHERREGIONS, BUT THE LONDONADVANTAGE DOES NOT EXPLAIN
THE DRAMATICALLY IMPROVEDOUTCOMES OF THE LAST DECADE.

Some educational factors (not including school effectiveness factors) did play apart in creating the enabling conditions for transformation. Changes in funding,teacher and headteacher recruitment and the quality of school buildings all
contributed to the achievement of a ‘threshold point’ of sufficiency in terms offinancial, human and infrastructural resources. These changes may have beennecessary but they were not sufficient to explain the transformation. Internalchanges to the effectiveness of teaching and leadership were the most likely
prime cause of the transformation and we explore this possible explanation in thefollowing chapters.

LESSONS FROM LONDON SCHOOLS: INVESTIGATING THE SUCCESS | 61

CHAPTER 4:

SUPPORT
AND CHALLENGE
The first part of this chapter focuses on specific interventions, policies andprogrammes that took place in London during the 2000s and addresses theirimpact on the improvement journey of the capital. The second part presents thecommon themes that link the reforms together – these include the use of data,accountability and professional development.

CHAPTER 4: SUPPORT AND CHALLENGE

This chapter explores the nature and impact of the school improvement
activities – both support and challenge – that have been provided to
London schools over the last decade. It is divided into two parts: aconsideration of the impact of different interventions and a reflection
on some of the common themes that bind together the distinct
interventions.
The first part of the chapter will focus on specific interventions, policies andprogrammes that took place in London during the 2000s and address their impact
on the improvement journey experienced in the capital, specifically:• London Challenge• Academisation• Teach First• the role of the local authorities.

The second part of the chapter shifts from a focus on individual approaches
to question instead whether there are underlying factors which cut across themore clearly defined interventions. Firmly rooted in the evidence gathered frominterviewees, the section considers:• the use of data
• a culture of high accountability• professional development activities.
This chapter will begin by concentrating on the extent to which different
interventions can be assessed given the methodological challenges previously
discussed. It will then focus on London Challenge, a complex series of policies
that were jointly branded and followed from 2003 until 2011 (extended toManchester and the Black Country and re-branded as ‘City Challenge’ from2008 to 2011). In particular this chapter will look at the priority areas and schools(the so-called ‘Keys to Success’ schools) that were targeted as part of London
Challenge, the professional development activities that the policy encompassed
and the leadership strategies that were integral to the Challenge programme. Part
1 will also consider three other key school improvement factors: the academies
programme, the impact of Teach First and the role played by a number of the LAs
in London. While these three approaches were all, to a greater or lesser extent,
national issues, they affected London disproportionately, especially during theearly part of the decade (e.g. Teach First was launched in London at first, and only
spread to other areas later).

LESSONS FROM LONDON SCHOOLS: INVESTIGATING THE SUCCESS | 63

CHAPTER 4: SUPPORT AND CHALLENGE

There was a transformation in both the view of and use of data during the 2000s,
with interviewees suggesting that as well as professional bodies such as Ofsted
emphasising a need for schools to be data-driven, school leaders themselvesbegan using data to drive school improvement internally. Part 2 of this chapter
will concentrate on the use of data, and the shift in perceptions in London that
ultimately led to a culture of high accountability among London’s schools andtargeted support and challenge. This part of the chapter will also consider
the professional development activities that were present in all of the reforms
discussed in part 1, and take a holistic view (backed up by evidence from theinterviewees) as to the impact this had in London.

PART 1: ASSESSING THE CONTRIBUTION OF DIFFERENT
INTERVENTIONS
Identifying the causation for London improvement is complicated by the fact thatsince 2000, London schools have been subject to both simultaneous ‘London
reforms’ and have been involved in continuing national school improvement
programmes – most notably the Excellence in the Cities programme, workforce
remodelling (with a dramatic increase in the deployment of teaching assistants),
the National Strategies for pedagogical improvement and the Building Schools
for the Future (BSF) programme which involved the rebuilding and substantial
refurbishment of secondary schools. Not only did these national reforms introduce
further variables into the web of causation but the impact assessment of thesereforms was also impaired by an absence of RCT evaluation. Teasing out the
specific causal contribution of London reforms to improved outcomes is therefore
highly problematic. It is too simplistic to suggest that these wider reforms – asnational initiatives – are irrelevant to the London transformation purely because
they were available in other parts of England. This ignores the possibility thatthe interaction between aspects of these national reforms and aspects of the
London-specific context contributed to a favourable environment for London
transformation.

64 | LESSONS FROM LONDON SCHOOLS: INVESTIGATING THE SUCCESSCHAPTER 4: SUPPORT AND CHALLENGE

We saw examples of this interplay between national reform and local context in
our interviews both with key stakeholders and teacher focus groups. Our focus
group discussions with teachers who had lived through the London transformation
elicited, unprompted, several favourable comments about the way Building
Schools for the Future provided a catalyst for a sense of renewal, optimism andpride on the part of teachers and students. In a similar fashion, one interviewee
was keen to recognise the impact of workforce remodelling in the distinctive
context of Tower Hamlets. The reform brought a large new cadre of teachingassistants into schools. In Tower Hamlets, these people were often drawn fromthe local Bangladeshi community, and this made possible a better connection
and sense of common cause between the schools and the community. It should
be noted that work by Blatchford and colleagues has questioned the impact ofteaching assistants and support staff on pupil outcomes, finding a ‘consistent
negative relationship between the amount of support a pupil received and theprogress they made in English and mathematics’ (Blatchford et al., 2009). It istherefore important not to place too much emphasis on this reform measure, either
on a national or local (London) level.
Those responsible for evaluating this range of reforms have, for the most part,been fully aware of the limits to the causation claims that can be made basedon their research. In her final overview of the London Challenge programme,
Hutchings took an extremely positive view of the achievements and progress
made. However, she was careful to point out that the assertion that London
Challenge had caused improved outcomes was based not on conclusive evidencebut ‘on the balance of probability’ (Hutchings et al., 2012a: 38). The NFER
evaluation of the London Challenge and City Challenge Leadership strategies
was measured in its claims. The overall report expressed very well the anxiety of
the academic researchers about the claims that could be made concerning theimpact of the reforms. Rudd and his colleagues were keen to point out that while
the initiatives were extremely promising and demonstrated ‘some statisticallysignificant associations’ with improved student performance, the evidence fordirect ‘causality’ was not conclusive (Rudd et al., 2011: 41).

LESSONS FROM LONDON SCHOOLS: INVESTIGATING THE SUCCESS | 65

CHAPTER 4: SUPPORT AND CHALLENGE

The absence of impact assessment based on the benchmark of an authoritative
control group has also characterised the other key London reforms. The
academies programme was not designed with a built-in RCT evaluation approach.
Similarly, Teach First was not initially subject to rigorous impact evaluation. TeachFirst began in 2003 but there was for many years no significant quantitative
analysis of the programme. More recently both Muijs et al. (2010) and Allen andAllnutt (2013) have undertaken retrospective quantitative analysis of links between
Teach First participation and improved student achievement. Both studies areencouraging but the researchers have commented on the limits imposed on theirstudies as a result of the initial design of Teach First. In a blog Rebecca Allen
highlighted the policy significance of a lack of attention to quantitative evaluation:‘I think all new education policies should be randomised in theirimplementation, providing it is possible. Teach First received substantial
government funds so has a duty to taxpayers to demonstrate its
effectiveness. This was a major failing on the part of civil servants who
agreed to fund it [...] Rather than recruit schools from 20 local authorities in
London in the first year of the programme, recruitment should have takenplace across a randomly drawn lot of deprived schools, or alternatively local
authorities should have been randomised into the programme’ (Allen, 2013).
Allen’s argument is compelling. The evidence of impact for both London Challenge
and Teach First is extremely promising. The whole world is interested in the storyof how a great city such as London has apparently transformed its governmentfunded schools. However, the power of the London story on a national andglobal stage is weakened by the absence of definitive evaluation. Since 2010
the government has encouraged the use of RCTs and other robust quantitative
approaches in the assessment of teaching methods. The work, for example, of the
Education Endowment Foundation is entirely based on a view that in education
we should use teaching methods that are justified by robust RCT-based evidenceof effectiveness. If this is appropriate for classroom practice then it must surely
be applicable to the assessment of system-level reforms such as those used in
London: Keys to Success, National Leaders of Education, academisation andTeach First. One of the major lessons from London is the need for better evaluation
design for major interventions of this kind.

TOWARDS AN EXPLANATION OF IMPACT
In the absence of definitive impact data, we can only construct a tentative
explanation of impact. As we shall see below, there is some evidence of thepositive effect of several interventions, but this has limitations and combination
effects are critical. For example, while London Challenge made a big difference inmany secondary schools the work of more effective London LAs, the process ofacademisation and the impact of Teach First all appear to have contributed too.

66 | LESSONS FROM LONDON SCHOOLS: INVESTIGATING THE SUCCESS

THE WHOLE WORLD IS
INTERESTED IN THE STORY OF
HOW A GREAT CITY SUCH AS
LONDON HAS APPARENTLY
TRANSFORMED ITSGOVERNMENT-FUNDED SCHOOLS.

CHAPTER 4: SUPPORT AND CHALLENGE

The sense that there was a complex interplay of interventions was articulated bysome of our interviewees:‘It’s [...] cumulative [...] [a] combinatory effect of things [...] of which probably
London Challenge [...] was the most significant, but there were a range ofother factors as well [...] Tower Hamlets [for example] wasn’t about London
Challenge [...] So it’s [...] a combination or it’s cumulative, a rolling snowballof interventions and policies.’ (Educationalist)
One educationalist identified four ‘big strands’ that could explain the improvementin London’s schools:‘There’s one which was the potential demographic change [...] Could
this have just happened anyway as a result of an increasingly aspirational
population? [...] So that’s the first. The second is the [...] peer-to-peer
support system leadership stuff that came up from the London Leadership
Strategy, with heads and senior leaders and schools working together.
The third is Teach First; and the fourth is the academisation programme.’(Educationalist)
The exact causal mix varied from borough to borough because at this level there
were variations in the level of involvement in London Challenge, variations in theeffectiveness of LA activity, variations in the level of academisation and variations in
the level of participation in Teach First.
We interviewed a politician who had played a role in the design of the approach to
the reform of London schools. He made it clear that there was no simple blueprint,
but rather a pluralistic approach that made, for example, differentiated use ofacademies.
‘We didn’t say, even to the five key boroughs that we identified, we didn’t
say “You have to have lots of academies”. Hackney and Southwark did.
Lambeth was sort of in the middle and then Islington and Haringey had
fewer, certainly in that early period [...] Of course, the Tower Hamlets andCamdens of this world didn’t want to touch academies at all. So there wasnever that sense of one particular policy is the way you’re going to bringabout improvement.’

LESSONS FROM LONDON SCHOOLS: INVESTIGATING THE SUCCESS | 67

CHAPTER 4: SUPPORT AND CHALLENGE

While different schools at borough level were being supported in different ways
by different people, there was also a degree of consistency about the educational
thinking behind the key sources of support. Many of the major interventions
were driven by an energetic commitment to the idea of ‘no excuses’ forunderachievement, a preoccupation with data and leadership capacity and thedevelopment of a united, collaborative and empowered workforce. These common
themes will be explored in more detail in the second part of this section.

THE IMPACT OF LONDON CHALLENGE ACTIVITIES ON PRIORITY SCHOOLS AND
PRIORITY LOCAL AUTHORITY AREAS
While recognising the limitations of the approach to impact assessment, objective
evaluation of London Challenge activities reveals a positive and encouraging
picture. Hutchings and her colleagues in their concluding evaluation of London
Challenge (and the two other City Challenge projects in Greater Manchester andthe Black Country 2008–2011) were extremely positive about the educational
outcomes of London Challenge by the time the project ended in 2011 (Hutchings
et al., 2012a). Across the board the metrics were impressive. Over the final three
years of London Challenge 2008-2011:•	the number of schools below the floor target fell at a greater rate than thenational rate•	the gap between the attainment of London students eligible for free school
meals and other students narrowed at both primary and secondary levels•	the percentage of schools achieving Good or Outstanding grades from Ofsted
increased.
Hutchings et al. considered the rate of improvement in the priority schools, known
as Key to Success (KTS) schools. The KTS programme provided tailored support
to schools involved, brokered by a London Challenge Adviser. Similar programmes
were also provided in Greater Manchester and the Black Country, although theintervention in the Black Country was known as Pathways to Achievement (PTA).
In London, 119 secondary schools were involved between 2003 and 2008, and75 secondary schools from 2008 to 2011 (Hutchings et al., 2012a: 40). Hutchingsand her colleagues showed that the ‘increase in the percentage of secondary
pupils reaching the expected level (five A*-C GCSEs including English andmathematics) was higher in KTS/PTA schools than the national figure (17.2 percent compared to 10.1 per cent)’ (Hutchings et al., 2012a: 41) and that Keys to
Success Schools increased school-level achievement of KS4 targets (2003–2011)by two per cent per year (Hutchings et al., 2012b: 47).
Her team also compared responses from a survey of headteachers from City
Challenge schools that were part of KTS and those that were not. The data
combined responses both from London Challenge schools with the City Challenge
schools from the Black Country and Greater Manchester. City Challenge schools
typically were more positive across a range of key indicators, as is shown in thefollowing figures (figures 4.1 and 4.2).

68 | LESSONS FROM LONDON SCHOOLS: INVESTIGATING THE SUCCESS

WHILE RECOGNISING THE
LIMITATIONS OF THE APPROACH
TO IMPACT ASSESSMENT,OBJECTIVE EVALUATION OFLONDON CHALLENGE ACTIVITIESREVEALS A POSITIVE AND
ENCOURAGING PICTURE.

CHAPTER 4: SUPPORT AND CHALLENGE

Figure 4.1: Outcomes of involvement in City Challenge programmes

KTS/PTA SCHOOLS (N=166)

OTHER SCHOOLS (N=265)

Source: Hutchings et al., 2012a

Figure 4.2: The extent to which headteachers thought their school had improved% KTS/PTA SCHOOLS (N=163)% OTHER SCHOOLS (N=262)

Source: Hutchings et al., 2012a

LESSONS FROM LONDON SCHOOLS: INVESTIGATING THE SUCCESS | 69

CHAPTER 4: SUPPORT AND CHALLENGE

THE IMPACT OF LONDON CHALLENGE PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY
There is no authoritative evidence that demonstrates the effectiveness of the different professional development activities
that were organised by London Challenge. However there is evidence that programmes were perceived to have an impact.
Hutchings et al. (2012a) surveyed schools involved in the City Challenge about their experiences of various professional
development programmes. The City Challenge schools were in London, Greater Manchester and the Black Country, but
all the programmes involved were developed and delivered in London from 2003 onwards. The following table summarises
headteacher views of the relative effectiveness of different forms of professional development.
Figure 4.3: Perceived usefulness of different professional development plans

VERY EFFECTIVE

FAIRLY EFFECTIVE

NOT VERY EFFECTIVE OR NOT EFFECTIVE AT ALL

Source: Hutchings et al., 2012a: 70

While most forms of support were considered useful, the Improving Teacher Programme (ITP) and Outstanding Teacher
Programme (OTP) were particularly valued. Ofsted (2010) explained its view of the success of these programmes:‘Working with teachers from other schools with similar challenges, outside the confines of their home school,
enabled frank discussions of strengths and weaknesses in their own teaching, free from concerns about performance
management or the disapproval of peers. In particular, a high proportion of time was dedicated to reflecting on
and reviewing their own teaching, and their understanding of pedagogy. This taught teachers to become reflective
practitioners and they began to share that skill with their colleagues at their home school, under the guidance of theschool mentor.’ (Ofsted, 2010)70 | LESSONS FROM LONDON SCHOOLS: INVESTIGATING THE SUCCESSCHAPTER 4: SUPPORT AND CHALLENGELONDON CHALLENGE PLACED A
PARTICULAR EMPHASIS ON THE
DEVELOPMENT OF LEADERSHIPCAPACITY AT SCHOOL LEVEL.

The power of the ITP and OTP training was identified by our interviewees as aparticular strength of London Challenge. The importance of ‘seeing it happen’
was emphasised by interviewees who recounted examples of teachers changing
their expectations as a result of exposure to contrasting practice; for example one
interviewee said:‘[One teacher had] been on the Improving Teacher programme, but she’dalso had a coach from that school who came into her school, and she said
the real thing was seeing this person teaching her class, because it’s soeasy to say “Oh well, it works there but it wouldn’t work with my kids”. And
seeing it work with her kids, and seeing that her six-year-olds could write at
length and be excited about it, had made her excited about it, and so she
was now excited about teaching.’ (Headteacher)

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE LONDON CHALLENGE LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES
London Challenge placed a particular emphasis on the development of leadershipcapacity at school level. Strategies were identified for the improvement ofleadership proficiency and these were developed in a partnership between London
Challenge and the National College for School Leadership (NCSL). The contract
for the evaluation of these Leadership Strategies was awarded to the National
Foundation for Educational Research (NFER), which produced both an overall
report on the three City Challenge areas (Rudd et al., 2011) and a supporting
paper on developments in London (Poet and Kettlewell, 2011).
The NFER evaluation was effusive in its praise for this aspect of London Challenge.
The NFER researchers were particularly impressed by the Teaching School
concept and the use of serving headteachers as National Leaders of Education(NLEs) or Local Leaders of Education (LLEs). These two related initiatives were
described as the most innovative and the most successful aspects of City
Challenge, and both began as part of London Challenge.
Rudd and his colleagues suggested that London Challenge had brought aboutnothing less than a paradigm shift.
‘In some ways the Leadership Strategies represents a new form of school
improvement. Previous models have tended to rely, at least in part, uponan outsider’s input, a consultant or an expert advising the school on how to
improve. There was a tendency for initiatives to be ‘done to’ schools rather
than to be ‘done with’ them. The key change, evident in both Teaching
Schools and NLEs, has been the importance of peer-to-peer relationships
and a stronger emphasis on ‘real’ practitioner-based school contexts, withschool staff responsible for the delivery of school improvement strategies at
all levels.’ (Rudd et al., 2011: 41)

LESSONS FROM LONDON SCHOOLS: INVESTIGATING THE SUCCESS | 71

CHAPTER 4: SUPPORT AND CHALLENGE

Today there is bipartisan support for the idea of a ‘sector-led’ approach to school
improvement and the concept of ‘a self-improving school system’, within which
schools, rather than external agencies, lead school improvement. This notion, thata community of schools could be responsible for its own collective development,
depends in very substantial measure on the pioneering work of London Challenge
and the NCSL. Influenced by the work of writers such as Michael Fullan,
London Challenge explored the concept of the ‘system leader’, an experienced
headteacher with the ability and opportunity not only to lead one school but also
to contribute to the leadership of the system of schools.
Rudd and his colleagues endorsed the success of London Challenge’s emphasison system leadership. Significantly, they concluded that the work of headteachers
as consultants to groups of other schools had benefits for the ‘home’ school of
the headteachers: ‘Inviting staff from other schools to visit the “host” schools
encouraged constant self-evaluation and a more critical appraisal of the processes
and teaching approaches they used’ (Rudd et al., 2011: 39).
How did the paradigm shift come about? We interviewed a former headteacher
who played several significant roles in the management of the Leadership
Strategies. For him success was a question of mindset, based on a newly
energised sense of moral purpose and the mechanics of knowledge mobilisation.
For this interviewee, system leadership required a new conceptualisation of
networking. London headteachers had networked prior to London Challenge but
the focus had been on collective action rather than on knowledge sharing. He
described the baseline situation at the start of the century: ‘So headteachers met
as a secondary group of heads [...] to discuss… how to fight the local authority,
how to get more money, but not about teaching and learning support groups for
one another.’ He described how the idea of school-to-school knowledge transfer
depended upon building a new kind of ‘moral capital’ so that successful schools
felt that they had a duty to assist other schools in difficulty. He also highlighted
the significance of the ‘families of schools’ data as a practical tool that could be
used to identify those schools that had effective practice in very specific areas ofprovision. The interviewee noted that he was influenced by the non-educational
literature relating to knowledge transfer in business and was committed to thedevelopment of a more evidence-based reflective leadership. He went on to
explain the importance of training for those outstanding headteachers who
became system leaders, emphasising that headteacher engagement was the key
to accessing specialist talent inside the high-performing schools. He contrasted
this successful approach with the relative failure of the earlier outreach activities
of Advanced Skills Teachers (ASTs), which were impaired by the absence ofheadteacher ‘buy-in’.

72 | LESSONS FROM LONDON SCHOOLS: INVESTIGATING THE SUCCESSLONDON HEADTEACHERS HAD
NETWORKED PRIOR TO LONDONCHALLENGE BUT THE FOCUS HAD
BEEN ON COLLECTIVE ACTION
RATHER THAN ON KNOWLEDGE
SHARING.

CHAPTER 4: SUPPORT AND CHALLENGEIMPROVEMENT IN THE KEY BOROUGHS
In its first phase, London Challenge targeted particularly intensive support at five
key boroughs (Southwark, Lambeth, Hackney, Islington and Haringey). The initial
London Challenge prospectus stated that these were the five boroughs in which
the highest proportion of Year 6 pupils left the borough at the end of Key Stage 2(DfES, 2003: 20). One of our interviewees stated that these five local authorities
were identified at the time as ‘failing boroughs’.
The following graph shows the performance of London boroughs with London
Challenge’s five focus boroughs in black. Boroughs towards the left had the lower
GCSE performance in 2004 and, as can be seen, the focus boroughs are generally
far to the left, demonstrating that London Challenge was indeed targeting areas oflow performance.
Figure 4.4: Expected and actual performance of London boroughs in 2013
based upon their 2004 results

R2 = 0.3854

LONDON BOROUGHSLONDON CHALLENGE FOCUS BOROUGH

Source: DfE, 2013a and DfES, 2005b

The line in figure 4.4 shows the boroughs’ expected 2013 performance based on their
2004 score (R2 = 0.39). Dots above the line show boroughs that have improved more than
one would expect, whereas those below the line improved less than would be expected.
The mean improvement in results in most of the London Challenge focus boroughs
between 2004 and 2013 was significantly greater than in other London boroughs.
Another source of evidence as to whether targeted support for improvement impacted
differentially on the focus boroughs is parental satisfaction: parents were more likely toreport improvement in the quality of their child’s schooling over the previous 12 months
in these boroughs compared to London as a whole (Wiseman and Dent, 2007: 63).

LESSONS FROM LONDON SCHOOLS: INVESTIGATING THE SUCCESS | 73

CHAPTER 4: SUPPORT AND CHALLENGE

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LONDON CHALLENGE, KTS AND ACADEMISATION
When London Challenge began in 2003 two key interventions were targetedby the government at the lowest-performing schools: KTS and academies.
Today these are seen by some as quite distinct, even competing, approaches
but academisation was presented as one of the features of the approach in theoriginal London Challenge prospectus (DfES, 2003). Some commentators haveprovided a narrative of KTS and academies as if they were quite separate policies
and some interviewees tended to do the same. Some, for example, spoke as
if a school that ultimately became an academy constituted a failure for London
Challenge. Others responsible for the management of academies saw only alimited connection between their own work and London Challenge. The viewthat KTS and academisation of London schools were distinct policy initiatives is
not accurate historically. In 2013 Hutchings and Mansaray stated that the plan tocreate academy schools to replace the lowest-performing schools was a featureof London Challenge from the start. The policymakers who created London
Challenge also advocated academies ‘for schools which failed to improve andwhich had lost the confidence of parents in their local communities’ (Hutchings
and Mansaray, 2013: 7).
There were exceptions to the idea of separate narratives for KTS and academies
in the recollections of our key stakeholders, and two interviewees emphasised
KTS and academies as linked policies and part of an integrated ‘carrot andstick’ approach to school improvement. One was a former minister from theLabour government who described academisation as an integral part of London
Challenge: ‘Michael Gove [...] will praise London Challenge but he will talk about
London Challenge as though it was only academies. Equally, others will talk about
London Challenge and deny that academies were part of it. The truth is academies
were an important part but they weren’t the only part.’
Another senior figure who was central to London education for many years spoke
in very positive terms about the role of the academies in ensuring the successof London Challenge. Using the language that was common during London
Challenge he refers to academisation as a ‘structural solution’. For him thevery existence of a possible structural solution via academies had the effect ofconcentrating the mind and generating improvement even in schools that did not
ultimately become academies:‘I don’t think you should underestimate the importance of the academies,
their input into London, because it did mean that where there needed to bea structural solution, there was a structural solution available. I contributed
to a programme where we had some Swedish visitors two or three weeks
ago from the ministry and the press of Sweden, who had an inspection
system not dissimilar to ours. They have a category of special measures but
they don’t put schools in it, even though they’ve got poor schools because
there is no structural alternative to the school. I think it’s very important thatthat avenue was opened.’ (Senior Educationalist)

74 | LESSONS FROM LONDON SCHOOLS: INVESTIGATING THE SUCCESSCHAPTER 4: SUPPORT AND CHALLENGE

THE CONTRIBUTION OF THE ACADEMIES PROGRAMMEThe Labour government’s sponsored academies programme ran from 2003 to
2010. Findings on the impact of these academies are contested, vary between
earlier and later academies and do not generally differentiate for academies in
London or elsewhere. Stephen Machin of the LSE has carried out several studiesof the impact of academies in partnership with different colleagues (Machin andWilson, 2009; Machin and Vernoit, 2011; Machin and Silva, 2013). His most recent
conclusion is that schools that became academies between 2002 and 2007 were
beneficial for ‘students in the top half of the ability distribution’ particularly the top
20 per cent. He found little evidence that academies improved the performanceof students in the bottom 20 per cent of the ability range. Machin could find noevidence that the schools that converted to academy status between 2007 and2009 ‘had any beneficial effects on pupils of any ability’.
The National Audit Office (NAO) has also undertaken a sequence of studies of theacademies programme (NAO, 2007; 2010; 2012) and has reached somewhat
different conclusions from those of Machin. In 2007 NAO reported that, overall,when compared to other schools, academies had made good progress interms of improved GCSE results. The NAO concluded that performance wasrising faster than in local authority maintained schools (NAO, 2007). Three years
later the NAO again reported a very positive picture and described academies’
performance as typically impressive, with rates of improvement that were
better than their predecessor schools (NAO, 2010). In the 2012 report the NAO
was more guarded. The focus in 2012 was on the dramatic expansion of theacademies programme after the election of 2010. The NAO concluded that it was
too early to assess the educational impact of the massive increase in the numberof academies (NAO, 2012).
Both Machin and the NAO used quasi-experimental methods in order to arriveat their different conclusions about the academies programme 2003–2010. Thisdifference of opinion by reputable researchers highlights the need for more robust
evaluation to be an integral part of the initial design of major educational reforms.
The importance of this in terms of public accountability is clear when the sums ofmoney are considered. The NAO calculated that across England the additional
cost (not including the running costs) of the academies programme was £288
million (NAO, 2010).

THE DANGER OF GENERALISATIONS ABOUT THE CONTRIBUTION OF ACADEMIES
The evidence may not be entirely clear. However, it does seem evident thatgeneralisations about academies can be misleading and simplistic. The rate ofacademisation varied dramatically across different London boroughs. The DfEschools census for January 2013 showed that only three per cent of secondary
students were educated in academies in Camden, while 85 per cent of students
in Southwark attended academies. In outer London the range was even greater:from zero per cent of students in Barking and Dagenham attending secondary
academies to 100 per cent of students in Bexley (DfE, 2013b); see figure 4.5.

LESSONS FROM LONDON SCHOOLS: INVESTIGATING THE SUCCESS | 75

CHAPTER 4: SUPPORT AND CHALLENGE

After the election of 2010 the academies programme changed spectacularly in termsof its scale. At a national level 203 academies were created between 2003 and 2010;
by September 2012 there were 2,309 academies. The new ‘converter’ academies
were significantly different to the ‘sponsored’ academies of the first phase.
Figure 4.5: Change in number of pupils studying at a secondary academy,
2010–2013

2010

2013

PERCENTAGE OF PUPILS STUDYING AT AN ACADEMY
0%

50%

100%

Source: DfE, 2013b and DfE, 201076 | LESSONS FROM LONDON SCHOOLS: INVESTIGATING THE SUCCESSCHAPTER 4: SUPPORT AND CHALLENGEIN ADDITION TO THE POTENTIAL
ROLE OF ACADEMIES IN DIRECTLY
IMPROVING PERFORMANCE AS
A RESULT OF THEIR ACADEMYSTATUS, SOME INTERVIEWEESSUGGESTED THAT ANOTHER
FUNCTION OF ACADEMIES MAY
HAVE BEEN TO APPLY PRESSURE
FOR IMPROVEMENT ACROSS
THE SYSTEM THROUGH THE
EXISTENCE OF AN ALTERNATIVEFORM OF GOVERNANCE.

The performance of academies also varied. Hill pointed out in 2010 that groups orchains of academies were typically performing at a better level than single freestanding academies (Hill, 2010). Cook has taken this segmentation further and has
analysed the variation between different academy chains. Using an assessmentof GCSE performance based on the points scored by all students rather thanthe A*-C measure Cook concluded that there was very wide disparity in theperformance of different chains, from ‘spectacular’ to ‘struggling’:‘The Bourne Family Trust is spectacular – two grades better in four subjects.
Its only school in the sample, Mossbourne, really is that good. Sir Michael
Wilshaw, now the Chief Inspector, ran a spectacular success [...] [But] some,
if you look, are struggling’ (Cook, 2013b).
Although, as figure 4.5 shows, there is wide variation in the proportion of
secondary pupils studying at an academy across different London boroughs, itwould be wrong to try and link this with attainment data: converter academies(largely responsible for the increase in academy numbers since 2010) mustnormally already be performing well before conversion (DfE, 2014b).

THE INDIRECT INFLUENCE OF THE ACADEMIES PROGRAMME
In addition to the potential role of academies in directly improving performance
as a result of their academy status, some interviewees suggested that anotherfunction of academies may have been to apply pressure for improvement
across the system through the existence of an alternative form of governance.
One academy leader explained that the schools his chain takes on are those‘where the school has failed and local solutions haven’t worked – often over an
extended period of time’. In this way, (he argues), academies acted as a backstop,
injecting ‘new hope, new drive, [a sense that] things are going to be different anda more robust approach to running the school’ where ‘London Challenge had
been involved in and for some reason didn’t work or hadn’t been involved’. His
description of these schools’ trajectories casts some light on the process:‘The local authority have had these schools, they had failed, their own
solution didn’t work… taking them away from that culture and saying you
are now part of an independent movement where expectations are different,
terms and conditions are different, things are going to be different was a
short sharp shock that allowed those schools to change their culture [...] For
us though the kind of schools we have taken on and I am sure for ARK andOasis and the other academy chains that have done it, it has been removing
them from the monolithic culture where failure has been accepted.’

LESSONS FROM LONDON SCHOOLS: INVESTIGATING THE SUCCESS | 77

CHAPTER 4: SUPPORT AND CHALLENGE

Not all local authorities were opposed to academies and attitudes changed overtime. The 2008 academies evaluation by PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) notesthat LAs had become ‘generally more positive about the academies programme’(PwC, 2008: 70). Several local authorities embraced academies and argued thatthey were a useful option that could ‘break the existing system’. An interviewee
explained:‘By saying that we are not going to have this cosy system where everybody
thinks that the school structures are as good as they can be where no newarrangements can come into play. So we will make a determined attempt
to create more diversity in the system and try to create an additional push
on innovation… A lot of authorities had the savviness when the academies
programme was announced, they realised that they either went with it andused it to have their version of it or they would have it forced on them andthen they would have no say in it.’For this respondent the ability to implement academy conversions where
necessary therefore played a role in tackling underperformance, and otherinterviewees agreed that the academies programme played a role in creatinga wider momentum for improvement. Another interviewee made the pointthat academies had influence even where there were few or no academies inthe borough. He cited the example of Camden, a local authority with a good
reputation over many years, which prided itself on providing such a good service
that academies were not necessary:‘Camden, which had no academies, it’s not that it was an anti-academy
authority [...] but it didn’t have any converter academies or schools that
had been taken over. It saw its role as being [able] to provide such a good
service that none of its schools wanted to be academies.’
In addition to creating academies, under the Education Act 2002 schools wereenabled to form federations – more formal partnerships between schools whichwere an alternative to a school joining a multi-academy trust. This offered a further
structural solution to schools in terms of their pursuit of school improvement andwas mentioned by some of the interviewees as an alternative way of obtaining
support and challenge.

78 | LESSONS FROM LONDON SCHOOLS: INVESTIGATING THE SUCCESS

ANOTHER INTERVIEWEE MADE
THE POINT THAT ACADEMIES HAD
INFLUENCE EVEN WHERE THERE
WERE FEW OR NO ACADEMIES IN
THE BOROUGH.

CHAPTER 4: SUPPORT AND CHALLENGE

THE CONTRIBUTION OF TEACH FIRSTThe Teach First programme began in London in September 2003 and placed 180
participants per cohort in the city’s most challenging schools (based on poverty
and attainment data). It now places approximately 1,500 participants per year
across the country, with around 800 in London schools. It is often argued that the
number of teachers coming in through Teach First is too small to be a significant
contributory factor to London’s success. However, there is evidence to suggestthat Teach First made a disproportionate contribution to the transformation of
London schools. Since many of the programme’s participants remain teaching in
London, the number has gradually built up and there is now a body of 1,421 ofthese teachers in London – amounting to six per cent of the teaching population(Teach First, 2013). Furthermore, they are concentrated in the challenging schools
which have seen the greatest improvement.
Like academies, Teach First did not represent a homogeneous pan-London
reform. It was skewed towards inner London. Even within inner London the
proportion of teachers in each borough who have come through the TeachFirst programme varies considerably. There are some successful boroughswith relatively few Teach First staff, so clearly, transformation is not necessarily
dependent on having Teach First teachers. However, in the boroughs where
they can be found in high concentrations, like Westminster (where 15 per centof teachers have come through the programme), they constitute an influential
element of the workforce.

LESSONS FROM LONDON SCHOOLS: INVESTIGATING THE SUCCESS | 79

CHAPTER 4: SUPPORT AND CHALLENGE

Figure 4.6: Teach First teachers in London (by borough)

TEACH FIRST LEADERSTEACH FIRST TRAINED

Source: Teach First, 2013

Teach First may have contributed to an increase in the proportion of new teachers who had attended a Russell Group
university or who held a top degree. However, this was not the benefit most of our interviewees associated with theprogramme; almost all interviewees emphasised the role of Teach First teachers in altering school culture. One exheadteacher told us: ‘I know of individual schools whose success was completely off the back of, you know, two or three
years intensive input from Teach First’. Another said: ‘The word went around [that] the holes in the staffroom were being filled
by very, very bright, very energetic young people instead of [...] rather demoralised supply teachers or people from abroad, sothat was one of the first things that began to turn things around.’There is evidence to suggest that Teach First’s impact is important and extends beyond the individual teachers’ classrooms(Allen and Allnutt, 2013; Muijs et al., 2010, Hutchings et al., 2006). Muijs and his colleagues identified 87 Teach First schools
and matched these with statistically similar schools. The schools linked to Teach First overall out-performed the comparatorgroup in terms of GCSE performance and the researchers attributed part of this to Teach First. While this early study has
since been criticised, Allen and Allnutt also matched Teach First schools with other similar schools and concluded that there
was evidence of a beneficial effect. Overall gains in GCSE performance were estimated at ‘five per cent of a pupil standard
deviation or around one grade in one of the pupil’s best eight subjects’. In practical terms a Teach First teacher placed in a
department of six teachers could lead to gains of up to five per cent of a subject grade per pupil in that subject right acrossthe department (Allen and Allnutt, 2013).

80 | LESSONS FROM LONDON SCHOOLS: INVESTIGATING THE SUCCESSCHAPTER 4: SUPPORT AND CHALLENGE

Teach First may have brought benefits even to schools that did not participate.
Many people believe that it has played an important part in the transformation of
the standing of the teaching profession in the eyes of the public and in the eyesof other potential new teachers who entered the profession through a variety ofroutes. During our interviews, these Teach First ‘externalities’ were recognisedeven among sceptics, as in the case of this headteacher:‘Teach First itself I don’t have a lot of time for. You know, small numbersof graduates picked to ensure you only pick the winners who would havesucceeded anyhow in whatever scheme they got into teaching in. But what
it did was it said that teaching is, you know, a top class thing to go into. You
know, it made it desirable to be a teacher… The idea 20 years ago that, youknow, Russell Group universities would have a road show coming to themwhich attempted to pick out the best graduates to go into teaching. They’dhave been laughed out wouldn’t they?’
The programme therefore assisted in changing attitudes about what teaching in
London involved. As one interviewee put it, Teach First had helped to ‘detoxify’
teaching. Teach First’s framing of the work of its teachers as being a ‘mission’
to address ‘educational disadvantage’ also contributed to the moral purpose ofteaching in London and helped counter much of the negative press coveragepreviously given to London schools. As one academy chain leader put it, TeachFirst led to a broader ‘upgrading of the workforce’ and made it ‘an attractive place
to be for bright young teachers’.
While being interviewed for this research, a senior figure argued that: ‘Moreteachers see themselves as leaders, see what’s possible… that they’re there
to make change happen. I think there’s now been enough areas of success in
London that people know what’s possible.’ The Teach First programme also
places significant emphasis on leadership and 232 Teach First graduates are
now in leadership positions in London, of whom 143 are in inner London (mainly
Hackney, Hammersmith and Fulham, Westminster and Tower Hamlets). Someof these Teach First teachers are now headteachers. One federation leader
emphasised Teach First’s impact on leadership: ‘If you invest enough in them – if
you just take them in and leave them it won’t work – but if you invest enough inthem they quickly, if they stay, become middle leaders and senior leaders and weare seeing that throughout schools, so we are getting great people.’

LESSONS FROM LONDON SCHOOLS: INVESTIGATING THE SUCCESS | 81

CHAPTER 4: SUPPORT AND CHALLENGE

One possible criticism of the role of Teach First is that it contributed to greaterturnover among teachers as it is only a two-year programme. Although fewer thanhalf of those enrolling in Teach First in 2003 remained in teaching after their initial
two-year commitment, the programme’s retention rate has increased over timeand almost two-thirds of those who finish the programme in London now remain inteaching at the end of the two years.
Figure 4.7: The percentage of Teach First cohorts in London still teaching intheir third year (by year of enrolment)
2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

47.5%

60.8%

53.1%

59.0%

58.8%

64.0%

67.7%

64.0%

Source: Teach First, 2013

THE ROLE OF LOCAL AUTHORITIESThe contribution of local authorities is probably the least well researched aspect of
the London story. With the exception of the recent study of Tower Hamlets (Woods
et al., 2013) there has been little attention to the local authority perspective.
The contribution of local authorities was a major area of focus in the semistructured interviews we conducted with key stakeholders. Our interviewees
had, unsurprisingly given their different backgrounds, a wide range of views on
how far local authorities had contributed to school improvement. Insofar as there
was consensus it was about the very considerable variability in local authority
performance, from high-performing to dysfunctional.
The range of local authority performance
Many interviewees argued against generalisations about local authority
performance. London Challenge was based on a premise that the local authorities
in the focus boroughs were seriously underperforming. At the same time someother authorities are widely acknowledged as being high-performers. Interviews
variously described such local authorities as Camden, Westminster and Tower
Hamlets as effective over many years. One stakeholder described the factthat some local authorities were effective before London Challenge and others
benefitted from involvement and ‘raised their game’: ‘So there were boroughs, andI mentioned Camden but I think another interesting one is Tower Hamlets, but I
think also Westminster and Kensington, that had established good programmes
for school improvement prior to London Challenge coming in.’ Anothercommented:‘It was then certainly not easy to persuade those five boroughs that being
one of the five key boroughs wasn’t some sort of naming and shaming
exercise. Ultimately I think we got very good co-operation with all five ofthem and I think it’s fair to say all five of them have improved. Some of themlike Hackney very, very dramatically so.’82 | LESSONS FROM LONDON SCHOOLS: INVESTIGATING THE SUCCESSCHAPTER 4: SUPPORT AND CHALLENGE

THE PERFORMANCE OF
DISADVANTAGED STUDENTS IS
PARTICULARLY IMPRESSIVE,
WITH A MUCH NARROWER GAP
BETWEEN THE PERFORMANCE OF
STUDENTS RECEIVING FSM THAN
IS THE CASE NATIONALLY.

In analysing the relative performance of academy chains Cook makes, in passing,some highly significant points about the performance of local authority maintained
secondary schools. Using his GCSE point score measure he calculated that themaintained secondary schools of Westminster City Council constituted in effect thebest performing ‘chain’ of schools in London. ‘But its reign may be fleeting: someof these schools have become converter academies.’ Cook added that using
his measure the maintained schools of Hackney and Islington also constituted
relatively high-performing ‘chains’ when compared to some of the academy chains(Cook, 2013b).
Woods and colleagues from the Institute of Education have recently documented
the transformation of Tower Hamlets, with an emphasis on the highly positive roleof the local authority. The account they present is remarkable. In 1997 the authority
was ranked 149 out of 149 in terms of its educational performance. A year later
the education work of the council was the subject of a damning Ofsted report. This
was the ‘dire’ situation inherited by Christine Gilbert when she became Corporate
Director of Education in 1997. Over the next decade, Christine Gilbert and her
successor, Kevan Collins supervised a radical improvement in local authority
performance. By 2008 Ofsted was effusive in its praise. In that year the inspectors
reported that the council ‘consistently delivered outstanding services for children
and young people’. The improvement trajectory has continued consistently sincethen. The achievement of disadvantaged students is particularly impressive, witha much narrower gap between the performance of students receiving FSM than isthe case nationally.
The Tower Hamlets study attributes the transformation to several factors but
one key component was a highly effective approach to school improvementby the local authority. This included a very robust approach to the performance
management of headteachers in schools with serious weaknesses. Between 1998
and 2012, 48 schools were designated as causing concern or in Ofsted categories
of serious weakness and there were 42 cases of headteachers being replaced.
The local authority then put a particular emphasis on the appointment of first-rate
leaders for these vulnerable schools. The stress on the quality of leadership was
supplemented by a rigorous data-based approach to support and challenge.
The Institute of Education researchers concluded with a claim that the changes
in Tower Hamlets constitute a globally significant example of highly successful
education reform in an urban environment:‘The experience of Tower Hamlets since 1998 is inspirational. It shows that
improvement is not only possible but achievable, that improvement in someschools does not need to be bought at the expense of others and that
improvement, once attained, can not only be sustained but surpassed. As aresult, it is not unreasonable to argue that what Tower Hamlets has createdare some of the best urban schools in the world.’ (Woods et al., 2013: 57).

LESSONS FROM LONDON SCHOOLS: INVESTIGATING THE SUCCESS | 83

CHAPTER 4: SUPPORT AND CHALLENGE

In our interviews with stakeholders some echoed the Tower Hamlets story fromthe perspective of other boroughs. One highly experienced director of children’s
services explained her view that the better local authorities had been unfairly
marginalised in the London improvement narrative:‘People all talk about the fact that it was just about the schools [...] it wasabsolutely about schools making that improvement themselves and that’s
something that I’m very, very passionate about, but there was a lot of
local authority leverage that was going on in the places that made those
improvements.’
Her own approach to ‘leverage’ matches almost exactly with the approachdescribed in the Tower Hamlets study: a tough approach to the performance
management of headteachers and a robust data-based dialogue with the schools
about teaching and learning.
While this interviewee was keen to establish the positive record of many local
authorities such as her own, she also recognised inconsistency in local authority
performance across the capital, with some LAs faring considerably worse thanothers. One factor that made for increased inconsistency was the policy changethat led all local authorities to re-organise their education departments and merge
them with children’s social services. The legislative context for the policy that
became known as ‘Every Child Matters’ was set out in the Children Act of 2004.
In the following years many of the new cadre of directors of ‘children’s services’
were appointed from a social care rather than a schools background and lacked a
deep professional understanding of whole school improvement methods. Anotherinterviewee who was a local authority elected member for an inner London boroughendorsed this point and spoke about the extent to which the social care agenda
and the focus on the needs of highly vulnerable families, while obviously important,distracted some attention from the wider school standards and improvement agenda.
Some interviewees were less positive about the work of local authorities. One headof a substantial academies chain expressed a very strong level of frustration andunhappiness with the local authority legacy that his organisation inherited when
taking control of failing schools that had previously been local authority maintained.
He described, against a context of general improvement, a continuing problem
with some schools that had been let down by local authorities over many years:‘The biggest thing I would [use to] explain the improvement of a number ofschools that have become successful academies is taking the local authorities
out of the equation [...] There was a view that what existed in the school was
inevitable, this was how it had to be. It was to do with the children, there wasn’t
anything that could be done with the workforce because the local authorities weretied into trade union recognition agreements which tied their hands. And taking
them away from that culture and saying you are now part of an independent
movement where expectations are different, terms and conditions are different,
things are going to be different, was a short sharp shock that allowed thoseschools to change their culture.’

84 | LESSONS FROM LONDON SCHOOLS: INVESTIGATING THE SUCCESSONE HEAD OF A SUBSTANTIAL
ACADEMIES CHAIN EXPRESSEDA VERY STRONG LEVELOF FRUSTRATION AND
UNHAPPINESS WITH THE LOCALAUTHORITY LEGACY THAT HISORGANISATION INHERITED WHEN
TAKING CONTROL OF FAILINGSCHOOLS THAT HAD PREVIOUSLY
BEEN LOCAL AUTHORITY
MAINTAINED.

CHAPTER 4: SUPPORT AND CHALLENGE

Improving local authorities through outsourcing
Just as academisation provided a ‘structural solution’ for underperforming
schools, forced ‘outsourcing’ of the management of education services to privatecompanies constituted a structural mechanism for tackling underperformance.
This mechanism was used when ‘the government didn’t have confidence inthe local authorities’. Another participant said: ‘It was partly to do with thecompetence of authorities, hence some of the outsourcing, you know they just…
they didn’t know their schools well enough. They didn’t know what to do, they
weren’t acting quickly enough.’
Outsourcing took place in several boroughs. Different models and approaches
were used. In Islington the for-profit private company Cambridge Education (part of
the Mott MacDonald group) was awarded a long-term contract in 2000 to manage
the borough’s education service. In Hackney a not-for-profit trust was establishedin 2002 to manage the council’s education portfolio. School performance in both
Islington and Hackney improved dramatically in the years after initial outsourcing.
Our interviewees were of the view that outsourcing ‘worked well in some places,
didn’t work everywhere’; a view echoed in some of the interviews with LA
directors, members, councillors and consultants. In 2002, the London Challenge
prospectus recognised the varying degrees of success of outsourcing contracts.
In Islington, for example, outsourcing was said to have been particularly successful
and the contract was extended, whereas in Southwark the contract was‘terminated’ after two years (DfES, 2003). Several interviewees suggested that themain benefit of outsourcing was bringing stable leadership into local authorities
since in some cases most of the staff were previously on temporary contracts:‘Not all of that [outsourcing] was perfect: not all of it was brilliantly done I
don’t think, but overall it made a big difference. It made a big difference tothe local authorities where there was intervention […] if you look at Islington,
Southwark, Haringey, Hackney: people went there to lead education
departments […] who would never have gone there without the assistanceof direction and the private-sector partner. It was very unusual for a verystrong director of education to go for a very troubled borough before thatstarted.’
Although the governance was different, Haringey and Hackney, together with more‘conventional’ local authorities such as Tower Hamlets, had a similar theory ofaction based on:• ensuring first-rate leadership of the school improvement service• a tough approach to the performance management of headteachers• a strong emphasis on the use of data
• effective professional development both for leaders and class teachers.

LESSONS FROM LONDON SCHOOLS: INVESTIGATING THE SUCCESS | 85

CHAPTER 4: SUPPORT AND CHALLENGE

THE INTERACTION BETWEEN NATIONAL AND LOCAL REFORMS
As stated earlier there were many national initiatives intended to improve schools
between 2000 and 2014. It is too glib to assume that since every school in
England had access to the national reforms these initiatives were not relevant toan explanation of the London transformation. A more nuanced possibility is that
the London context provided particularly fertile ground for the implementation of
the national reforms, which did therefore contribute to the London transformation.
Proving these causal links is impossible. However, case study data does
encourage a view that some of the London actors were adept at exploiting
resources made available through the national reforms.
Take the case of Tower Hamlets. The study by Woods and his colleagues
describes the particularly energetic and purposeful way that the education
community in the borough benefitted from national reforms. The work of School
Improvement Partners – a national initiative – and the training in pedagogy
provided by the National Strategies are both mentioned as having impact. At theheart of the National Strategies for primary schools was a programme of support
for the better teaching of literacy and numeracy. Woods and colleagues praise theway this was managed and delivered in Tower Hamlets: ‘For the primary schools
the highly focused implementation of the literacy and numeracy strategies wasparamount’ (Woods et al., 2013: 27).
Our interviews provided further evidence of effective exploitation of national
initiatives. In 2003 the government introduced ‘workforce remodelling’ to stateschools in England. Among other things this reform led to a dramatic expansion
in the number of teaching assistants in schools. One of our interviewees cited
workforce remodelling as an example of a national reform that operated in acontext of heightened London receptivity. Unlike the majority of the teachers, the
new cadre of teaching assistants was recruited from the local community and thishelped in the development of community understanding about the work of theirschools. An interviewee commented:‘They were recruiting teaching assistants and mentors and coaches [...] fromthe immediate community which had another effect. So I think workforce
remodelling [...] had a much greater impact possibly in London thanelsewhere, maybe [that was] one of the hidden factors behind the successof London schools.’

86 | LESSONS FROM LONDON SCHOOLS: INVESTIGATING THE SUCCESSIN 2003 THE GOVERNMENTINTRODUCED ‘WORKFORCEREMODELLING’ TO STATESCHOOLS IN ENGLAND. AMONGOTHER THINGS THIS REFORM
LED TO A DRAMATIC EXPANSION
IN THE NUMBER OF TEACHINGASSISTANTS IN SCHOOLS.

CHAPTER 4: SUPPORT AND CHALLENGE

Another example of London receptivity comes from a focus group discussion in a
Tower Hamlets school. It illustrates the interplay between leadership changes atschool level and the benefits derived from the rebuilding of the school under theterms of the national Building Schools for the Future programme. For these Tower
Hamlets teachers the combination of purposeful new leadership and an exciting
new learning environment was a potent mix that was central to the ‘turnaround’ of
the school. When asked whether the new building was an important contributor tochanges at the school, the teachers replied:‘Yes, definitely.’‘We already had the new leadership within the school, a change in thesystems but when we started coming into the new buildings they were able
to push it a bit further.’‘The old school was very old buildings, six floors high, low ceilings, reallynarrow corridors, and stairwells. It was quite dark but now it’s a completely
different atmosphere.’‘We were just talking this morning: remember the corridors and the fights
in the corridors [...] pushing and play fighting [...] now they’re all quite
disciplined and following instructions.’‘They’re quite calm, I’ve just been on break duty and it was actually really
nice and when the pips go they start moving to lessons [...] There’s nohassle because before at the old school, because it was so crowded there
was pushing and waiting for someone to fall down the stairs whereas now
it’s completely different. What a difference!’‘But I think obviously the building does play an important role in it but I think
we’ve had a new management as well.’LESSONS FROM LONDON SCHOOLS: INVESTIGATING THE SUCCESS | 87

CHAPTER 4: SUPPORT AND CHALLENGEPART 2: COMMON THEMES THAT LINK TOGETHER THE
LONDON REFORMS
In order to better understand the complex interplay between the range of London
reforms, this section will focus on underlying themes which cut across individual
programmes or policies. The use of data, both as a lever for change and as ameans of promoting accountability, was one of the recurring points made by manyof the interviewees when probed for their views on the changes that had takenplace in London.
While data-driven approaches are now accepted as standard, the situation was
different before 2000. One of our interviewees explained how far the context
for data analysis had changed: ‘Chris Woodhead (previously Chief Inspector ofschools) said, and meant, that he would never, never be driven in inspections by
the results of data: and he wasn’t. Data did not inform Ofsted judgements until I
reckon probably about the year 1999.’
This section will also consider the role played by professional development, at botha teacher- and leadership-level, as one of the key issues which characterised theprogrammes and policies previously discussed.

DATA AS A POWERFUL LEVER FOR CHANGE
While the evidence is imperfect and it is difficult to be precise about causation
it does seem that the improvement in London schools was underpinnedby particularly purposeful support and challenge; in particular opportunities
for professional learning and a regime of performance management andaccountability. Many interviewees identified different facets of effective support
and challenge in London as important factors in the improvement dynamic.
Underpinning these activities was a growth in capacity in the use of educational
performance data.
One of the most important developments in London since 2000 has been thegrowth in data use and data literacy. In our interviews with stakeholders (bothgroups) there was virtual unanimity in the identification of data analysis and data
literacy as key both to powerful accountability and well targeted support. This
preoccupation was not the exclusive property of any particular group and all the
major initiatives seemed to have strong foundations in the use of educational
metrics. The different actors in the London story are therefore linked by a common
preoccupation with the effective use of educational data as an instrument fortransformation:•	London Challenge placed performance data at the heart of the programme. The
schools that received the highest level of support were identified through the useof consistent data-based criteria. The educational improvement process was
supported by the careful benchmarking of performance against the performanceof other schools with similar characteristics. This use of ‘family of schools’ data
was identified both in the previous literature and in our interviews as a major
feature of the programme’s success.

88 | LESSONS FROM LONDON SCHOOLS: INVESTIGATING THE SUCCESSONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT
DEVELOPMENTS IN LONDONSINCE 2000 HAS BEEN THE
GROWTH IN DATA USE AND DATALITERACY.

CHAPTER 4: SUPPORT AND CHALLENGE•	Economies of scale enable multi-academy trusts to resource substantial dataexpertise in a similar way to some local authorities. Outstanding academies havebeen consistently praised by Ofsted for the way that they use data to guidetheir work. One interviewee described the ARK school, King Solomon Academy,as ‘probably the best school in the country’. The most recent Ofsted report on
this school makes it clear that the high expectations that permeate its work
are underpinned by particularly careful tracking of the data relating to student
academic performance. This data makes possible the setting of ambitious but
realistic aspirational targets for each individual student. Economies of scale
enable multi-academy trusts to resource substantial data expertise in a similar
way to some local authorities.
•	The most effective local authorities placed a substantial emphasis on the needto support school improvement through systematic data analysis. The recent
report on the transformation of Tower Hamlets (Woods et al., 2013: 25) statesthat ‘a particular strong feature to drive school improvement has been theemphasis put upon the collection, dissemination and analysis of assessment
data.’ Armed with robust data, local authority staff and headteachers were wellequipped to take action. Ofsted reports on Tower Hamlets schools frequently
comment on the purposeful target setting and tracking at an individual level thatwas made possible as a consequence of access to good data.
•	Since its inception Teach First has carefully targeted the deployment of
its teachers through the use of deprivation data in order to ensure thatthese teachers are serving communities with a disproportionate share ofdisadvantaged students. Teach First makes a priority of data-based analysis of
the career trajectory of Teach First teachers and their alumni or ambassadors.

A TRANSFORMATION IN ATTITUDES TOWARDS DATA
London was perhaps well placed to play a pioneering part in data use becauseof the earlier work of the Inner London Education Authority. John Sinnott, whoworked for ILEA’s Research and Statistics branch, explained this background:‘There is a longer history of educational data in inner London throughthe ILEA Research & Statistics Section. This group based at County Halldeveloped the first “league tables” by listing secondary school results
across inner London. They first collected pupil-level contextual factors suchas ethnicity, home language, single parents, free meals etc.’ (Sinnott, 2014)

LESSONS FROM LONDON SCHOOLS: INVESTIGATING THE SUCCESS | 89

CHAPTER 4: SUPPORT AND CHALLENGE

This idea that London local authorities had capacity in the field of data was echoedby two interviewees: ‘They were strong on producing data because the ILEA had
been strong on data, and the ILEA statistical people had been moved into different
boroughs when it collapsed. They all tried, unsuccessfully in many cases, to do asmuch as the ILEA had done but they were fascinated by data’. Another commented:‘I think harnessing that [Fischer Family Trust] dataset was something London
did early and got on top of that and I think actually a lot of that was done by key
people in local authorities who were able to intelligently analyse the data.’ However,
although the expertise from the ILEA was harnessed by some of the boroughs,
others found it harder to adapt, and many of those interviewed at borough levelcommented that following the abolition of the ILEA in 1990 there was no central
body to bring coherence to London’s schools, with Southwark and Westminster,for instance, identified as being unable to take back responsibility for education(ultimately resulting in both boroughs outsourcing their education services).
While London boroughs had some capacity in data analysis, prior to 2000
there was a less impressive history in terms of the use of data bringing abouttransformational change. For several interviewees, the key to the changes of thelast decade lies in innovations in the way the data was used. They saw changes
in the use of data by leaders as an important aspect of the London narrative, andthe wider discourse relating to school effectiveness and school improvement. For
one of these interviewees the use of data was ‘the thread’ that made possible abetter concept of school leadership, based on a relentless focus on the qualityof learning outcomes and the action needed to improve these outcomes. For
another interviewee, the new emphasis on data brought benefits at all levels fromenhanced political accountability to the more purposeful professional reflections ofindividual teachers.

AN ENTHUSIASM FOR DATA ACROSS THE BOARD
Reference to data was an almost constant refrain from our interviewees. Theycame from a variety of backgrounds, but across the board they identified thepotency of well used data as a critical factor in school transformation in London.
For one director of children’s services the combination of moral purpose, basedon advocacy for badly served children, and excellent data, was the key to thetransformation of London schools. It was the data that made it possible totranslate the moral purpose into action.
The chief executive of a leading academy chain was similarly keen to point out thecentrality of data to the academies project and the wider improvement of London
schools. She described the significance of data as ‘huge’. She was particularly
keen to point out the importance of the change in the measurement of C or above
GCSE performance to include mathematics and English. For her this was a key
enabling factor that concentrated the minds of schools and helped to ensure abetter deal for students. For one senior policy adviser the highly effective use ofdata was a characteristic of the best schools and the best external agencies. He
identified academy chains as ‘the leaders in the use of data’. This interviewee
singled out the systematic use of data by ARK as an example of best practice andpraised them for the ‘seriousness’ with which data analysis drove the managementof the academies.

90 | LESSONS FROM LONDON SCHOOLS: INVESTIGATING THE SUCCESS

WHILE LONDON BOROUGHS
HAD SOME CAPACITY IN DATAANALYSIS, PRIOR TO 2000
THERE WAS A LESS IMPRESSIVEHISTORY IN TERMS OF THE USE
OF DATA BRINGING ABOUT
TRANSFORMATIONAL CHANGE.

CHAPTER 4: SUPPORT AND CHALLENGE

We interviewed several people who played central roles in London Challenge. They
consistently mentioned the benefits of the project’s approach to data. One interviewee,
who played a major role in the management of London Challenge, characterisedschools in London today as ‘being ahead of the game on understanding the subtletiesof school improvement, subtleties of teaching as well, and using data increasingly
well within the school as well as among schools’. One headteacher who had beenheavily involved in London Challenge talked about ‘a massive focus on the data’. She
was particularly impressed by the value of the ‘families of schools’ data as a means ofidentifying where the best practice was that could be shared with other schools.
The extent to which data now dominates the working lives of London teachers wasclearly demonstrated in the focus group discussions we held with a cross-sectionof teachers. Almost all of the schools involved had been transformed over the past
decade and many of the focus group teachers had personally lived through thetransformation. Without exception they identified much stronger student tracking
and other forms of data engagement as essential factors driving improvement intheir school. Teachers talked in knowledgeable and thoughtful terms about the way
their schools used data. They understood the limitations of ‘league tables’ but also
recognised the importance of comparative analysis. They described the mechanics
of assessment and data analysis. They emphasised the importance of professionalreflection on the patterns found in the data and the power of both internal(subject-to-subject) comparisons and external (school-to-school) comparisons.
Teachers stressed in more than one school how essential it was to spot patterns ofunderperformance early so that corrective action could be taken.
‘The data tells a lot [...] There’s quite good open communication withteachers from different subjects because a child may be doing well in
English and maths and not in science: there is obviously an issue but you
won’t know that unless there is that communication between the middle
leaders [...] Also it’s a standing item in faculty meetings because weunderstand that if we don’t visit them regularly we will miss which students
are not getting their target levels or grades. If you don’t intervene early thenyou are going to have to play catch-up for the rest of the time the child is inschool.’In a focus group discussion a teacher commented: ‘Everything’s been reviewed
and renewed: tracking students, TIG groups (targeted intervention group) which
we didn’t really have a long time ago, so we know which students need extra
support.’ In another someone explained:‘A large part of our focus is identifying areas where we can develop andimprove and that is down to using things like improving our data analysis,
making sure staff are able to analyse their own data etc [...] Monitoring is
the key. Yes, performance management at a management level, making surethat every member of staff is accountable for the students that they teachand focused on the goals of the schools.’

LESSONS FROM LONDON SCHOOLS: INVESTIGATING THE SUCCESS | 91

CHAPTER 4: SUPPORT AND CHALLENGE

Teachers talked with a degree of real expertise about data-related issues. They
discussed the importance of student self-assessment and peer assessment aswell as more formal academic monitoring. They spoke about tackling subject-tosubject variation within the school. The focus group discussions gave a strong
sense that a high level of data literacy is the norm among staff in these schools.

FROM DATA TO ACCOUNTABILITY
In many London schools performance data is now used systematically inperformance management. Several interviewees talked in favourable terms about
the way that some underperforming leaders and teachers have now moved on.
One interviewee described the beneficial impact of substantial replacement ofschool leaders in her area of London based on an evidence-informed view of
their capacity to lead improvement. In our focus group schools some teachers
talked about the radical restructuring and reorganising of staff that new schoolleaders had brought about in order to reduce the numbers of ineffective teachers.
The focus group teachers also described a contemporary working environmentthat was built around principles of high levels of professional accountability andtransparency at every level of the school’s staffing structure. In this context of highaccountability student voice was mentioned by some teachers as an importantsource of accountability data. There was also a recognition that, for some more
traditional teachers, accountability to the students was professionally challenging:‘The feedback is usually from the children and for some staff it wasn’t theright environment because they felt we were listening to the children too
much but generally children are more honest than adults and they are more
forgiving. What they normally want is for things to be better. It is allowing
them to give their feedback without fear it will get them in trouble. For many
people it is not an environment that they would find comfortable.’

COMBINING HIGH ACCOUNTABILITY WITH HIGH SUPPORT
While the schools of London are more accountable places than ever, andprofessionals are subject to significant external and internal scrutiny, there
have also been interesting developments in the field of professional support.
High accountability and high support in terms of professional development andcurriculum support characterises the work of high-performing academy chains.
The notion that underperforming staff should be challenged but not ‘demonised’
was central to the thinking of both the designers of London Challenge and theleadership of some of the more effective local authorities, such as Tower Hamlets.
As has often been noted, the London Challenge decision to call the lowestperforming schools ‘Key to Success’ (KTS) schools was a deliberate manifestationof this commitment to a positive, developmental discourse rather than a ‘nameand shame’ approach to improvement. The contract with the KTS schools was
simple: the performance level in your school is unacceptable and as a result you
will be given very substantial support to improve; if this fails other steps including achange to academy status will be taken.

92 | LESSONS FROM LONDON SCHOOLS: INVESTIGATING THE SUCCESSCHAPTER 4: SUPPORT AND CHALLENGE

The nature of the support provided under London Challenge has been well
documented elsewhere. What has attracted less attention is the way that London
reforms, including London Challenge but also the work of the best academies,
have encouraged innovative approaches to school support that have greatly
influenced national policy both before and after the general election of 2010.
The current emphasis on a sector-led or self-supporting approach to school
improvement was pioneered by London Challenge and the work of the best
academy chains. In both these contexts, an essential ingredient is a view that
school leaders have a real, shared responsibility for the performance of otherschools.
London Challenge pioneered the use of expert headteachers as the mentorsof headteachers in underperforming schools. This key ingredient in the London
Challenge approach to support was brokered by the expert advisers who
supported the KTS schools. With support from NCSL, the concept of the NLE
developed. Influenced by previous development at Ravens Wood School in
Bromley, the idea of the high-performing school as a teaching school developed intandem with the embryonic use of NLEs. These approaches have since become
part of the mainstream at national level. The current government’s approach tosector-led school improvement places NLEs and teaching school alliances at theheart of system-wide thinking about national school improvement.
One of our interviewees expressed very strongly the importance of the cultural changethat made possible this new sense of shared accountability and support at headshiplevel. For her the London school system had matured from one characterised by crude
competition to a much more mature blend of competition and partnership based onshared accountability for the well-being of all children in London.

THE CURRENT GOVERNMENT’SAPPROACH TO SECTOR-LEDSCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLACESNLES AND TEACHING SCHOOLALLIANCES AT THE HEARTOF SYSTEM-WIDE THINKINGABOUT NATIONAL SCHOOLIMPROVEMENT.

‘I think there is a real spirit of collegiality across London schools. There ismuch less competition than I experienced in the early days of my headship.
But there is a real pride in being in a London school and being part ofthis very successful movement [...] And even though people know thatcircumstances can be challenging they also know that there is support
out there because the support will come from other London headteacher
colleagues [...] I think in the old days there were some schools that weregood but they were charging people to go in and look at what they were
doing. I don’t think that culture exists any more, it is much more of apartnership culture, much more of an awareness of responsibility for allcommunity schools and outcomes for all children in the local communityand not just your own.’
The same interviewee described in very practical terms how this collegiality
manifested itself in practice. Although it derived initially from a mentoring relationshipat headteacher level, the sharing of expertise was now embedded at the level ofsubject teaching. She described how an assistant headteacher at her own schoolwith expertise relating to the performance of relatively less able students in English had
worked in a substantial way with ‘seven or eight schools’ last year.

LESSONS FROM LONDON SCHOOLS: INVESTIGATING THE SUCCESS | 93

CHAPTER 4: SUPPORT AND CHALLENGE

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
One theme that links the key London interventions is a preoccupation withprofessional development. London Challenge, Teach First, high-performing local
authorities and the work of leading academy chains can all be characterised as
placing considerable emphasis on the professional learning and development of
the workforce in London:•	A central component of London Challenge was the range of professional
development opportunities afforded to school staff, whether they were the ITP/OTP for teachers, or the leadership training programmes for middle and seniorleaders.
•	Teach First continually places emphasis on furthering the learning anddevelopment of those who come through its graduate programme, with one ofits stated core goals to be to ‘develop leaders in the classroom’ (Teach First,
2014).
•	Many of the LAs that showed particularly strong and effective leadershipwithin their boroughs placed a focus on professional development, such as
Tower Hamlets, which ‘invested heavily in promoting leadership development
programmes (Woods et al., 2013: 25) and prioritised professional development
as part of its recruitment and retention strategy for school staff (ibid.: 30); orSouthwark, where a former education director noted how he had appointed‘an assistant director responsible for leadership development’ and equipped
headteachers ‘with the skill sets to work outside of their own schools’.
•	Several of the key academy chains in London emphasise professional
development as a key component of their offer. ARK Schools, for instance,hosts networking days for staff from all its schools to come together and ‘add
value to the professional development offered in-school’ (ARK Schools, 2014a).
In every case, recognition of the importance of developing people in order toachieve school improvement has been a lever for change.
In our focus group discussions with teachers from a variety of schools we
discussed their experience of professional learning. Certain patterns emerged:
schools were adopting a more serious and integrated approach to professional
development. Key trends included:•	a sense that approaches to professional development had matured over time,
moving away from occasional attendance at off-site courses to more systematicand regular school-based opportunities for context-specific learning•	a growing connection between performance management and professional
development, so that teachers learned from the systematic observation andmonitoring at school level•	practitioners rather than expert advisers who have left the classroom as themain providers of professional learning•	work-shadowing and coaching relationships as key opportunities for powerfuldevelopment.

94 | LESSONS FROM LONDON SCHOOLS: INVESTIGATING THE SUCCESSIN OUR FOCUS GROUPDISCUSSIONS WITH TEACHERS
FROM A VARIETY OF SCHOOLS WE
DISCUSSED THEIR EXPERIENCE
OF PROFESSIONAL LEARNING.
CERTAIN PATTERNS EMERGED:SCHOOLS WERE ADOPTING A
MORE SERIOUS AND INTEGRATEDAPPROACH TO PROFESSIONAL
DEVELOPMENT.

CHAPTER 4: SUPPORT AND CHALLENGE

The following quotes illustrate this new professional learning in action:‘I think it’s generally true of secondary schools across the borough but
particularly true of us, that we’ve tended less to buy into what the local
authority provides because we have the expertise in-house.’ (Haringey
teacher)‘When I was head of science I remember doing quite a few external courses[...] more helpful than that is how the school generates quite tailor-made‘INSETs’ that we run on a weekly basis. So different members of staff,
they don’t all have to be outstanding teachers or practitioners – we lookat different strengths of various members of staff – and we put on regularin-house INSETs each week. Some staff will be directed to attend, some will
opt to go in, in order to help them along that course. They have been a lot
more powerful than some of the [...] courses.’ (Tower Hamlets teacher)‘I’ve spent quite a lot of time working closely with a deputy head who does myjob in a different school. And that’s had more impact than any course you’d havegone on. It’s been an eye opener – it’s been brilliant.’ (Havering teacher)‘I think it’s the organisation getting us to really become more reflective on
our own practice that makes things more powerful. It isn’t about these oneoff INSETs that you might attend, it’s about regularly reviewing what yourlessons are like, what your meetings have been like – it’s almost like my school
encouraged me to keep a reflective journal on how I’m getting on in the
different areas that I am working with.’ (Tower Hamlets teacher)

SUMMARY
The complex combination and interplay of approaches to school improvement in
London can claim responsibility for the success enjoyed by schools in the capitalover the 2000s. However, underpinning the range of support and challengemeasures were key principles involving the use of data as a lever for change
and driver of accountability, and an overarching emphasis on professional
development.
Owing to the lack of robust evaluation methods built into many of the interventions
employed in London, it is difficult to separate out the individual impact of each.
However, through a combination of innovative analysis by the likes of Hutchings
et al. (2012a) and the rich qualitative data collected here, it is possible to credit
London Challenge, Teach First, individual local authorities and the programmeof academisation as having a combined effect on the performance of London
schools since 2000. Furthermore, these policies shared key qualities, such as theiruse of data for both change and as a form of accountability, and their unwavering
focus on professional development activities, which underpinned their approachand led to the school improvement success experienced by London.

LESSONS FROM LONDON SCHOOLS: INVESTIGATING THE SUCCESS | 95

CHAPTER 5:

LEADERSHIP
This chapter explores leadership at different levels of the system. It addresses
the role played by political leadership at both a national and local level; theimportance of political will to drive and facilitate reform; the role of politicalleadership in an era of sector-led reform and the role played by headteachers as
system leaders. It also identifies the aspects of leadership which underpinned
London’s improvement journey.

CHAPTER 5: LEADERSHIP

Over 20 years ago a youthful Michael Barber (educationalist and,during Tony Blair’s first government, Chief Adviser to the Secretary ofState for Education on School Standards) described the untapped
potential of the London education workforce.
He pointed out that there was a particular ‘esprit de corps’ and idealism about
London teachers. At the time there was a sense of crisis in London in the years
after the abolition of ILEA in 1990. Presciently, Barber suggested that if properly
tackled by effective leadership, the crisis could be overcome and London could
become a very special place:‘Throughout the first century of education in the capital, inner London
teachers felt an extraordinary sense of pride. Their motivation came in partfrom their participation in what they perceived as a great enterprise […]though battered by the conflicts and controversies of the 1980s, an elementof that pride remains […] it needs to be nurtured and revived. Inner London
needs to become a place once again in which people are proud to work andproud to have worked.’ (Barber, 1992: 45)

Two decades later there is evidence that the battered professional pride of
the 1990s has indeed been revived as a result of purposeful leadership. Ourinterviewees described a widely pervasive cultural shift and an energised workforce
that felt they were part of ‘something special’. In searching for explanations forthis change a common theme in their analysis was the effectiveness of leadership.
Day and Sammons discuss the wide variation in definitions of leadership that exist
across different jurisdictions, concluding that it encompasses a range of ‘leading’and ‘managing’ concerns, including vision and strategic insight; responsibility forpeople; implementation; and operational responsibility (2013: 5).
This chapter is divided into two parts: the first deals with leadership at different
levels of the system. It addresses the role played by political leadership, at botha national and local level; the importance of political will and sponsorship in orderto drive and facilitate reform; the role of political leadership in an era of sectorled reform; and the role played by headteachers as system leaders. Part 2 ofthe chapter identifies the aspects and qualities of leadership which underpinned
London’s improvement journey. The section is concerned with the sense of
possibility that existed in London during the 2000s and the search for coherence ineducational provision. It deals in turn with:• the moral purpose and values of leaders• a strong reliance on data to guide leadership• a relentless focus on positivity• leadership guided by theories of change• the exceptional key individuals in leadership roles in London.
LESSONS FROM LONDON SCHOOLS: INVESTIGATING THE SUCCESS | 97

CHAPTER 5: LEADERSHIPTHE QUALITY OF LEADERSHIP IN LONDON
There was already a ‘critical mass’ of good leadership in London at the turn of the
century: of those secondary schools inspected between 2000 and 2003, 85 percent of those in London, compared to 81 per cent nationally, were graded either
good or better in terms of the effectiveness of their leadership and management(Ofsted, 2006).5 This trend has continued, with the gap between London andEngland widening in recent years. Figure 5.1 shows that between 2009 and 2013
the percentage of secondary schools with outstanding leadership in London
improved by 12 percentage points (schools nationally only improved by six per
cent during this period).
Figure 5.1: Change from 2009 to 2013 in Ofsted judgements of leadership andmanagement

LONDONENGLAND

Source: Ofsted, 20145	Although grading under the frameworks in operation in 2009 and 2013 is not comparable, the performanceof London relative to the rest of the country illustrates the differences in the capital’s trajectory.

98 | LESSONS FROM LONDON SCHOOLS: INVESTIGATING THE SUCCESSCHAPTER 5: LEADERSHIP

IN THE EYES OF OUR EXPERTWITNESSES, ONE OF THE MOSTSTRIKING FEATURES OF THE
LONDON STORY IS THE ROLE
OF TRANSFORMATIONAL
LEADERSHIP NOT JUST INSCHOOLS BUT AT EVERY LEVEL.

Our interviewees had, without exception, a highly positive view of the overall qualityof the leadership in London schools now, after more than a decade of effective
reform. One former minister talked about ‘the amazing headteachers’ of London.
A senior figure from the world of higher education talked about the ‘exceptional
leaders and systems leaders’ of London who were the architects of innovative new
approaches to leadership that were now widespread in London and increasingly
to be found across England. A highly experienced educationalist who played a
key role in the London Challenge story attributed the improvement in teaching
and learning in London schools to ‘very much better leadership of schools’ byheadteachers who had become ‘very clever at enabling teachers to improve theirgame’. While many headteachers before 2000 had been preoccupied with ‘firefighting’ and school-level crisis management, the headteachers of today had theopportunity and ability to focus on the leadership of learning.

PART 1: LEADERSHIP AT DIFFERENT LEVELS OF THE SYSTEM
In the eyes of our expert witnesses, one of the most striking features of the
London story is the role of transformational leadership not just in schools but
at every level. As one headteacher put it to us: ‘It’s all about leadership, isn’t it?
So whether it’s leadership at local authority level, whether it’s leadership at the
Department [for Education] level, or whether it’s leadership at the school level.’
The leadership contribution was multi-layered and our interviews with both key
stakeholders and focus groups of teachers revealed evidence of leadershipeffectiveness throughout the education system – national government, regional
agencies and initiatives, ‘middle tier’ organisations such as local authorities andacademy chains and schools. There was a virtually unanimous view that this wasa key factor in the transformation of London schools. Our stakeholders describeda particularly powerful alignment of leadership energy, from senior figures in thegovernment to individual headteachers.
While leadership at every level was an important part of the London story, the mostpotent element, in the eyes of our expert interviewees, was the role of leadershipat school level and the innovative way that the best London school leaders had
become ‘system leaders’. As one former minister said to us, ‘In the end it is at
the school level that the change happens, and it is therefore [ultimately] about theheadteachers and the teachers and the work that they did.’ The OECD described
the role of system leaders as follows:‘In this new environment, schools and schooling are being given an everbigger job to do [...] One of school leaders’ new roles is increasingly to workwith other schools and other school leaders, collaborating and developing
relationships of interdependence and trust. System leaders, as they are being
called, care about and work for the success of other schools as well as theirown’ (OECD, 2008: 6).

LESSONS FROM LONDON SCHOOLS: INVESTIGATING THE SUCCESS | 99

CHAPTER 5: LEADERSHIPPOLITICAL LEADERSHIP
One major lesson from the London school improvement story is the importanceof high-level sponsorship from policymakers. Under the Labour governmentsof 1997–2010 the reform of London schools was supported by politicians at
Cabinet level, and their key advisers. Several interviewees commented on theinterest of government ministers in London school reform. They were of the viewthat high-level political commitment and will was an important ingredient of the
London success story. One of our interviewees was a junior minister in the Labour
government prior to the 2005 election. In the context of London Challenge hedescribed how both the Prime Minister and successive secretaries of state foreducation personally endorsed London school reform as a priority:‘Then, politically, you know, this was a programme that Tony Blair, Estelle
Morris, Charles Clarke, David Miliband, you know, all of the senior people
in the government that were there when it was set up, they believed in it,
it came from them and it had buy-in at the senior level. I think, again, if wehadn’t had that it might not have had the impact that it did.’
The view that Blair and his inner circle of advisers, including Andrew Adonis andMichael Barber, were driving the policy for London schools was articulated by twoof the headteachers that we interviewed:‘It really was driven a lot of it by the Government. They were pulling levers
that were having an impact. And Blair, his mantra was ‘education, education,
education’. And I think he thought if they could really make a difference inLondon then it could be done elsewhere [...] So I think that is where thedriving force came from.’‘Personally I believe that Blair and Brown are the causes of it because in1997 they were very clear to campaign on better schools and hospitals.’
A former special adviser to a secretary of state for education confirmed the extent
to which London was a high-level political priority. In one of our interviews heprovided us with an ‘insider’s’ view of how high-level political sponsorship opened
doors and created an urgency about change among senior officials in the Civil
Service and other influential people:‘Political support creates the legitimacy and soft power to make change andif you’ve got the Prime Minister, and you’ve got Andrew Adonis as a number
10 special adviser, and you’ve got Stephen Twigg, not to mention, you know,[the] secretary of state also backing it [...] that is a formidable weaponry tohave at your disposal [...] if you’re an official or you’re involved in making thechange.’100 | LESSONS FROM LONDON SCHOOLS: INVESTIGATING THE SUCCESSCHAPTER 5: LEADERSHIPJUNIOR MINISTERS PLAYED ASIGNIFICANT PART IN PROVIDINGTHE DAY-TO-DAY DRIVE BEHIND
THE LONDON REFORMS.

The London reforms benefitted from particularly sustained political sponsorship.
Teach First, which began in 2003, has continued to attract support from every
secretary of state since Estelle Morris. The London academies programme has
also been consistently supported at the highest levels from 2003 to the presentday. One of the experts we interviewed was a university academic with very
extensive experience in the evaluation of national government programmes. She
described London Challenge as ‘a very unusual programme’ because it was
implemented over a period of eight years. During this time there was considerable
ministerial turnover but a sustained political commitment to the programme. She
considered this long-term support to be ‘absolutely extraordinary’. In her eyes
the unusual commitment over time paid dividends. It allowed London Challenge
to achieve a level of maturity which increased the return on investment. London
Challenge was particularly effective in its final three years. As one of our expert
witnesses said, ‘Most government programmes to improve schools are sort of 18
months or two years at most; you don’t get that length of programme, you don’t
get programmes with that consistency of leadership and focus.’
Junior ministers played a significant part in providing the day-to-day drive
behind the London reforms. The role of Andrew Adonis is well known. He was
successively head of the Prime Minister’s Policy Unit from 2001 and junior ministerin the education department 2005–2008. In both roles he energetically promoted
sponsored academies and Teach First. He was well known to many of the key
London stakeholders that we interviewed, who recognised and shared his passion
for tackling the link between poverty and underachievement in London andelsewhere. Another important political figure was Stephen Twigg who was a junioreducation minister 2002–2005 at the time that London Challenge, Teach First andacademisation were beginning to change the education landscape in London.
Twigg was a London MP until he lost his seat in 2005. Crucially he was appointed
as a minister with special responsibility for London schools. Twigg takes particularpride in his work for London schools in these years. In a speech in 2012 hetalked about how success of London Challenge could provide a blueprint for local
transformation in other places:‘I would seek to emulate the success of the London Challenge, which I was
involved in as a minister and which developed a constructive partnership
between central government, schools and local authorities. The key thing isthat it worked: standards in London schools went from being below average
to above average. And whatever his other faults, it’s interesting to see that
the Mayor of London is seeking to emulate some of the approaches taken in
the London Challenge in the report he published last week.’ (Stephen Twigg
in Labour Teachers, 2012)

LESSONS FROM LONDON SCHOOLS: INVESTIGATING THE SUCCESS | 101

CHAPTER 5: LEADERSHIP

Twigg’s reference to Boris Johnson is noteworthy given they represent different
political parties. There has been a surprising, although far from complete, crossparty consensus about some aspects of the London narrative. As Mayor of
London, Johnson has made the further improvement of London schools oneof his priorities. The Mayor’s office organised a major education Inquiry which
published its report in 2012 (Mayor of London, 2012). In 2013 the Mayor’s officealso published the first of a proposed series of London Annual Education reports,benchmarking London performance against other parts of England and highperforming metropolitan areas worldwide (Mayor of London, 2013).
The report of the Mayor’s Education Inquiry in 2012 explicitly recognised andsought to build on the achievements of the Labour government in London schools
between 2003 and 2010. Despite the different political allegiance of the Mayor,
the report makes substantial references to the work of London Challenge. The
report also recognised some of the fragmentation risks associated with aspectsof national education policy around the expansion of the academies programme
and the new parent-led category of free schools. Key interventions identified in thereport are entirely in keeping with the philosophy of London Challenge and include:•	the Gold Club for schools which are particularly successful at ensuring theachievement of the most disadvantaged students. They will be expected toshare their practice with other schools. Very much in the spirit of the ‘familiesof schools’ approach, the report stated that Gold Club School performanceand demographic data will be shared across all London schools ‘to allow thosein similar contexts to identify those Gold Club schools which may be able tosupport their own improvement’ (Mayor of London, 2012: 24).
•	the London Schools Excellence Fund: this ‘major fund’ would provide pumppriming resourcing for projects intended to help schools make substantial
progress on the most pressing education priorities in London, which the inquiry
identified as literacy, numeracy and raising standards in science, technology,
engineering and mathematics.
While Boris Johnson sought to build on London Challenge, it could be argued
that Michael Gove identified key aspects of the London transformation and tookthem to national scale. In particular the coalition government has had the following
education priorities which link to the London story 2003–2010:• an emphasis on sector-led school improvement•	the continuation of the national expansion of the system of consultant
headteachers acting as NLEs or LLEs (this expansion was already happening
rapidly prior to 2010, but was not slowed by the coalition government)•	the establishment of a national infrastructure of teaching school alliances
intended to act as hubs for school improvement in their areas• a dramatic expansion of the academies programme• further growth for Teach First both at London and national levels.

102 | LESSONS FROM LONDON SCHOOLS: INVESTIGATING THE SUCCESS

WHILE BORIS JOHNSONSOUGHT TO BUILD ON LONDONCHALLENGE, IT COULD BE
ARGUED THAT MICHAEL GOVEIDENTIFIED KEY ASPECTS OF THE
LONDON TRANSFORMATION AND
TOOK THEM TO NATIONAL SCALE.

CHAPTER 5: LEADERSHIP

Many of our interviewees disagreed with Michael Gove about his plans for school
improvement but some also recognised the extent to which the transformationof London 2003–2010 had influenced the policy of the coalition government
2010–2014. The degree of continuity in policy for London schools between 2003
and 2014 is almost unprecedented and is likely to have contributed to the growing
momentum for continuous improvement.
The role of national and local government leadership in an era of‘sector-led’ reform
The key stakeholders in the story of London’s improvement tend to see thechanges as the result of a ‘sector-led approach’ rather than the implementationof a top-down policy by either national or local government. Nevertheless London
schools appear to have benefitted from the interaction of political forces atnational, regional and borough levels (and a sector-led approach was facilitatedthrough political will) and from the multiple identities of Londoners as bothresidents of the capital city and members of much more local communities.
As we have seen, central government injected urgency, energy and resources
into the London system. During the period 2002–2005 a national government
minister and senior civil servants from the all-England ministry for education madeLondon a personal priority and this undoubtedly acted as a catalyst for change.
By appointing Stephen Twigg to the new role of minister for London schools thegovernment ensured there was a ‘lobbyist for London schools’ in Westminster.
One of our interviewees argued that a positive aspect of London Challenge wasthat it closed the gap between ministers and the child in the classroom. Yet thisdid not mean that London Challenge was a top-down, centralist policy – as theInstitute for Government note: ‘London Challenge found effective ways to reconcile
both top-down and bottom-up approaches’ (Kidson, 2014).
London Challenge operated at a regional level and ‘went with the grain’ in termsof London teachers’ perceptions of themselves as sharing a common cause withother London teachers. The more recent activities of the Mayor’s office similarly
play to this sense of pan-London identity.
Local authorities, Challenge Advisors, academy chains and in particular the
NCSL (who brokered support from consultant leaders/NLEs to those schools thatneeded it) played the role of a mediating layer between the centre and schools.
Their role can be characterised as finding and facilitating solutions (for example
helping schools draw up improvement plans) and taking decisive action where
needed (for example in closing underperforming schools or making changes toschool leadership).

LESSONS FROM LONDON SCHOOLS: INVESTIGATING THE SUCCESS | 103

CHAPTER 5: LEADERSHIPThe best local authorities made use of the more intimate scale of the London
borough, a view expressed in a number of our interviews with key personnel fromthe boroughs. Among other things, the interviewees remarked on the proximity ofboroughs, their size (in terms of having enough schools to form effective networks,
but not too many to be unwieldy) and the ability to have a sense of what was
happening within each borough. One of our interviewees was a highly experienced
director of children’s services, who described the potential benefits of a small
urban authority, compared to the much larger forms of local government found insome other cities and in rural England:‘You’ve got very small local authorities that are therefore able to havemuch more purchase, much more leverage, much more impact […] The
relationships that you can build up […] I can get all the secondary headsaround a table easily, and so you get 15 people round the table, and you
build really good relationships and they know that you will lie down in
the road to support them, and [...] they are clear about what they need todo, and you’re clear that your job is to catalyse it […] having that kind of
relationship where everybody knows each other so well, to be honest I don’tknow how, whether, even those of us that have done well, if we were doing
it in Kent or Cumbria, at that level of leadership, with the real authority, that
I could walk into any governing body or work with any, to have that authority
at that level I think the scale of London boroughs allowed that to happen.’

SCHOOL-TO-SCHOOL NETWORKS AND HEADTEACHERS AS SYSTEM LEADERS
By the time that London Challenge was beginning, the concept of ‘system
leadership’ was part of the educational zeitgeist in England. The idea owed muchto the thinking of Michael Barber and Michael Fullan about how school systems
could move beyond dirigiste ‘top-down’ reform. The lesson of the National
Strategies (which Barber had managed and Fullan had evaluated) appeared tobe that the centralised prescription of the 1990s was appropriate for its time, butultimately led to diminishing returns. After significant gains the results from primaryschools in England had reached a plateau. In order to take an education system toa higher level of productivity there was a need for a greater degree of professional
ownership of the reform and improvement process.
The architects of London Challenge were able to apply these ideas to theimprovement of London secondary schools. In doing so they were supported
and encouraged by NCSL. Some of the best schools and best headteachers
were encouraged to lead improvement networks with other schools and otherschool leaders. The lead schools were designated as teaching schools and theirheadteachers were recognised as LLEs or NLEs.

104 | LESSONS FROM LONDON SCHOOLS: INVESTIGATING THE SUCCESSIN ORDER TO TAKE AN
EDUCATION SYSTEM TO A HIGHERLEVEL OF PRODUCTIVITY THERE
WAS A NEED FOR A GREATER
DEGREE OF PROFESSIONALOWNERSHIP OF THE REFORM AND
IMPROVEMENT PROCESS.

CHAPTER 5: LEADERSHIPIn 2010 the Portuguese academic Jorge Avila de Lima reviewed the literature
relating to effective networks in education. De Lima argues the most effective
networks are ‘goal directed’ and have four key features:‘Network change is driven primarily by goal directedness. Network
participants see themselves as part of a whole and are committed to clear [...]
network-level goals. All relations between network members are structured
in order to achieve these goals. Usually, an administrative entity (a steeringcommittee, a coordinating council, a leadership team, or the like) is formed
and endowed with the function of planning and coordinating the activities of
the network as a whole’ (de Lima, 2010: 10).
The networks that were built up through London Challenge are a perfect matchwith de Lima’s four characteristics:•	Part of a whole: Schools were ‘London schools’, with ‘London pupils’ and‘London teachers’ taking on the ‘London Challenge’. One headteacher
described how at national conferences ‘you will very often get a reference to“that band of London heads”.’ She argued that this was not previously the caseand has changed over the last decade.
•	
A clear and specific goal: Schools were united around the clear goal ofbreaking the link between poverty and poor outcomes and making education in
London the best in the world. These were goals that teachers and leaders could
get behind because they tapped into the reasons why many originally went into
the profession.
•	
Relationships structured around goals: There was recognition that careful
pairing of schools was important (Ainscow, 2012: 299). Pairings needed to take
into account schools’ context, where they were on the school improvement
journey and the personalities of the leaders involved (Poet and Kettlewell, 2011:16). The NCSL brokered this relationship, allocating consultant leaders/NLEs –in dialogue with skilled Challenge Advisors and local authority staff, and throughthe use of data from schools/families of schools – to those schools that needed
them.
•	
Planned and co-ordinated activity: An exceptional leadership team drove
the process and provided the logistical infrastructure to take the weight off
individual schools. Hutchings describes the City Challenge central co-ordinatingteam as one of its most effective elements (Hutchings and Mansaray, 2013:
5) and emphasises that schools tend to lack the capacity and bureaucratic
infrastructure to manage networks. By providing this centrally, the ‘cost’ ofcollaboration was reduced.

LESSONS FROM LONDON SCHOOLS: INVESTIGATING THE SUCCESS | 105

CHAPTER 5: LEADERSHIPThe NAO (2009: 8) and West (2010: 98) also summarise key features of effective
collaboration and again, the approach taken in London overwhelmingly followed
these good practice models. Importantly, the skill to collaborate effectively wasbuilt rather than introductions being made and then schools being left to it. For
example, after being carefully selected, NLEs received careful and effective
training (Poet and Kettlewell, 2011: 14) and their designation could be revoked if
necessary (Hill and Matthews, 2008: 37), a process which was overseen by NCSL.
Key individuals who managed the development of networks of school-to-schoolsupport were interested in the theory of knowledge management and knowledge
mobilisation. They identified some of the naive assumptions that often weakened
attempts to ‘share good practice’ in the context of London schools. One of ourexpert witnesses described three techniques, used by London Challenge, to
optimise the chances of effective knowledge mobilisation by consultant leaders:
1. It was important to quality assure the expertise that was about to be ‘shared’.
2.	It was necessary to identify a ‘fit-for-purpose’ mechanism for sharing expertise
which could include such different media as one-to-one coaching or large scalee-learning.
3.	Expert practitioners needed very careful training if they were to undertake work
as coaches of other, weaker practitioners.
This structured approach to the identification and training of expert leaders as
system leaders was undertaken by London Challenge in partnership with the
NCSL. From the perspective of headteachers and others, the result was a newform of collaboration. Interviewees contrasted the networked discussions under
London Challenge with previous manifestations of networking:‘I mean there always used to be sort of cluster group meetings, but it washeads sitting round and having a moan and it didn’t really affect the rest of
the staff.’ (Headteacher)‘I think there is a real spirit of collegiality across London schools. There ismuch less competition than I experienced in the early days of my headship.
But there is a real pride in being in a London school, being part of this very
successful movement [...] And even though people know that circumstances
can be challenging they also know that there is support out there because
the support will come from other London headteacher colleagues.’(Headteacher)[Headteachers] were really supportive of each other, [a] very strong
collaborative group.’ (London Challenge Advisor, Barking and Dagenham)

106 | LESSONS FROM LONDON SCHOOLS: INVESTIGATING THE SUCCESSCHAPTER 5: LEADERSHIP

SUCCESSFUL SYSTEMLEADERSHIP REQUIRED A
CHANGE IN THE MINDSET OF
HIGHLY EFFECTIVE SCHOOLLEADERS.

Successful system leadership required a change in the mindset of highly effective
school leaders. This was commented on by many of our interviewees. In addition
to a professional responsibility for the life chances of students at their own school,
system leaders accepted that they had a shared and collective responsibility withother school leaders for the well-being of all students in their community. Oneof our interviewees expressed this clearly. He had successively been a London
headteacher and the head of an academy chain:‘There was an increasing sense in London schools that London teachersand London headteachers, London leaders, were there for all the children
in London, not just the children that were in their school. And that sounds alittle bit idealistic but I kind of think there was a bit of that, and still is. So thatsense of collaborating for the London child rather than just for the child that
goes to your school is really important.’
The same interviewee, while convinced of the power of the new system leadership,
also identified some limitations to the work of the best consultant leaders. He
considered that they were particularly successful at providing credible and usefulsupport, but less comfortable exercising an accountability function:‘What schools find very difficult actually is holding one another to account.
And so, you know, even with the London Challenge, that was sort of done
more by the Challenge Advisors [...] than it was by the heads challenging
one another. They would go in and work and support and have challenging
conversations but they weren’t kind of holding those schools to account inquite the same way.’

LESSONS FROM LONDON SCHOOLS: INVESTIGATING THE SUCCESS | 107

CHAPTER 5: LEADERSHIPPART 2: QUALITIES OF EFFECTIVE LEADERSHIP IN LONDONThe second part of this chapter deals with the qualities that underpinned leadershipat a political, system and school level and the key features of leadership during the
2000s in London which contributed to the success story. It also addresses the key
individuals who are often highly credited for their leadership roles.
Any emphasis on rival solutions within London (for example the role of academies
versus LA maintained schools) is misleading. In reality there has been a surprisingdegree of convergence between the leadership approaches of the most thoughtfulprofessionals operating in each ‘camp’. Underpinning many of the commentsfrom our interviewees, regardless of their background, was a set of linked ideas
about how leadership had transformed London schools. The ideas of the ‘LApeople’ and the ‘academies people’ were almost indistinguishable. The concepts
or guiding principles can be summed up as a view of leadership based on ideasof possibility and coherence. London leaders approached their work with a strong
optimism relating to the possibility of change and an impressive understanding of
the practical action needed to bring about more coherent educational provision.
The ‘coherence logic’ had several strands, shared by the different constituencies.
They shared a leadership concept based on a kind of leadership value chain,comprising the following ‘links’:•	Transformational leadership was driven by moral purpose, and a strong sensethat leaders’ first responsibility was to optimise outcomes for learners and not
to promote the ‘provider interest’. This moral purpose and sense of advocacy
meant that leaders needed at times to challenge or confront a ‘provider interest’,represented by underperforming groups of professionals either at school or local
authority level.
•	Moral purpose is not enough; it requires leverage. Our group of leaders believedthat moral purpose could be translated into effective leadership action throughthe ‘relentless’ and ‘forensic’ use of data: potentially powerful management
information about the performance of students could be used to identify andchallenge local authorities, schools and individual teachers whose performance
was sub-optimal.
•	Challenge must be combined with support and recognition that whileaccountability was essential, simply ‘demonising’ others (through, for example, a
name-and-shame approach) could be counter-productive.
•	Support was typically based on a coherent ‘theory of change’. Simply telling
professionals that in terms of benchmarked data their performance is below
par will not lead to improvement. Effective leaders went way beyond criticism
and exhortation. Our stakeholders typically possessed a set of ideas about
how schools and classrooms could be organised differently, and how theperformance of teachers could be enhanced through effective professional
learning. In other words these leaders had a theory of change that could beapplied to specific examples of underperformance.

108 | LESSONS FROM LONDON SCHOOLS: INVESTIGATING THE SUCCESSCHAPTER 5: LEADERSHIPAN INTERVIEWEE RECALLEDTHAT MANY OF THE SCHOOLS
WHICH HAD BEEN TRANSFORMEDAFTER THE YEAR 2000
HAD BEEN CHRONICALLYUNDERPERFORMING SINCE THE
1980S AND THAT GENERATIONSOF CHILDREN HAD BEEN DENIED
THE GOOD QUALITY EDUCATION
TO WHICH THEY WERE ENTITLED.

LEADERSHIP AND MORAL PURPOSE
The concept of ‘moral purpose’ was explicitly or implicitly articulated by many ofthe people we interviewed. A teacher in one of our focus groups exemplified theambitious culture and moral purpose of the capital’s workforce in recalling theirschool’s previous underperformance:‘Sometimes I think to myself, “How many students have we failed (in thepast)?” The school has failed so many people in the community that I know
personally, like my friends, family members, neighbours and – you know
what? If you were in school now your life would have been changed.’
A senior educationalist and former Chief Inspector of Schools made a very similar
point when interviewed. He recalled that many of the schools which had beentransformed after the year 2000 had been chronically underperforming sincethe 1980s and that generations of children had been denied the good quality
education to which they were entitled. This moral failure of the system was
belatedly put right during the period of reform in the new century.
All of our interviewed stakeholders exercised some sort of leadership position
during the London education reforms. Many were clearly personally motivatedby a powerful sense of advocacy for children and an equally powerful sense offrustration with some of the attitudes that were prevalent in the 1990s. This wasoften associated with a sense of outrage at the way disadvantaged students were
let down by the system. As a senior educationalist commented to us:‘I used to get fed up to the back teeth of going to see schools talking toschools about where they were and when you talked to staff it wasn’t very
long before someone said, “I have worked here for 25 years” and blah
blah blah. And you think yes that is the problem, you are doing now what
you did 25 years ago and you think it is all okay. You think that the qualityof education [provided to] these kids, because of their background [...] isacceptable. And you think you are some kind of great hero’.

LESSONS FROM LONDON SCHOOLS: INVESTIGATING THE SUCCESS | 109

CHAPTER 5: LEADERSHIP

DATA-DRIVEN LEADERSHIPOne former special adviser to the government told us that educational leadershipin London today was typically based on ‘a forensic focus on performance’. Thisstrong association between leadership and the use of data as management
information was mentioned often in interviews. Several interviewees remarked
on the dramatic change in accountability in London schools. This increased
accountability was made possible by a revolution in the use of data, as one
interviewee commented:‘I think the biggest change among teachers is around accountability. I thinkthat there is a real understanding that individual teachers are accountable forthe outcomes of their children and that there is a much clearer expectation
now about teachers, about the fact that their performance is judged by pupils’
performance than there ever used to be.’For this respondent, data-based accountability was closely associated with thequestion of moral purpose. Access to robust comparative data fuelled a ‘righteous
indignation’ that students’ precious life chances were being blighted by existingpoor provision. This allowed leaders to create a powerful case for change basedon the proposition that: ‘Our children can achieve better, and that what they’reachieving is scandalous and that what we have to do is make a difference’.
This association of data-based accountability with professional responsibility
operated across the education system in London. Local authority managers,
leaders of academy chains, headteachers and individual teachers were all
challenged to perform by the existence of student data that was available andwas analysed at every level of the system. While ILEA and London boroughs in
the 1990s had pioneered the development of comparative data, the difference
from 2000 onwards was that the data was increasingly used to support a toughperformance management regime. It was the combination of moral purpose,
data literacy and the application of a theory of change that made transformation
possible. Interviewees described how the data allowed leaders to challenge low
expectations in a highly practical and effective way, for example:‘I thought the way the data allowed you to pair schools up in ways that
we were never able to do inside an authority was a revelation, so I could
go to a head of a school in East London and I could say “I know you tellme you’re like no-one else in Tower Hamlets so what about this school in
Hammersmith, it’s got exactly the same proportion of boys there, exactly
the same proportion of free school meals” you’re just knocking off excuses
really and then say “now tell me why you’re not doing as well as that
school?” ’

110 | LESSONS FROM LONDON SCHOOLS: INVESTIGATING THE SUCCESSLOCAL AUTHORITY MANAGERS,LEADERS OF ACADEMYCHAINS, HEADTEACHERS AND
INDIVIDUAL TEACHERS WERE
ALL CHALLENGED TO PERFORM
BY THE EXISTENCE OF STUDENTDATA THAT WAS AVAILABLE AND
WAS ANALYSED AT EVERY LEVELOF THE SYSTEM.

CHAPTER 5: LEADERSHIPOur expert witnesses, many of whom were themselves London leaders, linked
the data-driven approach to the idea of focus. They talked about the need for
unremitting and relentless leadership action. One highly experienced director ofchildren’s services stated this succinctly: ‘I remember back in 2004 I think [...] I
remember the phrases being used in our Ofsted report about just ‘relentless’, youknow relentless leadership, relentless activity and that’s what we did, that’s what
we did.’ACCENTUATING THE POSITIVE
Many of the people at the heart of the London reforms adopted a deliberately
positive view and sought to avoid a ‘deficit model’ for school improvement, placing
an emphasis on solutions rather than blame.
London Challenge was intentionally designed to change the culture of education.
The Challenge’s approach was influenced by Michael Fullan’s influential book‘Leading in Culture of Change’ (2001). This text and Collins’ ‘Good to Great’ so
impressed London’s Schools’ Commissioner Tim Brighouse that he ordered astock to hand out to headteachers (Collins, 2001). Fullan begins his book with aconceptual model that emphasised ways of unleashing ‘energy, enthusiasm andhope’ – one of Brighouse’s catchphrases (Fullan, 2001: 4).
While London Challenge was the most sustained and wide-ranging mission-driven
attempt to build collective moral purpose, a range of programmes, organisations
and initiatives took a similar approach:•	The transformation of Tower Hamlets was motivated by a sense that pupils
should be able to achieve more: sandwiched between the City and Canary
Wharf, the borough’s pupils should not be trapped by intergenerational
underachievement.
•	Teach First is explicitly designed around a ‘mission’ that ‘no child’s success inlife should be limited by how much their parents earn’ (Teach First, 2014).
•	The high-performing academy chain ARK couches its recruitment in terms of‘Make a difference’ and an aim of creating ‘outstanding schools that give every
pupil, regardless of their background, the opportunity to go to university or
pursue the career of their choice’ (ARK Schools, 2014b).
One interviewee coupled London Challenge and Teach First together as two
initiatives that were ‘very, very positively focused and so much in education
reform is negatively focused’. The positivity of London Challenge’s approach wasconstantly emphasised during interviews.

LESSONS FROM LONDON SCHOOLS: INVESTIGATING THE SUCCESS | 111

CHAPTER 5: LEADERSHIP

Further examples of positive practices that built a sense of possibility and collective
moral purpose include:•	employing language that emphasised London’s shared identity – for example‘Chartered London Teacher’ emphasised what schools and teachers had incommon rather than what set them apart•	using inspirational, aspirational language and targets: London needed to
become ‘the best’ even when this seemed ‘pie in the sky’; Christine Gilbert in
Tower Hamlets is credited with negotiating DfES targets up because they were
not aspirational enough for her borough•	labelling the most challenging schools ‘Keys To Success’ rather than ‘failingschools’•	celebrating headteachers’ achievements with honours (for example making key
figures Knights and Dames)•	Tim Brighouse following up school visits by writing personal letters to theteachers and headteachers he met: this was then ‘modelled across London
by the headteachers, a sort of culture of thanking people’ according to one
headteacher•	challenging limiting beliefs, as one director of children’s services told us: ‘If I
caught anybody saying that “what do you expect from these kids?”[...] thatwould be something that would be deemed very serious indeed. We had aphrase around then: “You can do anything, you can’t do everything, but you cando anything”.’
Similarly another interviewee recounted that when schools he worked in talked
about the challenge of having high proportions of pupils for whom English was anadditional language, he would say: ‘Isn’t it wonderful? Isn’t it wonderful? You’ve
probably got a Shakespeare in there!’
The impact of a positive approach is clear when headteachers talk about why
they made the decisions they did. One highly successful headteacher told us that
she would never have taken on the KTS if it were not for the positive language
used by the senior figures from London Challenge. Similarly, another headteacher
described being pleased to work on KTS because she had ‘heard about thisLondon Bus’ and was pleased to join it. She went on to describe KTS as ‘the bestthing that happened to me’. Despite the fact that we cannot ‘measure’ the impact
of moral purpose and positivity, these examples show that headteachers weresensitive to these issues of language.

112 | LESSONS FROM LONDON SCHOOLS: INVESTIGATING THE SUCCESSDESPITE THE FACT THAT WECANNOT ‘MEASURE’ THE IMPACT
OF MORAL PURPOSE ANDPOSITIVITY, THESE EXAMPLESSHOW THAT HEADTEACHERSWERE SENSITIVE TO THESE
ISSUES OF LANGUAGE.

CHAPTER 5: LEADERSHIP

It is difficult of course to quantify the effect of positivity; however, we can get somemeasure of its role by contrasting the ‘buy-in’ achieved in London with otherinitiatives that had similar goals but which were presented more negatively. London
Challenge became a much-loved brand with schools celebrating being part ofthe programme. For example one Challenge Advisor described a big billboard
outside a school proclaiming ‘We are part of London Challenge’ and one directorof children’s services admitted he labelled lots of things ‘London Challenge’ even
if they had nothing to do with it because it had such positive associations. Casting
London Challenge in a positive light was a substantial achievement given some of
the initial attitudes:‘Initially when London Challenge was set up with five boroughs nobody
wanted anything to do with it, because to be part of London Challengemeant that you were a problem. But when the five boroughs that got
involved showed how it could work I think other boroughs started to say“Hey, we want a piece of this”.’
In contrast, when in 2008 the government launched an all-England initiative basedon features of London Challenge, the branding did not accentuate the positive tothe same extent. This project was known as National Challenge and when National
Challenge schools were announced, headlines emphasised the punitive andnegative aspects of the programme – for example: ‘Civic chiefs face a caning onschools’ (George, 2008) and ‘Minister’s threats put schools in turmoil, say heads’(Curtis, 2008).
Berliner describes the ‘devastating’ consequences of the negative associations of
National Challenge, asking the question: how could a large investment in schools
have such unintended consequence?
‘Why did a scheme that would pump £400m into the secondary school
sector play so badly? Because the government didn’t understand thata policy which included a list of schools below a target and an ultimate
sanction of closing them would be the top line of a news story, rather than agenerous package of support. It’s like going into the lion’s den with a tin ofcat food. You’ll be on the menu first.’ (Berliner, 2008: 1)

LESSONS FROM LONDON SCHOOLS: INVESTIGATING THE SUCCESS | 113

CHAPTER 5: LEADERSHIPLEADERSHIP UNDERPINNED BY A THEORY OF CHANGE
The stakeholders interviewed were drawn from different professional backgrounds
and collectively had experience in:• school leadership• management of academy chains• LA leadership• management of national and regional school improvement strategies• management of the national school inspectorate• senior roles in the Civil Service• management of national professional associations.
Across these different contexts for leadership there was a common sense of
professional efficacy based on the need to apply tried and tested ideas about
action. For some these ideas were based on a reading of the research literature.
For others the frame of reference was the previous experience of the individual.
However it was derived, our stakeholders typically had a theory of change or
action that gave them a framework for their work as leaders. There was a common
view that school reform was not, in the words of the cliché, ‘rocket science’.
The content of these leadership theories varied from individual to individual but
collectively covered such topics as:• reforming large educational systems•	managing middle-tier functions such as local authority school improvement
services or the leadership of academy chains• knowledge mobilisation and effective school-to-school professional learning• school improvement at the level of the individual institution.
Possessing a framework for action strengthened the sense of possibility andencouraged optimism about change and impatience with those who thought thatthe status quo could not be changed. One respondent, for example, summarised
his view of the required method for urban school reform in 20 self-confident words:‘Use the best school leaders, focus on high quality teaching and learning, bringtalented young teachers in. There you go.’Other leaders interviewed had rather more detailed versions of the same thinking
about the overall theory of change. For another of our interviewees the London
reforms were, either by accident or design or some mix of the two, an effective
application of a formula based on the best research into system reform which
requires:• exceptional people in system leadership positions• the data needed to hold people to account• high accountability and high autonomy• a commitment to empower school leaders.

114 | LESSONS FROM LONDON SCHOOLS: INVESTIGATING THE SUCCESSCHAPTER 5: LEADERSHIPMANY OF THE INDIVIDUALS WHO
WERE INVOLVED IN THE LONDONSTORY WERE CONSIDERED
BY THEIR PEERS TO BE QUITEREMARKABLE LEADERS.

A clear theory of change typified the leadership thinking of the outstanding
headteachers and senior staff within academy chains that we interviewed. One
head of an academy chain described the consistent ‘turnaround’ strategy that hisorganisation implemented in London schools. This involved the use of standard
operating procedures in core areas such as the performance management ofteachers, approaches to pedagogy and student assessment:‘We introduce a different curriculum, we introduce intensive literacy
and numeracy schemes. We feel we have got a technology for school
improvement. In other words we have a view [...] you have to have a view.
How do you actually improve literacy? because it doesn’t happen by wishingfor it. How do you improve numeracy, what is the stuff you do, how do you
target kids, how much do you expect them to improve by, what are you
expecting from those? So we have got all that stuff and we put that in.’Another stakeholder who had played a key role in London Challenge talked
passionately about how the profession knew how to bring about school
improvement through structured support and challenge. He described this as ‘themethodology’, and expressed his frustration that it was not universally used: ‘The
methodology! I’m getting a bit too enthusiastic now, sorry! The methodology isthere. We don’t need the talk about the radical solutions because we’ve got them.’
This idea of the application of proven practice, rather than a search for innovation
was also expressed by a former civil servant. In discussing the ITP and OTP
programmes, which appear to have helped improve pedagogical practice inparticipating schools, he commented that the thinking behind these courses
was not new or particularly innovative. It was the energetic application of existing
proven practice that characterised the programme. One interviewee explained:‘That was just a well-designed programme to help people adopt known
effective practices [...] On the whole we thought more about how to get the
known effective practice more widely used, rather than thinking about how
to develop innovative methods, models and so on.’THE EXCEPTIONAL LEADERSHIP OF KEY INDIVIDUALS
Many of the individuals who were involved in the London story were considered bytheir peers to be quite remarkable leaders. The person who attracted the greatest
number of comments about his individual contribution and distinctive leadershipstyle was Tim Brighouse. He was closely followed by the senior civil servant, andnow academy chain leader, Jon Coles. Both Brighouse and Coles were thoughtby their peers to have brought unusual leadership energy and insight to thetransformation of London schools.

LESSONS FROM LONDON SCHOOLS: INVESTIGATING THE SUCCESS | 115

CHAPTER 5: LEADERSHIP

Their work was described in positive terms by people from many different
backgrounds:‘I wouldn’t underestimate Tim Brighouse himself, [or] Jon Coles himself.
You know, there were people leading this programme who, because of their
combination of experience, ability and authority, commanded the respectthat was needed for this to be something that everyone signed up to.’(Former minister)‘There could have been civil servants who would not have let that approachwork because they were more used to working in a prescriptive top-down
way. So I actually think Jon’s ability to understand that, probably alongside
Tim Brighouse, and the ability to let that function – when possibly there
may have been concerns raised about needing a more clearly structured
top-down approach – I think that was a strong contributory factor.’ (Senior
university academic)‘Brighouse spent hours doing all this stuff, and he engaged everyone, andhe had the confidence to do it; without his leadership we would never havegot anywhere.’ (Leader of a headteachers’ professional association)
By shaping a collective, mission-driven culture around education in London, key
individuals were able to set a context in which teachers and leaders could flourish.
One headteacher explained that the workforce was willing to go to huge lengths
and do ‘whatever it takes’ to achieve the vision as a result of these individuals’
approach: ‘People will walk over glass for those kinds of people because it’s sointeresting and exciting and you feel as if you’re doing a great job and you’re reallymaking a difference.’
The theme of exceptional leadership extends well beyond Tim Brighouse and Jon
Coles. Teach First has been led energetically and successfully from the beginning
by Brett Wigdortz, and he has given the organisation a distinctive character,particularly in terms of its moral purpose. Key academy chains, such as ARK
Schools and the Harris Federation, have benefitted from leadership of a high order
and, like Teach First, a substantial measure of leadership continuity over the last
decade. Some of the most effective LAs enjoyed significant ‘stability’ of leadership,according to some of the borough interviewees.
In addition to the Tim Brighouse’s charismatic leadership, London Challenge hadreal depth in terms of leadership expertise. The same names repeatedly crop up
in discussions with key stakeholders about talented and influential leaders: David
Woods (who worked for the DfE as principal London Challenge Adviser andlater Commissioner for London); George Berwick and Sue John (both London
headteachers who worked for NCSL in directing the leadership strategy for London
Challenge) and many more. At the next managerial level, one highly regarded groupwere the Challenge Advisors who worked closely with the KTS schools and thevulnerable local authorities. They adopted a problem-solving approach and had a highdegree of credibility with both schools and local authorities.

116 | LESSONS FROM LONDON SCHOOLS: INVESTIGATING THE SUCCESSBY SHAPING A COLLECTIVE,MISSION-DRIVEN CULTURE
AROUND EDUCATION IN LONDON,KEY INDIVIDUALS WERE ABLE
TO SET A CONTEXT IN WHICH
TEACHERS AND LEADERS COULD
FLOURISH.

CHAPTER 5: LEADERSHIP

They won the trust of headteachers and local authority officers who could easily
have perceived them in fearful or antagonistic terms were it not for their professional
skill. In their 2010 evaluation of London Challenge Ofsted paid tribute to the role of
the Challenge Advisors for their relentless commitment to the key messages of the
programme:‘From the beginning of London Challenge, London schools have received
clear, consistent leadership from the team leaders appointed by the
DfE. Their message has been the pressing need to improve educational
standards and the sense of professional duty incumbent on teachers to
do this for London children. Over time, that message of commitment andencouragement has been repeated consistently by the London Challenge
leadership team. These endeavours have reinforced a clear sense of moral
purpose among teachers and school leaders to close attainment gaps
between London and the rest of the country. The staff in almost every schoolthat contributed to this survey expressed their commitment to London
children, not simply to those in their own school. Their sense of pride inbeing part of a city-wide education service, irrespective of whether they werereceiving or providing support, was a fundamental characteristic of London
City Challenge.’ (Ofsted 2010: 4)

SUMMARY
As with the school improvement strategies discussed in chapter 4, the successfulrole played by leadership during the London transformation cannot be allocated to
one single facet of the concept, and instead is due to a complex combination of
approaches and individuals.
Aspects of leadership which can all be considered crucial to the success of
London include:•	long-term sustained political will and support•	the identification of outstanding headteachers from across London to provide
system leadership and to support the KTS schools• the role played by key individuals such as Tim Brighouse and Jon Coles•	an approach to leadership which was underpinned by data and based upon
theories of change• an emphasis on a shared moral purpose and values• an overwhelming sense of positivity in the approach.
An emphasis on effective leadership at different levels of the system (political,
system and school level) was underpinned through a number of overarchingapproaches, and it was this combination which can ultimately be considered
responsible for much of the London success story.

LESSONS FROM LONDON SCHOOLS: INVESTIGATING THE SUCCESS | 117

CHAPTER 6:

LESSONSFROM LONDON
The London story is of global significance. While the context of every great city is
distinct, policymakers worldwide who are interested in urban school reform canlearn from the London experience.

CHAPTER 6: LESSONS FROM LONDONIn this concluding chapter we reflect on some of the key lessons thatcan be derived from the London school improvement story. We haveidentified seven lessons from the London story, outlined below.

LESSON 1: ENSURE THAT POLICY IS BASED ON HARD EVIDENCE OF EFFECTIVENESS
Although there is substantial evidence of improvement in London schools, there ismuch less evidence of the causes of impact because the evaluation of the effectof the various interventions was not a high priority when the London reforms werebeing designed. Several of the key London reforms – specific London Challengeinterventions, the use of sponsored academies and the deployment of Teach First
teachers – could have been piloted first and subject to randomised controlled
trial testing. This did not happen. London interventions have been evaluated byexpert researchers but the absence of a comparator control group for any specificprogrammes severely limits our ability to measure the precise impact of particularapproaches.

Take the example of Teach First as it is the easiest of the policies, programmes
and reforms discussed in this report with which to demonstrate the extent towhich there was a missed opportunity. The programme was an attempt to adapt
for London a well-established American model for teacher recruitment known as
Teach for America. A small band of Teach First teachers were deployed in highlydisadvantaged London schools in September 2003. The impact of their work could
have been tested through the use of a control group of similarly disadvantaged
London schools who were not involved. A similar point could be made about
particular facets of the London Challenge suite of interventions and the use ofsponsored academies in places where previous schools had a history of failure.
Of course there are reasons why the policymakers did not trial each of the various
London interventions. Some decisions were motivated by an ethical concern to share
the benefits of promising programmes as soon as possible. In addition, politicians press
for rapid change. Organising rigorous field trials rather than going straight to ‘roll-out’
involves delay and reduces the short-term political benefit of new reforms. However,these views represent a barrier to effective evidence-based policymaking.
The lesson is that policy in a fundamental area such as urban school reform should
start with the testing of the benefits of promising interventions in a systematic
way through the use of pilot phases, carefully matched control groups andcomplementary qualitative investigations of the contextual supports and barriers.
Then, if evidentially supported, scaling up the roll-out of successful interventions
should continue to involve experimental, controlled investigation alongside thecollection of rich qualitative data. School reform is too important to be left to
intuition or even educated guesswork.
LESSONS FROM LONDON SCHOOLS: INVESTIGATING THE SUCCESS | 119

CHAPTER 6: LESSONS FROM LONDONLESSON 2: MAINTAIN A SUSTAINED AND CONSISTENT POLICY MOMENTUM FOR
CHANGE OVER TIME
London schools benefitted from the highly unusual level of long-term, crosspartisan support that they received from government. The academies programme,for example, began in 2002 and is still in place today. London Challenge ran from2003 to 2011 and the office of the Mayor of London is attempting to build on
aspects of the programme today. Teach First teachers were initially deployed in2003 and a new cohort of idealistic young teachers have gone to work in London
schools in every subsequent year over a decade. This sustained ‘attack’ onunderperformance has paid dividends. The London story is a reminder that school
reform is not a quick fix. Changing professional culture is not a question of ‘flicking
a switch’ or issuing a ministerial directive. It requires, to use the word of one of ourexpert witnesses, a ‘relentless’ focus over a long period of time. It is one of thecharacteristics of high-performing jurisdictions, such as Finland and Singapore,that education policy maintains a large degree of consistency over time. This isalso one of the key lessons from the success of London schools.

LESSON 3: USE PERFORMANCE DATA SYSTEMATICALLY TO MAKE THE CASE FOR
CHANGE
Our expert witnesses described how the ‘terms of trade’ changed in London sothat schools were increasingly run in the interests of students rather than in theinterests of the workforce. This was made possible through the gathering andcomparative analysis of performance data at every level of the London education
system. Performance in the years 2000–2003 was highly varied, with someschools doing well and some doing badly despite the fact that they served very
similar communities. It was the benchmarking of data that made it possible tochallenge underperformance on the compelling grounds that if other schools were
doing much better with a similar intake of students significant improvement waspossible. The use of data, therefore, generated both optimism and urgency about
the need for change.

LESSON 4: TRANSFORM UNDERPERFORMING SCHOOLS THROUGH WELL-MANAGED,SECTOR-LED SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT ACTIVITIES
London pioneered the successful use of expert practitioners as leaders of change
in the context of individual underperforming schools. Central to this was the workof serving headteachers designated as NLEs, with an outreach responsibility forthe improvement of other schools. The best schools became hubs for professional
development through their work as teaching schools. Sector-led school
improvement activity was of benefit not only to the ‘recipient’ schools but also tothe ‘home’ school because the partnership relationships created an enhanced
environment for reflection on school effectiveness.
The NLEs in London schools operated both as the leaders of individual schools
and as system leaders. This was possible because they accepted that as
system leaders they had a shared responsibility for the performance of students
at community level in addition to their responsibility for students at their own
individual schools.

120 | LESSONS FROM LONDON SCHOOLS: INVESTIGATING THE SUCCESSCHAPTER 6: LESSONS FROM LONDON

While the London story demonstrated the potential of a sector-led model, italso confirmed that school-to-school support requires careful management. In
particular, NLEs as consultant leaders needed very careful selection, training andquality assurance, as there is no guarantee that a good headteacher will make fora good consultant leader.

LESSON 5: DEVELOP AN EFFECTIVE ‘MIDDLE TIER’ TO SUPPORT SECTOR-LED
IMPROVEMENT ACTIVITY
While London schools did not improve through the imposition of ‘top-down’solutions, they did benefit from organisational support at a city-wide and more
local level. It is not enough for central government to create a system of largely
autonomous schools. There is a need for support mechanisms at an accessible
and local level. London Challenge operated at borough and city level andencouraged London teachers’ perceptions of themselves as sharing a common
cause with other London teachers. The more recent activities of the Mayor’s officesimilarly play to this sense of city-wide London identity.
The more effective local authorities and academy chains fulfilled a vital role in theprovision of data-based support and challenge for schools and the brokerage of support
from other high-performing schools. The level of ‘middle tier’ support for London schools
has reduced since 2010 while the pattern of improvement has continued. Some of ourexpert witnesses were concerned that without more mediation and support the sectorled approach to school improvement remained fragile.

LESSON 6: ENSURE THAT TEACHING IS A CAREER OF CHOICE FOR TALENTED AND
IDEALISTIC RECRUITSIn London efforts have been made to attract and retain high quality teachers andthe professional culture across the capital has improved. Teach First has contributed
significantly to a new perception of teaching in London as a high status profession
for able graduates. In the past many well qualified teachers have sought posts inschools serving relatively prosperous communities. Teach First has changed this byrequiring participants to teach in the capital’s most disadvantaged schools. This has
contributed to the renewed energy and optimism in these schools.

LESSON 7: APPLY PRESSURE FOR CHANGE THROUGH ALLOWING MARKET ENTRY TO
NEW PROVIDERS OF EDUCATION SERVICES
London’s school system since 2000 has become more diverse, particularly
through the introduction of sponsored academies. Although the evidence for
their performance is mixed, the best new sponsored academies are someof the highest-performing state-funded schools in England. Some of ourexpert witnesses spoke about how the very existence of an alternative form ofgovernance, through the academies programme ‘concentrated the mind’ andassisted others to ‘raise their game’.
New providers also assisted in the improvement of some LA education services.
Although again the evidence is mixed, boroughs such as Islington and Hackney
benefitted from new forms of public-private partnership and creative thinking about
the role of new providers of education services.

LESSONS FROM LONDON SCHOOLS: INVESTIGATING THE SUCCESS | 121

REFERENCESREFERENCES
Ainscow, M. (2012) ‘Moving knowledge around: strategies for fostering equity within
educational systems.’ Journal of educational change 13, 289–310.
Allen, R. & Allnutt, J. (2013) Matched panel data estimates of the impact of Teach First on
school and departmental performance. London: University of London.
Allen, R. (2012) ‘How can London schools be so good, given the high cost of living forteachers?’ IOE London blog [Online] available from: <http://ioelondonblog.wordpress.
com/2012/05/22/how-can-london-schools-be-so-good-given-the-high-cost-of-livingfor-teachers> [Accessed 14 May 2014]
Allen, R. (2013) ‘How can we learn if Teach First is working?’ IOE London blog [Online]
available from: <http://rebeccaallen.co.uk/2013/09/08/how-can-we-learn-if-teach-firstis-working/> [Accessed 14 May 2014]
Allen, R., Burgess, S., Rasul, I. & McKenna, L. (2012) Understanding school financial
decisions. [Online] available from <https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/
uploads/attachment_data/file/183383/DFE-RR183.pdf> [Accessed 15 May 2014]
APPG (All Party Parliamentary Group) on Social Mobility (2013) Capital mobility. [Online]
available from < http://www.damianhinds.com/APPGSMCapitalMobilityDec2013.pdf>[Accessed 15 May 2014]
ARK Schools (2014a) Network hubs. [Online] available from < http://www.arkschools.org/
network-hubs> [Accessed 16 May 2014]
ARK Schools (2014b) Homepage. [Online] available from <http://www.arkschools.org/>[Accessed 26 March 2014]
Barber, M. (1992) Education in the capital. London: Cassell.
Berliner, W. (2008) ‘Education: Who is failing whom?: How does it feel to wake up one
morning and find your successful, happy school is suddenly “failing”?’ The Guardian
24 June, Education Section p.1.
Blatchford, P., Bassett, P., Brown, P., Martin, C., Russell, A. & Webster, R. (2009)
Deployment and impact of support staff project. [Online] available from <http://www.ioe.
ac.uk/documents/DISS_Research_Summary.pdf> [Accessed 20 May 2014]
Bradon, T., Eldor, M., Kirkpatrick, J., Wigdortz, B. & Wilshire, M. (2002) Secondary
education in London: background and performance, findings from the diagnostic conducted
for pro bono engagement for London First and Business in the Community. McKinsey,
Unpublished.
Centre for Cities (2014) Cities outlook 2014. [Online] available from <http://www.
centreforcities.org/assets/files/2014/Cities_Outlook_2014.pdf> [Accessed 16 May
2014]
Chowdry, H. & Sibieta, L. (2011) School funding reform: an empirical analysis of options fora national funding formula. [IFS Briefing Note BN123]. Institute for Fiscal Studies [Online]
available from <http://www.ifs.org.uk/bns/bn123.pdf> [Accessed 17 June 2014]
Coe, R. (2014) ‘Classroom observation: it’s harder than you think.’ Centre for Evaluation andMonitoring (CEM) blog [online] available from <http://www.cem.org/blog/414/> [Accessed
6 April 2014]

122 | LESSONS FROM LONDON SCHOOLS: INVESTIGATING THE SUCCESSREFERENCES

Collins, J. (2001) Good to great: Why some companies make the leap... and others don’t.
London: Random House.
Cook, C. (2013a) ‘The London schools mystery.’ The Financial Times Data blog [online]
available from <http://blogs.ft.com/ftdata/2013/04/18/the-london-schools-mystery/>[Accessed 16 May 2014]
Cook, C. (2013b) ‘Academies are not all alike.’ The Financial Times Data blog [Online]
available from <http://blogs.ft.com/ftdata/2013/01/07/academy-performanc/>[Accessed 16 May 2014]
Cook, C. (2014) Unpublished data.
Curtis, P. (2008) ‘National: Minister’s threats put schools in turmoil, say heads: Balls gives
LEAs 50 days to plan action on strugglers.’ The Guardian 11 June, p.12.
Davies, S. (2011) What is the value of partnerships between the education and creative/
cultural sectors? London: A New Direction.
Day, C. & Sammons, P. (2013) Successful leadership. Reading: CfBT Education Trust.
DCSF (Department for Children, Schools and Families) (2006) School workforce in England(including pupil: teacher ratios and pupil: adult ratios), January 2006 (revised). [Online]
available from <http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130401151655/http://
www.education.gov.uk/researchandstatistics/statistics/allstatistics/a00195285/
school-workforce-in-england-%28including-pupil-teach> [Accessed 16 May 2014]
DCSF (2009a) Measuring progress at pupil, school and national levels. [Online] available
from <https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/
file/222084/DCSF-RTP-09-02.pdf> [Accessed 1 May 2014]
DCSF (2009b) School workforce in England (including Local Authority level figures),
January 2009 (revised). [Online] available from <http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.
uk/20130313205001/http://education.gov.uk/rsgateway/DB/SFR/s000874/index.
shtml> [Accessed 16 May 2014]
DCSF (2010) School workforce survey statistics (2002–2009). [Online] available from<http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130401151655/http://www.education.
gov.uk/researchandstatistics/statistics/allstatistics> [Accessed 16 May 2014]
De Lima, J. (2010) ‘Thinking more deeply about networks in education.’ Journal of
educational change 11, 1–21.
DfE (Department for Education) (2010) Schools, pupils and their characteristics: January
2010. [Online] available from <https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/schoolspupils-and-their-characteristics-january-2010> [Accessed 17 June 2014]
DfE (2012) Destinations of key stage 4 and key stage 5 pupils: academic year 2009 to 2010.
[Online] available from <https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/destinations-ofkey-stage-4-and-key-stage-5-pupils-academic-year-2009-to-2010> [9 June 2014]
DfE (2013a) GCSE and equivalent results including KS3 provisional. [Online] available from<https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/2013-gcse-and-equivalent-resultsincluding-key-stage-3-provisional> [Accessed 15 May 2014]

LESSONS FROM LONDON SCHOOLS: INVESTIGATING THE SUCCESS | 123

REFERENCES

DfE (2013b) Schools, pupils and their characteristics: January 2013. [Online] available
from <https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/schools-pupils-and-theircharacteristics-january-2013> [Accessed 16 May 2014]
DfE (2013c) National Curriculum Assessment and GCSE/GNVQ attainment by pupilcharacteristics, in England, 2002 (final) and 2003 (provisional). [Online] available from<http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130401151655/http://www.education.
gov.uk/researchandstatistics/statistics/allstatistics/a00194220/national-curriculumassessment-and-gcse-gnvq-attai> [Accessed 14 May 2014]
DfE (2013d) School level and LA level finance data: 1999 to 2012. [Online] available from<https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/school-level-and-la-level-financedata-from-1999-to-2012> [Accessed 28 May 2014]
DfE (2014a) GCSE and equivalent attainment by pupil characteristics. [Online] available from<https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/gcse-and-equivalent-attainment-bypupil-characteristics-2012-to-2013> [Accessed 15 May 2014]
DfE (2014b) Becoming an academy: information for schools. [Online] available from<https://www.gov.uk/become-an-academy-information-for-schools> [Accessed 20
May 2014]
DfES (Department for Education and Skills) (2003) The London Challenge: transforming
London secondary schools. [Online] available from <http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/10309/1/
London%2520Challenge%2520transforming%2520london%2520secondary%2520
schools.pdf> [Accessed 14 May 2014]
DfES (2005a) London Challenge: From good to outstanding. Nottingham: DfES.
DfES (2005b) GCSE and equivalent results and associated value added measures foryoung people in England 2003/04 (final). [Online] available from <http://webarchive.
nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130401151655/http://www.education.gov.uk/
researchandstatistics/statistics/allstatistics/a00194820/gcse-and-equivalent-resultsand-associated-value-a> [Accessed 20 May 2014]
Durbin, B., Rutt, S., Saltini, F., Sharp, C., Teeman, D. & White, K. (2010) The Impact of
creative partnerships on school attainment and attendance. Slough: NFER.
Fullan, M. (2001) Leading in a culture of change. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco CA: John
Wiley & Sons.
George, M. (2008) ‘Civic chiefs face a caning on schools.’ Western daily press 29 April,
p.10.
Gibbons, S., McNally, S. & Viarengo, M. (2011) Does additional spending help urban
schools? an evaluation using boundary discontinuities. CEE DP 128. London: Centre for the
Economics of Education.
Greater London Assembly (2001) Key issues for key workers. Affordable housing in London.
London: Greater London Assembly.
Hamnett, C. & Butler, T. (2013) ‘Distance, education and inequality.’ Comparative education
49, 317–330.
Hansard (2013) Written answers to questions. [Online] available from <http://www.
publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmhansrd/cm130612/text/130612w0001.
htm> [Accessed 15 May 2014]

124 | LESSONS FROM LONDON SCHOOLS: INVESTIGATING THE SUCCESSREFERENCES

Hanushek, E. (1986) ‘The economics of schooling.’ Journal of economic literature 24,
1141–1177.
Hanushek, E. (1989) ‘Expenditures, efficiency, and equity in education: the federal
government’s role.’ The American economic review 46–51.
Hanushek, E. (1996) ‘A more complete picture of school resource policies.’ Review of
educational research 66, 397–409.
Hanushek, E. (2003) ‘The failure of input-based schooling policies.’ The economic journal
113, F64–F98.
Harris, A., James, S., Gunraj, J. and Clarke, P. (2006) Improving schools in exceptionallychallenging circumstances: tales from the frontline. London: Continuum.
HEFCE (Higher Education Funding Council for England) (2012) POLAR3: Young participation
rates in higher education. London: HEFCE.
HEFCE (2013) Trends in young participation in higher education [Issues paper,
2013/28]. [Online] available from <https://www.hefce.ac.uk/media/hefce/content/
pubs/2013/201328/HEFCE_2013_28.pdf> [Accessed 20 May 2014]
Higgins, S., Hall, E., Wall, K., Woolner, P. & McCaughey, C. (2005) The impact of school
environments: a literature review. Newcastle: University of Newcastle.
Hill, R. (2010) Chain reactions: a thinkpiece on the development of chains of schools in the
English school system. Nottingham: The National College. [Online] available from <http://
dera.ioe.ac.uk/2070/> [Accessed 4 June 2014]
Hill, R. & Matthews, P. (2008) Schools leading schools: the power and potential of National
Leaders of Education. Nottingham: National College for School Leadership. [Online]
available from <http://www.curee.co.uk/files/publication/1301587364/Matthews%20
evaluation%20of%20NLEs.pdf> [Accessed 23 April 2014]
Howson, J. & Sprigade, A. (2012) 27th annual survey of senior staff appointments in schools
across England, Wales and Scotland. London: Education Data Surveys and Data for
Education.
Hutchings, M. & Mansaray, A. (2013) A review of the impact of the London Challenge (20038) and the City Challenge (2008-11). [Online] available from <http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/
resources/access-and-achievement-background-papers> [Accessed 16 May 2014]
Hutchings, M., Greenwood, C., Hollingworth, S., Mansaray, A., Rose, A. & Glass, K. (2012a)
Evaluation of the City Challenge programme. [Online] available from <https://www.gov.uk/
government/publications/evaluation-of-the-city-challenge-programme> [Accessed 16
May 2014]
Hutchings, M., Greenwood, C., Hollingworth, S., Mansaray, A., Rose, A. & Glass, K. (2012b)
Evaluation of the City Challenge programme: appendices. [Online] available from <https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/evaluation-of-the-city-challenge-programme>[Accessed 16 May 2014]
Hutchings, M., Maylor, U., Mendick, H., Mentor, I. & Smart, S. (2006) An evaluation of
innovative approaches to teacher training on the Teach First programme: final report to theTraining and Development Agency for Schools. [Online] available from <https://metranet.
londonmet.ac.uk/fms/MRSite/Research/ipse/FINAL%20Report%20Teach%20
First%20July06.pdf> [Accessed 16 May 2014]

LESSONS FROM LONDON SCHOOLS: INVESTIGATING THE SUCCESS | 125

REFERENCES

Hutchings, M., Menter, I., Ross, A. & Britain, G. (2000) Teacher supply and retention in
London 1998-99: a study of six London boroughs. London: Teacher Training Agency.
Ipsos MORI (2010) Teachers omnibus 2009 for creativity, culture and education. London:
Ipsos MORI.
Kidson, M. (2014) ‘Implementing the London Challenge: beyond top-down and bottom-up.’
Institute for Government blog [Online] available from <http://www.instituteforgovernment.
org.uk/blog/7244/implementing-the-london-challenge-beyond-top-down-andbottom-up/> [Accessed 16 May 2014]
Kintrea, K., St Clair, R. and Houston, M. (2011) The influence of parents, places and poverty
on educational attitudes and aspirations. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
Labour Teachers (2012) Stephen Twigg’s speech to National Children and Adult Services
Conference. [Online] available from <http://www.labourteachers.org.uk/stephen-twiggsspeech-to-national-children-and-adult-services-conference/> [Accessed 16 May 2014]
Levačić, R., Jenkins, A., Vignoles, A., Steele, F. & Allen, R. (2005) Estimating the relationshipbetween school resources and pupil attainment at Key Stage 3. London: Department for
Education and Skills.
Lupton, R. (2004) Schools in disadvantaged areas: recognising context and raising quality.
CASEpaper 76.
Machin, S. & Silva, O. (2013) School structure, school autonomy and the tail. London:
Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
Machin, S. & Vernoit, J. (2011) Changing school autonomy: academy schools and theirintroduction to England’s education. London: Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
Machin, S. & Wilson, J. (2009) Academy schools and pupil performance. London: Centre for
Economic Performance, LSE.
Machin, S., Telhaj, S. & Wilson, J. (2006) The mobility of English school children. London:
LSE. [Online] available from <http://cee.lse.ac.uk/ceedps/ceedp67.pdf> [Accessed 4
June 2014]
Mayor of London (2012) The Mayor’s education inquiry. [Online] available from <https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/The%20Mayor%27s%20Education%20
Inquiry%20Final%20Report.pdf> [Accessed 16 May 2014]
Mayor of London (2013) The London annual education report 2013. [Online] available
from <http://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/The%20London%20Annual%20
Education%20Report%202013.pdf> [Accessed 16 May 2014]
Menzies, L. (2013) Do struggling schools improve? [Online] available from <http://www.
lkmco.org/article/do-struggling-schools-improve-06122013> [Accessed 29 April 2014]
Muijs, D., Chapman, C. & Armstrong, P. (2010) Maximum impact evaluation: the impact ofTeach First teachers in schools. Manchester: University of Manchester.
NAO (National Audit Office) (2007) The academies programme. [Online] available from<http://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2007/02/0607254.pdf> [Accessed 14 May
2014]
NAO (2009) Partnering for school improvement. [Online] available from <http://www.nao.
org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/0809822.pdf> [Accessed 16 May 2014]

126 | LESSONS FROM LONDON SCHOOLS: INVESTIGATING THE SUCCESSREFERENCES

NAO (2010) The academies programme. [Online] available from http://www.nao.org.uk/
wp-content/uploads/2010/09/1011288.pdf [Accessed 16 May 2014]
NAO (2012) Managing the expansion of the academies programme. [Online] available
from <https://www.nao.org.uk/report/managing-the-expansion-of-the-academiesprogramme/> [Accessed 14 May 2014]
OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) (2008) Improving schoolleadership: executive summaries. Brussels: OECD.
Ofsted (2006) Improvements in London schools 2000–06. [Online] available from <http://
www.ofsted.gov.uk/resources/improvements-london-schools-2000-06> [Accessed 16
May 2014]
Ofsted (2010) London Challenge. London: Ofsted.
Ofsted (2014) Dataview. [Online] available from <http://dataview.ofsted.gov.uk/#/Tab/?percentageType=1&remit=3&deprivation=0&providerType=7&judgement=1&pr
ovisionType=0&year=2013-12-31&areaType=1&regionId=0&similarDate=2013-1231&regionOne=3&regionTwo=0&eightRegions=false&tabName=RegionalComparison&_=1400059967407> [Accessed 14 May 2014]
Ogden, V. (2013) Making sense of policy in London secondary education: what can belearned from the London Challenge? Unpublished thesis.
ONS (Office for National Statistics) (2013) ‘2001 and 2011 census data.’ Nomis: Official
labour market statistics [online] available from <https://www.nomisweb.co.uk/> [Accessed
16 May 2014]
ONS (2014) Neighbourhood statistics. [Online] available from <http://www.neighbourhood.
statistics.gov.uk/dissemination/datasetList.do?JSAllowed=true&Function=&%24ph=60&CurrentPageId=60&step=1&CurrentTreeIndex=-1&searchString=&datasetFamilyId=
1642&Next.x=10&Next.y=14> [Accessed 15 May 2014]
Perry, E. & Francis, B. (2010) The social class gap for educational achievement: a review ofthe literature. London: RSA.
PfS (Partnership for Schools) Benefits realisation report for the board. [Online] available from<http://www.building.co.uk/Journals/2012/07/05/s/j/h/Benefits-Realisation-Report.
pdf> [Accessed 21 May 2014]
Poet, H. & Kettlewell, K. (2011) Evaluation of City Challenge leadership strategies: London
area report. Slough: National Foundation for Educational Research.
PwC (PricewaterhouseCoopers) (2008) Academies evaluation: fifth annual report.
Nottingham: DCSF.
Ross, A. & Hutchings, M. (2003) ‘Attracting, developing and retaining effective teachers
in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.’ OECD country backgroundreport [online] available from <http://www. oecd. org/dataoecd/62/25/2635748>[Accessed 4 July 2013]
Rudd, P., Poet, H., Featherstone, G., Lamont, E., Durbin, B., Bergeron, C., Bramley, G.,
Kettlewell, K. & Hart, R. (2011) Evaluation of City Challenge leadership strategies: overview
report. Slough: NFER.
Sinnott, J. (2014) Personal email.

LESSONS FROM LONDON SCHOOLS: INVESTIGATING THE SUCCESS | 127

REFERENCES

Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission (2013) State of the nation 2013: social
mobility and child poverty in Great Britain. London: The Stationery Office.
Strategy Unit (2001) Education strategy review. London: Strategy Unit.
Teach First (2013) Unpublished data.
Teach First (2014) Homepage. [Online] available from <http://www.teachfirst.org.uk/>[Accessed 26 March 2014]
Tower Hamlets Council (2013) Ethnicity in Tower Hamlets: analysis of 2011 census data.
[Online] available from <http://www.towerhamlets.gov.uk/idoc.ashx?docid=9844a055178d-420d-94f7-6a2e96a9a8a4&version=1> [Accessed 4 June 2014]
Understanding Society (2014) Main survey, wave 1. [Online] available from<https://www.understandingsociety.ac.uk/documentation/mainstage/datasetdocumentation> [Accessed 15 May 2014]
Vasagar, J. (2012) ‘Buried report praised Labour’s school building programme.’ Guardian
online [Online] available from <http://www.theguardian.com/education/2012/jul/05/
buried-report-labour-school-building> [Accessed 15 May 2014]
West, M. (2010) ‘School-to-school cooperation as a strategy for improving student
outcomes in challenging contexts.’ School effectiveness and school improvement 21,
93–112.
Wiseman, J. & Dent, R. (2007) London Challenge: survey of parents and carers 2006.
London: DfES.
Woods, D., Husbands, C. & Brown, C. (2013) Transforming Education for All: the Tower
Hamlets story. [Online] available from <http://www.thomasbuxton.towerhamlets.sch.uk/
files/press/transforming-education.pdf> [Accessed 16 May 2014]

128 | LESSONS FROM LONDON SCHOOLS: INVESTIGATING THE SUCCESSAPPENDIX A

APPENDIX A: METHODS
The particular elements employed to investigate the success of London’ schools
included:•	Literature review – conducted to assess the existing evidence base and define
the main lines of enquiry for the study. The review included academic sources,
government reports and papers and media articles. These have been used in
two ways: firstly, to produce a list of possible explanations for the success that
London has experienced, and secondly, to offer either support or challenge forthose theories.
•	Secondary analysis of quantitative and qualitative data – a key element of themethodology adopted here has been the collection and scrutiny of existing
quantitative data. Typically such data has been used to track change over time,compare London with other parts of the country or the national average in orderto establish the extent to which any given cause proffered for London’s successappears to be supported by evidence.
	We are particularly indebted to Chris Cook for allowing us access to
his analyses – re-analysis of these has enabled us to undertake carefulconsideration of possible explanatory factors often mentioned in the context
of the changes seen in London. The work of Cook has been drawn on several
times. His original analysis was based upon the National Pupil Database (NPD)
showing LA performance between 2004 and 2012 excluding ‘equivalents’ –non-GCSE qualifications that were considered at the time to be equivalent to
GCSE. He allocates each pupil eight points for an A* down to one for a G for
the best five GCSEs. His analyses show how well pupils do compared to how
they would be expected to do according to regression models which take into
account their ethnicity, Special Educational Needs (SEN) and socio-economic
background (defined by their Lower Super Output Area’s Income Deprivation
Affecting Children Index (IDACI) score). He has also run this type of analysis
at borough level to compare how well pupils in different boroughs perform
compared to how they would be expected to perform if they were in one major
city (Birmingham). The results are relative to national averages so are immune tograde inflation. We have used the difference between 2004 and 2012 scores tocalculate contextualised improvement over time at borough level.
	In addition to this, other key data sources have been used. These include
performance measures such as percentage of pupils achieving five or more
A*-Cs GCSEs (PTAC5); percentage of pupils achieving five or more A*-C
GCSEs including English and mathematics (AC5EM) – with and without GCSE
equivalents; Ofsted school inspection data; the DfE’s school census from2004 onwards; demographic and economic data from the Office for National
Statistics (ONS) on migration, ethnic composition, job density, occupational
structure; data on funding – DfE Consistent Financial Reporting data, data on
revenue income, surpluses, deficits, and LA outturn statements; workforce
information including the School Workforce Census and the database of teacher
records for pensions.

LESSONS FROM LONDON SCHOOLS: INVESTIGATING THE SUCCESS | 129

APPENDIX A	There are some limitations associated with the data that was collected. For
example some data does not separate inner and outer London, and some does
not allow for comparison over time because of the changing nature of what wascollected or the ways in which information has been reported.
•	Semi-structured interviews – conducted with 25 key individuals, all of whom had
been or still were key figures in the London or national education system either
at a political, school or LA level or in other educational organisations including
multi-academy trusts or ‘chains’. Some interviewees personally spanned
multiple categories because of the different jobs they have undertaken over thelast two decades.
	The semi-structured interview script was structured around four themes: firstly,
the interviews examined the nature of London schools’ success; secondly,
they explored the reasons for this success; thirdly, they considered the validity
and importance of the main themes identified in the literature review, and finallythey considered the transferability of London’s success to other contexts.
Most interviews were between 30 minutes and an hour in duration, and wereconducted either in person or by telephone.
•	Focus groups and interviews in six LAs (Haringey, Havering, Tower Hamlets,
Southwark, Barking & Dagenham and Westminster) – a total of sevenpractitioner focus groups (in five schools across four boroughs) were undertaken
by NFER. The focus groups were conducted in state secondary schools (bothlocal authority maintained and academies) which had been established forat least ten years and were based in one of four focus boroughs: Haringey,
Havering, Southwark and Tower Hamlets. The focus groups were attended by
32 participating staff including senior leaders, middle leaders, subject leaders,teachers and an administrator. During the focus groups the participants wereasked to comment on the changes they had perceived over time related totheir motivation to work where they do; the opportunities for CPD, change in
the nature of networking, collaboration and leadership; the nature of challenge,
accountability and underperformance; and changing demography andopportunity.
	An additional 25 interviews were conducted in all six boroughs. These interviews
involved LA executives and representatives, outsource service providers,
government officials and independent consultants. The interviews were semistructured, and participants were asked about changes related to teacher
and leadership development; measuring and improving school performance;
demographic change; context and moral purpose.

130 | LESSONS FROM LONDON SCHOOLS: INVESTIGATING THE SUCCESSLKMco Ltd

The Exchange,
Fielden House,
28 London Bridge Street,SE1 9SG12 Grange Gardens
Cambridge
CB3 9AT

0118 902 1000
www.cfbt.com

020 3102 3767
www.centreforlondon.org

07793 370459
www.lkmco.org

06/14 ISBN: 978-1-909437-50-0

Centre for London

60 Queens Road
Reading
Berkshire
RG1 4BSPMS: 6608

CfBT Education Trust