This article examines the conditions for the growth and expansion of research-engaged schools in England. The current policy climate is seeing a rapid growth of autonomous schools coupled with the continuing tendency to hold schools to account for overall student educational attainment indicators. Within this context, the article begins by considering some of the benefits of developing a research-led school culture and gives a brief account of the research-engaged school movement. Using a biological analogy, the article argues for an understanding of the growth of a school research culture as occurring within an interconnected ecosystem. Four ‘nourishing’ factors are explained in detail: systemic connectedness; leadership for knowledge creation; teaching as a research-informed practice; and the school as a learning organisation. School leaders are urged to consider developing a culture of research engagement as a long-term, sustainable improvement strategy.

This paper explores the impact of external accountability on four mechanisms of network-internal quality control and the properties of (mandated) inter-organizational networks. An explorative case study approach examines the external accountability of a newly established educational network (MAT) and how schools and the Trust are held accountable by the English Inspectorate of Education, Ofsted and the Department for Education (DfE), through Regional Schools Commissioners (RSCs). Analysis of documents and interviews were used to reconstruct a sequence of events over a period of five and a half years. Our findings indicate that the combination of accountability activities led to more centralized control over, and monitoring of curriculum, assessment and school improvement. This was accompanied by a pause in the growth of the Trust and the establishment of a regional structure of school collaboration. As accountability is particularly organized around individual school performance (through Ofsted inspections), this limited development of internal mechanisms of quality control around network-level outcomes. A short-term focus dominated the allocation of resources to schools in special measures or with an upcoming inspection visit. In the discussion, an alternative model is presented for network-level accountability and a set of indicators for effective accountability of collaborative arrangements.

This article presents a methodology for the developmental evaluation of a lesson study programme in primary and secondary schools. Our approach combined the principles of (i) user-focused evaluation, in which, as evaluators, we acted as participatory members of the innovation team and sought to involve users in the design and implementation of evaluation tools, (ii) a multi-level logical model to guide data collection and impact measurement and (iii) an ‘improving rather than proving’ approach to evaluation. The evaluation tools were used on a programme to promote lesson study in London schools involving 133 teachers and 33 schools. The evaluation methodology included outcomes at school leadership, teacher and student levels. Issues of internal and external validity are discussed and strengths and weaknesses are described. Findings showed promise in the use of our scale to measure changes in teacher pedagogical outcomes and in the recording of qualitative changes to both teachers and students as a result of the lesson study cycles. Suggestions for the future use and development of this methodology are proposed, including better use of control groups and quantitative measures to record changes in learning outcomes for students. List of Abbreviations: HE: Higher Education; LS: Lesson Study; PD: Professional Development

This article examines the English government’s vision for how research is proposed to lead to improvements in the system in the context of a school-led, self-improving system and rapid and sweeping legislative reforms. The debate about the role of research in the teaching profession has been sharpened by a large consultation effort in the academic community. The BERA-RSA inquiry suggests an empowering vision for teachers where research engagement informs practice and a role for schools in providing a ‘research-rich environment’. However, the government’s proposals offer a rather less empowering vision. The author of the paper contrasts a version of research-informed teaching and leadership with one where teachers are supposed to follow and be led by the evidence. The government’s education policy, especially as set out in the 2016 White Paper ‘Educational Excellence Everywhere’ is analysed in relation to this position. Analysis of statements from the document are shown in the paper, and contextualised with examples from the English school system. The extent to which teacher agency is promoted through research evidence is explored. The article concludes that the government’s over emphasis on a ‘what works’/‘evidence-based practice’ model is unhelpful in achieving an improved education system. Suggestions for the role of universities and the College of Teaching in promoting research-informed practice are given.

Introduction: This article looks at organizational resilience (OR) through the analysis of a sub-set of data gained from an independent and embedded mixed methods implementation and process evaluation (IPE) of the Schools Partnership Program (SPP) implemented over 3 years (2018–2021) and funded by the Education Endowment Foundation (EEF) in England. We describe ways in which SPP ‘learning map’ addresses the (i) anticipation, (ii) coping and (iii) adaptation stages and the extent to which SPP helped building organizational resilience. Taking this theoretical framework as a foundation is a novelty, as despite OR has become prominent in the academic literature apart from a few exceptions there is a dearth of international research examining OR within the school sector.Methods: A sample of 422 primary schools that took part in SPP (treatment schools) and their comparisons are analyzed applying the organizational capability-based framework. Drawing on SPP empirical data from numerous data collection strategies (interviews, surveys, shadowing school reviews and improvement workshops), the extent to which schools’ resilience capacities were improved is analyzed.Results: Our findings suggest that SPP supported the development of OR in SPP primary schools. Despite facing several challenging external factors (student deprivation, the COVID disruption, changes to the external accountability framework and competing demands of other partner organizations) and internal factors (teacher attrition, need to developing leaders, upgrade pedagogical skills and encourage student subgroups who were underperforming) SPP schools exert (1) knowledge building through training, the review process, professional dialogue, learning from each other, as well as receiving and giving feedback. Regarding (2) resource availability, schools used SPP as a scaffold to build improvised strategies to access and mobilize shared human and physical resources; (3) social resources were built in the SPP through social capital, sharing of knowledge, enhancing a shared vision and trust. Finally, (4) SPP promoted lateral power dynamics driven by professional learning and accountability.Discussion: Overall, the paper extends the understanding of school peer review approaches for school improvement and adds to the OR international literature by presenting features that extend it toward building system resilience.