Enhancing the impact of DFID and DCSF global education programmes in schools

Final Report

28th October 2009

on behalf of …

Contents

2

Page

1. Executive Summary 3

2. Issues to address4

i. Vision

ii. Delivery System

iii. Priority Action

iv. Governance

3. Actions to tackle the issues9

i. Vision

ii. Delivery System

iii. Priority Actions

iv. Governance

4. Annexes 17

Executive summary

3

DCSF and DFID have common and overlapping aims for equipping children and young people for life in a global society. Central to achieving these aims is ensuring that global issues are properly represented in the school curriculum and that teachers have the tools, skills and confidence to teach these well.

Important progress has been made to strengthen the teaching of global issues. But the departments have separate and distinct programmes to support their aims and have separate and distinct delivery systems. The programmes appear fragmented and incoherent and the delivery systems are overlapping.

This causes confusion amongst delivery partners and front line staff and generates inefficiency in the system.

A more aligned approach could both strengthen individual programmes and also provide greater overall impact for the resources invested.

There are four areas of opportunity to enhance and strengthen the impact of these overlapping programmes:

• Clarify a joint vision and strategy

• Better alignment across delivery systems

• Prioritise high impact actions

• Strengthen evaluation and governance

There are four sets of issues to address in order to enhance the impact of DFID and DCSF programmes

4

Clarify a joint vision and strategy

Issues to address

• Agree a clear compelling joint vision based on the ‘common ground’• Up-date aims and objectives which have accrued incoherently• Clarify terminology especially ‘global’ vs. ‘international’• Clarify the link between objectives and measurable outcomes• Ensure overall leadership provided to multiple delivery partners

Prioritise high impact actions

• Use main ‘influencers’ in the mainstream delivery system effectively• Focus on impact and outcomes not process and outputs• Rationalise a very wide range of small scale projects• Remove excessive reliance on linking and visits programmes

Desired Outcomes

Better alignment across delivery

systems

• Clarify role of Local Authorities and ensure consistent contribution• Rationalise multiple regional delivery and support structures• Streamline collection of projects led by a range of delivery partners

Strengthen evaluation and

governance

• Improve evidence of impact and quality of key actions• Share widely ‘what works’• Hold contractors to account• Improve overarching governance across and within departments• Draw up clear indicators that measure progress against objectives

Stronger buy-in from school

leaders

Better and consistent

provision in schools

More consistent and higher

quality pupil experience

More consistent engagement

with parents/carers

1

2

3

4

Issue 1 - clarifying a joint DFID and DCSF vision based on the common ground and interests between the two departments

5

“21st Century Schools” White Paper:• DCSF’s ambition for every child is an education that

prepares them for the challenges of the 21st century.• To create a world class system that is responsive to the

challenges of a changing global economy, a changing society, rapid technological innovation and a changing planet.

• To create a system which progressively breaks the link between disadvantage and low educational attainment.

• To tackle profound global challenges, including climate change and the challenge of learning to live sustainably on our planet, which can only be met through great creativity and international co-operation.

• To create a system with every school working in partnerships: because no school can do it alone

• To realise the benefits and creative opportunities presented by an increasingly globalised world and secure a cohesive and successful society that celebrates diversity.

DCSF

“Building our common future” White Paper:• DIFD is committed to building support for global development issues in the UK. Wants British people to know that their taxes are being used to tackle global poverty, to deal with issues that will affect us all – such as climate change, and help some of the most vulnerable people on the planet.•Want British people to be proud of our development programme, with the ultimate objective of Britain meeting its international obligations to provide development aid being seen as central to Britain’s sense of identity - part of who we want to be as a nation in the 21st century.•Want to encourage young people to think about development issues for themselves and come to their own conclusions.•Want to promote learning about development through the UK education system, seeking to deepen our collaboration with the education departments and institutions that influence schools and teachers in the UK.

DFID

Issues to address

•Balance of focus on northern vs. southern hemisphere countries •Exploring potential links between DFID White Paper and the Children's Plan, community cohesion and sustainable schools•Ensuring school partnerships are sustainable•Start with the school/local priorities and outcomes for pupils•Clarify language around ‘global’ and ‘international’

1

Issue 2 – ensuring an effective and coherent delivery system that is aligned behind the vision

6

DFID British Council DEA

SchoolLocal

Authority

DECs

GO

RNIL

EES Regional

Network

Ofsted

TDA

QCDA

DCSF JIUDERC

Range of NGOs/voluntary sector organisations

SSAT

BECTA

HTI

CfBT/LECT

ECOTEC

PFS

National • No mechanism for

joining up organisations

• No overall leadership• Not maximising

impact of DCSF NDPBs

• Limited leverage over organisations delivering provision

Regional• Three overlapping

structures - variable quality

• Failing to maximise influence of GO on LAs and DCSF policy

Local• Not all LAs have

dedicated capacity• Some LA children’s

plans capture as a priority but patchy

Local interface• Numerous organisations outside the mainstream

education system delivering small scale projects – difficult to determine impact and manage delivery

School• Some schools cite

international work in their SEFs

• Only about 33% of schools with award display ISA logo on website

2

* Please see Annex A for a full list of abbreviations used here and Annexes B and C for delivery system maps

Issue 3 – maximising existing opportunities for influencing the ‘mainstream’ delivery system

7

Professional voice•Winning the moral argument•Support from professional associations and NDPBs

• Messages on global education are often delivered via separate communications channels – not positioned alongside or as part of education priorities

• Effective links to well established education NDPBs are not being made – missed opportunities to align with influential delivery programmes

• Insufficient and variable engagement with the Government Offices as a vehicle for developing strategy and priorities with Local Authorities

• Not making strong enough links to closely associated policies that already have strong influence via the children's plan and guidance (e.g. sustainable schools) and statutory duties (e.g. community cohesion)

• Limited direct ‘levers’ and accountability – need to find a ‘hook’ into the existing accountability framework (e.g. community cohesion duty)

• Limited use of surveys of children's views such as ‘Tell Us’ (which are used as part of Ofsted inspections) to raise global issues

Structures•NDPBs – Running big delivery programmes and supporting schools*•Government Offices – influence Local Authorities•Ofsted – inspect schools and children's services

Curriculum and statutory duties•Requirements on community cohesion •DCSF guidance on sustainability •Curriculum guidance from the QCDA

Accountability•Performance tables •Ofsted inspection and SIPs •Awards and recognition

Customer and community pressure •Parents , children and young people•Governors•Local Authority

Key influences in the system Current issues with ‘mainstreaming’

3

* Key DCSF NDPBs include: National College, Partnership for Schools, Qualifications and Curriculum Development Agency, Training and Development Agency for Schools,

* Combined DCSF, DFID, British Council and European Commission spend in 2009-10. Individual sums are approximate.

Issue 4 – ensuring impact and value for taxpayers’ money from the way programmes are structured and governed

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

DFID EC DCSF BC

09-10 (£m)

• DFID spends nearly £13m on school linking programmes, development awareness, support for teaching and learning, websites, events and awareness raising

• The European Commission spends nearly £12m on multi-lateral, bi-lateral and regional partnership programmes, INSET and Assistantships

• DCSF spends nearly £12m on school linking programmes, websites, teacher exchanges and study visits, programmes for young people, support for teaching and learning, school accreditation, and programme promotion

• The British Council spend approximately £8.5m of its grant from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on “Connecting Classrooms” in support of Intercultural Dialogue.

4

[£4 m]

Issue 4 – ensuring impact and value for taxpayers’ money from the way programmes are structured and governed

• There are currently in excess of 20 government funded school linking programmes

• There are currently 5 government funded websites devoted to global education for schools

• There are multiple (sometimes overlapping) support networks that schools can turn to if they want to engage in global education

• There are 3 different government funded exchange programmes for school staff

BUT …• There is no overall governance structure to take forward global education in

schools

4

[£4 m]

Action is needed in four main areas to tackle the issues

10

Clarify a joint vision and strategy

Prioritise high impact actions

Better alignment across delivery

systems

Strengthen evaluation and

governance

1

2

3

4

• A joint overarching vision based on the common ground with a specific focus for each department

• Objectives, outcomes and benefits that underpin the vision

• Strengthening the regional layer by bringing together existing roles and responsibilities under new arrangements

• Closely aligning new arrangements with the Government Office to better ‘mainstream’ support and challenge

• Maximising existing opportunities for influencing the ‘mainstream’ delivery system• Improving the efficiency and effectiveness of linking/visits programmes

• Considering how the main strands and mechanisms of funding could bring about efficiencies

• A new joint board to govern all programmes, ensure maximum impact and value for money

Our overarching joint vision is that all children and young people are prepared for life in an interdependent world and become models of global citizenship. We aim to do this by promoting global learning and sustainable international partnerships between schools. This work will enhance understanding of the key global challenges we face, including:

•Tackling poverty and deprivation•Sustainable development•Climate change•Community cohesion•Citizenship•Social justice•Conflict resolution •Human rights

We want school leaders, teachers, pupils and their parents to be engaged in this work to ensure we achieve maximum impact

A joint overarching vision can be achieved by setting out the common ground with a specific focus for each department

11

DFID specific focus •Specific focus on developing countries in the southern hemisphere

•And on particular themes of sustainable development, interdependence, conflict resolution, and human rights

•Driven by an overarching commitment to substantially increase support for the reduction of poverty and increase support for development

DCSF specific focus •Developed and developing countries are important

•Specific focus on countries/regions of key strategic importance, e.g. India, China, USA, EU.

•Contribute to DSO3 (world class standards in education), DSO4 (Close the gap in educational achievement for children from disadvantaged backgrounds) and DSO5 (young people participating and achieving their potential)

•Strong link to the Children's Plan through sustainable schools and community cohesion

Common ground

1

And, defining objectives, outcomes and the benefits that underpin the vision

12

Objectives

Equipping children and young people for life in a global society:

•Giving experiences of global issues

•Increasing understanding of global issues

•Changing attitudes towards global issues

Outcomes Benefits

Children and young people who

feel aware of global issues that affect their lives

Teachers who feel confident about teaching global

issues

School leadership which sees school in global context

Parents engaging with school

• Increased motivation: children eager to learn about the things they care about

• An engaging curriculum can lead to better achievement at school across a range of subjects

• The school achieves its broader duties around community cohesion, sustainable schools and Children's Plan objectives

The argument

• Children and young people care about global issues*

• International work can engage school pupils with a real audience – e.g. their peers in other schools

• Mapping programmes to DSOs can demonstrate congruence with domestic and international agendas

* e.g. a survey of over 4,000 children (aged 11-16 years) from 179 middle and secondary schools in England and Wales revealed that 81 per cent of schoolchildren believed that it was important to learn about global issues at school and that they needed to understand global matters in order to make choices about how they want to lead their lives (MORI 1998). A follow up survey in 2008 reported 78% in favour.

1

The regional layer of the delivery system can be strengthened by bringing together existing roles and responsibilities under new arrangements

13

2

Option Opportunities Risks

A. Leave EES and RNIL as they are

• Minimise turmoil in the system• Delay decision until next financial year

• DFID does not have capacity to manage EES under current arrangements

• Does not tackle effectiveness, impact and alignment issues

B. Bring EES under one funding mechanism for all the regions

• Better standardisation across regions• Easier to manage centrally• Specify new objectives for alignment• Service provider to manage the network, ensure

effectiveness and be accountable

• Separate ‘field force’ which DCSF and CLG are trying to reduce

• Remains outside the mainstream and separate to RNIL (in places)

C. Pool EES and RNIL resource and fund positions in Government Offices

• Helps alignment and mainstreaming• Different funding methods – e.g. transfer running costs or

contract through external service provider• Potential to reach full range of LAs• Potential to better join-up and align associated national

policy within regions

• Not a core priority for Children’s Services and Learner Advisors (CSLAs)

• Getting bogged down in joining-up and losing focus on global objectives

D. Pool EES and RNIL resource and strengthen under one funding mechanism. Within this, consider options - a) single organisation to manage network; b) channel funding to GOs (as Community Cohesion & Sustainable Development Units do; c) combination of the two.

• Greater coherence and alignment of option a) could attract established, credible education service delivery organisations

• Options a) & c) - give degree of continuity with 3rd sector whilst improving effectiveness and accountability

• Could co-locate the provider in the GO – option c) -or specify close working with GO and DECs

• Option b) would follow existing approaches and there is a variety of flexible working options that can be tailored to the needs of each region.

• Working within GO structure – options b) & c) - maximise opportunity for linking with DECC, DCLG, DEFRA and others on related areas

• Existing contractual arrangements may make transition difficult

• Still perceived as separate ‘field force’ if an external organisation is used

• Ending of the large ‘National Strategies’ ‘field force’ has signalled a move away from centrally managed support for schools/LAs

14

And, any new delivery arrangements must ensure close alignment with the Government Office to better ‘mainstream’ support and challenge2

The argument

• GO’s work on behalf of 12 Government Departments – a number of which are closely associated with global issues

• They help tailor and ‘package’ national policy towards individual areas – they also oversee some large grants funds

• They have established relationships with LAs and are an effective means for reaching out to them

• Lead on the negotiation of Local Area Agreements

• The children and learners divisions will take on new responsibilities for negotiating school priorities with LAs in the future

• There are opportunities to co-locate people (without having to transfer resource) – Department of Health have done this on Public Health

Example GO Structure (London)

Regional DirectorDeputy DirectorSupport Office

Environment, empowerment and performance [14 posts][Includes e.g. Cohesion, food and sustainable development, climate change and energy, environment and waste]

Economic Development [14 posts][Includes e.g. Economic development and child poverty]

Planning and Housing [8 posts]London Resilience and Europe [5 posts]Business Support [4 posts]Strategy, Ministerial Business and Communications [4 posts]

Children and Learners [21 posts] Community Safety [20 posts]

Sustainable Schools•A dedicated sustainable schools officer post•GO leads the London Sustainable Schools Forum as the mechanism for supporting delivery•Runs e.g. workshops and produces support materials

Community Cohesion•Dedicated community cohesion and faith team•Focused on delivering broad CLG community cohesion agenda

Existing opportunities for influencing the ‘mainstream’ delivery system need to be maximised

15

3

Accountability and Awards

Three sets of action

• Review criteria to ensure that ISA criteria adequately reflect DCSF and DFID objectives• Ensure criteria are effectively monitored through a suitably light-touch approach to accreditation in

keeping with aim of reducing unnecessary bureaucracy.• Develop coherent strategy for on-going engagement with schools that looks beyond 3 year

accreditation period

Professional voice and NDPBs

• More regular and systematic engagement with key DCSF NDPBs (see slide 6) and professional associations* to explore opportunities for policy and programme alignment

• Use existing conferences and communication channels run by the above to communicate the vision, promote programmes and run workshops – e.g. SSAT annual conference

Statutory Duties

• Meet with Ofsted to explore how the ‘global community’ will be inspected and any support they need

• Develop materials to show how the global education objectives will support delivery of priorities around community cohesion and sustainable schools

• Work with DCSF colleagues to embed key global education messages in communications and guidance about community cohesion and sustainable schools

• Work with DCSF to see if Ofsted can carry out a survey on global education/community in schools as part of the next annual survey programme

• Investigate whether questions about children's feelings about global issues can be captured as part of the ‘Tell Us’ survey

* Example associations include: Association of Science Education, Association for Citizenship Teaching, General Teaching Council for England, Association for Directors of Children's Services and Association for the Study of Primary Education

16

The main strands and mechanisms of funding should be reviewed in four areas where there are potential efficiencies to be gained 4

Competitive grants - highly valued by, and an important funding stream for, many small organisations but:•Limited evidence of impact•Potentially more costly procurement and management overhead•Difficult to evaluate and manage effectively

Consider larger investment(s) in fewer more substantial delivery programmes?

Teacher exchanges - valued professional development opportunities but:•Overlapping programmes (e.g. LECT and TIPD)•Mixed/patchy evidence of impact beyond personal benefits•In current financial climate may be difficult to justify against other priorities

Given the patchy evidence, consider reducing/re-prioritising current levels of resource?

Linking and partnerships : Against a backdrop of the British Council Connecting Classrooms programme ...•Multiple programmes with slightly different country focus, objectives or operational mechanisms•Potentially more costly procurement and management overhead•Both departments commissioning the same partner to deliver a similar programme

Consider a more streamlined joint programme?

Capacity to support UK teaching and learning: •Relatively small amount of investment going into ‘hands-on’ practical support with schools•Multiple and overlapping websites heavily used as the mechanism for support•Clarify how existing resources (e.g. those provided by DEA) would fit with any new delivery arrangements/opportunities to align DECs

Consider whether the balance of resource should be adjusted towards a greater proportion on practical teaching support and rationalise websites?

All programmes should be governed effectively by a new joint board to ensure maximum impact and value for money

•Receives issues escalated from the Officials Strategy Group•Invite other Minsters (e.g. FCO ) if and when necessary•Meet quarterly

•Key focus is the common ground between the two departments, ensuring coherence in the design and delivery of policy•Meets quarterly and reports to the Ministerial bilateral and escalates issues that need resolving•Monitors progress against the delivery plan

•Key focus is on performance and tight accountability in order to hold delivery partners to account – challenge delivery and impact of programmes, especially linking programmes•Develops a delivery plan from this report and regularly reviews progress/refines it•Uses agreed metrics to evaluate impact and monitor contract delivery (see Annex D)•Meets at least quarterly and reports to the Officials Strategy Group•Rapid feedback on progress, clarity of message, sounding board for strategy change and help secure buy-in and act as champions•From time-to-time engage a wider group of stakeholders in workshops where broader views are needed

4

Ministerial Bilateral[DCSF and DFID]

Officials Strategy Group[JIU, DCSF (sustainable schools,

community cohesion, curriculum) and DFID]

Operational Delivery Group[JIU, DCSF (sustainable

schools, community cohesion, curriculum), DFID, BC, DEA,

and large major programmes]

17

Annex A – Abbreviations

18

Abbreviation Organisation (or descriptor) Abbreviation Organisation (or descriptor)

DEA Development Education Association GO Government Office

SSAT Specialist Schools and Academy Trust RNIL Regional Network for International Learning

QCDA Qualifications and Curriculum Development Agency BC British Council

TDA Training and Development Agency for schools rafi.ki an online learning community for schools partnerships

Ofsted Inspectorate (The office for standards in education, children's services and skills) ISA International School Award

Becta British Educational Communications and Technology Agency DERC Development Education Research Centre

EES Enabling Effective Support (DFID funded initiative) DEC Development Education Centre

PFSPartnership for Schools (NDPB supporting

delivering of Building Schools for the Future Programme)

ECOTECH Centre providing educational experiences on sustainability and environmental issues

CfBT Centre for British Teachers (educational consultancy and service organisation) LECT League for the Exchange of Commonwealth

Teachers

HTIHead teachers into Industry (charity focussed

on developing school leaders and links to business)

IAESTE International Association for the Exchange of Students for Technical Experience

School

DFID

British Council

EES Regional Network

Local Authority

DEA

• Manage the DFID Global School Partnerships programme

• Manage the Global Dimension Website• Policy research and advocacy • Support networks

• Build capacity to ensure global issues are taught

• Equip teachers with tools and skills • Build links between schools NGO

and LA

DERC

• Establish initial policy and strategy • Fund organisations and initiatives • Monitor progress

• Provides research evidence

GTF • Manage the DAF

Damaris

• Manage the Global Student Forum

DECs

Vol Sect

• Advisory support for schools and whole of children services

• Form cross sector partnerships

• 45 DECs work with schools to support global dimension delivery

Plan • Resources for schools ; support and training for teachers

Annex B - present main DFID delivery system for BSDS

19

School

DCSF JIULocal

Authority

British Council

• Promotes partnerships, CPD and curriculum projects through Connecting Classrooms• manages the Global Gateway, TIPD, International School Award, bilateral and

multilateral linking programmes

SSAT • TIPD visits, linking programme with France

HTI • TIPD visit s

CfBT/LECT • TIPD visits, Commonwealth Teacher exchange

• Establish initial policy and strategy • Fund organisations and initiatives, monitor progress • Curriculum design, Sustainable schools and community cohesion

• Provides curriculum guidance

Gemini • Tool for international partnerships - Rafi-ki

GO

• Advisory support for schools colleges and children's services

• Form cross sector partnerships

• Support for sustainable development, Community Cohesion

RNIL • Promote the international

dimension • Training for teachers

ECOTEC • Delivers EU funded programmes

OFSTED

PFS

VCS

• International Learning Leadership Programme NCSL

BECTA

QCA

• Inspects against 4 levels of community cohesion

Annex C - DCSF delivery system for related international objectives for schools

20

Overview

21

Annex D – a guide to developing indicators for tracking overall progress and the contribution of key delivery agents

More confident teachers

Impact •Experiences•Understanding•Attitudes

Better curriculum Better teaching materials

Stronger leadership focus

Impact indicators may have long time lags and will be challenging to produce. Proxy indicators in these aspects would give confidence that the system is on the way to achieving objectives

• Children feel more aware of global issues - e.g. - Tell Us survey

• E.g. through surveys of teachers

• E.g. through survey of teachers or independent evaluation

• E.g. through school surveys

• E.g. through sample of school Self Evaluation Forms (SEFs)

Meaningful Easy for people to understand Doesn’t drive perverse incentives

Measurable

• Captures the outcome that we are seeking to achieve

• Provides a moral imperative

Ensures that all people in the delivery system can engage and support

• Avoids undesirable behaviour

• Avoids inhibiting innovation

Data is timely, reliable and enables comparison over time

Effective indicators have four key characteristics