The impact of federations on student outcomes

Transcription

1 The impac of federaions on suden oucomes Repor Dr Chrisopher Chapman, Universiy of Mancheser Professor Daniel Muijs, Universiy of Mancheser Professor Pam Sammons, Universiy of Oxford Paul Armsrong, Universiy of Mancheser Alison Collins, Universiy of Mancheser

2 Conens Key findings Inroducion Conex Wha is a federaion? Aims Research approach Mehodology Sample characerisics and comparaor school characerisics Resuls Typology of federaion Impac on performance Impac on performance by federaion ype Relaionship o Ofsed grades Conclusion 7

3 Key findings This sudy adoped a quaniaive mehodology involving a mached sample of federaed and nonfederaed schools and uilising muli-level modelling echniques o explore he impac of federaions on suden oucomes. The sample involved 50 local auhoriies, and 264 schools. These are grouped ino 122 federaions, and 264 comparaor schools were seleced o mach hese. In he sample, 88.1 per cen of schools belong o a wo-school federaion, 8.5 per cen were par of a hree-school federaion, and he remainder are par of larger federaions. 1. The sudy idenified six broad and someimes overlapping caegories of federaion: size federaions cross-phase federaions performance federaions faih federaions mainsreaming federaions academy groups The mos common caegory of federaion in he sample was cross-phase federaion and he leas common caegory was academy groups. 2. There is evidence of impac on overall performance, in ha while federaion and comparaor schools perform similarly a baseline, federaion is posiively relaed o performance in he years following federaion. 3. There is evidence o sugges ha impac is sronges in performance federaions. 4. There is no evidence of a relaionship beween federaion and Ofsed judgemens (grades). 5. There is no evidence of a differenial impac on sudens from differen socio-economic seings, differences in gender or wih special educaional needs. 1 Impac of federaions on suden oucomes

4 Inroducion This repor is srucured ino four secions. The firs oulines he conex, aims and objecives and research approach adoped o invesigae he impac of federaions on suden oucomes. The second secion deails he mehods used o collec and analyse he daa. The hird secion repors he resuls and he fourh presens our conclusions. Conex Governmens around he world have invesed significan resources in developing collaboraive approaches o school improvemen. Par of he collaboraion agenda has involved experimenaion wih new organisaional forms of schooling. Michael Fullan (2004:16) argues ha changing whole sysems s changing he enire conex in which people work and i is clear ha he curren conex of schooling is rapidly shifing. Mos recenly, England has been leading he way in developing neworks of schools in he form of parnerships and federaions as par of he drive o improve sandards. This developmen has been aimed a relocaing innovaion closer o schools in order o generae greaer collecive capaciy for change (Hadfield and Chapman, 2009). However, o dae here is very lile quaniaive evidence o link collaboraion wih school improvemen and he impac of collaboraion remains conesed. This sudy aimed o examine he link beween federaion and suden oucomes, providing a quaniaive analysis o ascerain he impac of federaion on academic oucomes. Collaboraion in he form of federaions remains cenral o he governmen s reform agenda, paricularly for schools deemed o be requiring a - srucural soluion o ackle persisen low aainmen and or underachievemen. s are considered an innovaive sraegy for ransforming educaion across groups of schools, paricularly hose in challenging circumsances, by working ogeher in sharing saffing, resources, professional developmen, curriculum developmen, and leadership and managemen. Wha is a federaion? The erm federaion encompasses a broad specrum of collaboraive arrangemens ofen used o describe a range of parnerships, clusers and collaboraions. In general, groups of schools agree o work ogeher o raise sandards, promoe inclusion, find new ways of approaching eaching and learning and build capaciy beween schools in a coheren manner. This will be brough abou in par hrough srucural changes in leadership and managemen, in many insances making use of he join governance arrangemens invoked in he 2002 Educaion Ac. The esablishmen of a federaion, ofen referred o as a hard federaion, as specified in he Ac, allows for he creaion of a single governing body or join governing body commiee o operae across wo or more (ofen crossphase) schools. A collaboraion, ofen ermed sof federaion, is where one or more governing bodies delegae some bu no all of heir powers o a subcommiee (wih somewha limied purpose). Whichever se-up is adoped, each parner school remains as a separae eniy, headed, inspeced, league abled and funded in is own righ. I is recognised ha srong levels of rus and confidence mus be developed in order for schools o make he formal and binding commimens ha federaion requires. Collaboraion a all levels is encouraged in he undersanding ha schools need o esablish sound working relaionships o ensure he long-erm impac and success of he federaion. I is also acknowledged ha he move owards srucured and susainable collaboraion is a gradual process and herefore he process of becoming a hard federaion could happen in sages. The parner schools could progress from collaboraive links ino a sof model of federaion before becoming a hard federaion, wih addiional parner schools perhaps joining along he way. Examples of his ransiion are illusraed in some of he case sudy profiles. Furher deails abou s, including he legal implicaions, can be found a: Fullan, M (2004) Leadership and Susainabiliy: Sysem hinkers in acion, Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press Hadfield, M and Chapman, C (2009) Leading School-Based Neworks, London: Rouledge 2

5 Aims The aim of his sudy was o invesigae he ways in which federaions seek o improve suden oucomes and leadership capaciy and he exen of variaion in heir impac and abiliies o promoe change. The sudy also explored facors ha faciliae he posiive effecs of federaions and any feaures ha ac as barriers o improvemen. I also examined wheher some models are more effecive han ohers in promoing beer oucomes. The specific objecives of his sudy were o: invesigae changes in suden oucomes in federaed schools in erms of key aainmen indicaors and value-added measures and compare hese wih naional rends and resuls for schools wih similar inake characerisics; assess he impac of federaions on leadership capaciy and effeciveness; assess he impac of federaions on he qualiy of eaching and learning; Research approach Our broad approach was o develop a mached sample of schools in federaions and non-federaions and conduc quaniaive analyses o obain measures of he apparen impac federaion has had on he educaional oucomes of differen groups of sudens over a period of one o four years. We idenified schools ha federaed in academic years 2007/08, 2006/07, 2005/06, 2004/05 and 2003/04 and compared he examinaion performance of cohors prior o federaing wih examinaion performance since federaion in erms of key indicaors such as he percenage of sudens gaining five GCSE a grades A* o C wih and wihou English and mahemaics, and in erms of value-added and conexual value added (CVA). In addiion, each federaion was mached wih a comparaor unfederaed school which shared similar characerisics in erms of pupil inake, rural/urban locaion and profiles) o assess he effec of federaion (Figure 1). assess he impac of federaions on he curriculum and oher aspecs of schooling; assess he impac of federaions on he provision and qualiy of coninuing professional developmen (CPD) provision and oher developmen opporuniies for saff. Figure 1: Sample size and exen Daa on impac (years) Year of federaing 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 Daa from he 3 years prior o federaion 3 Impac of federaions on suden oucomes

6 Mehodology A quaniaive mehodology was used o explore he impac of federaion on suden oucomes. Naional pupil - and school-level daases from he Deparmen for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) allowed us o look a performance measures conrolled for suden background over ime. PLASC and NPD daa was requesed from and provided by DCSF for his purpose. Daa was colleced for each year from 2001 o Ofsed grades were provided by he Naional College. As no definiive lis of federaions exiss, a random sample of 50 local auhoriies was seleced. Each local auhoriy was conaced and asked o idenify federaions and he schools ha were a par of hem. A oal of 264 schools and 122 federaions were idenified in his way. Follow-up calls were made o each of he schools o: uncover any errors in he designaion of he school as a federaion collec addiional daa on he dae he schools federaed, he number of heads and federaion srucure Several schools/federaions were idenified ha had ceased o operae or did no fi he crieria for federaion. These were replaced wih oher schools/ federaions. In order o look a he impac of federaion on performance, we oped for a quasi-experimenal design where each federaion school was mached o a school as similar as possible on key characerisics prior o federaing. Naional daases were used o mach schools by: phase (eg, primary, middle, secondary) ype of school (eg, volunary aided, volunary conrolled, academy) locaion (his measure wen beyond radiional rural/urban idenificaion, and aemped o mach areas ha were as similar as possible in erms of socio-demographic characerisics by using local auhoriies saisical neighbours, eg, Cambridge would be mached o York, Salford o Gaeshead) school size (as indicaed by pupil roll) Obviously no schools could be mached idenically on hese crieria. However, as close a mach as possible was sough in all cases. As wih he federaion schools, all comparaor schools were conaced by a member of he research eam o: ascerain ha hey were no par of federaion o collec daa on headship and governance A number of schools had o be replaced as hey were par of a federaion or had ceased o operae. A range of quaniaive mehodologies was used o analyse he daa, including univariae and mulivariae saisics and mulilevel modeling. The Saa and MLWin sofware packages were used for hese analyses. Sample characerisics The final sample conained 50 local auhoriies, and 264 schools. These are grouped ino 122 federaions, and 264 comparaor schools were seleced o mach hese. In he sample, 88.1 per cen of schools belonged o a wo-school federaion, 8.5 per cen were par of a hree-school federaion wih he remainder being par of larger federaions. The disribuion of schools across phases is given in Table 1. gender inake (co-educaional, single-sex boys, single-sex girls) performance levels (eg, percenage achieving key sage (KS) hreshold levels in English and mahs)* pupil inake characerisics (percenage pupils idenified as having special educaional needs (SEN)) *(expeced achievemen for a given key sage (eg for keysage4 5+ A-C a GCSE including Eng and mahs)) 4

7 Table 1: Disribuion of schools across phases School phase % Nursery 3.8 Infan 7.2 Junior 7.2 Primary 39.6 Firs 9.0 Middle 5.3 High 1.9 Secondary 22.3 Special 3.7 In he sample, 11.3 per cen of schools were Caholic, 16.2 per cen were Church of England and, 4.1 per cen were academies. The federaions in he sudy ended o have been formed relaively recenly, reflecing a rapid developmen in his area (Table 2). Table 2: Year of formaion of federaions Year formed % 2001 and earlier Mos federaions in he sample were formed in eiher 2007 or 2008, wih jus over a quarer formed in 2005 or earlier. We found ha 81 per cen of federaions had a join headeacher, while 15 per cen had a join governing body. Table 3: Number of headeachers in he pas five years Number of heads in las five years % federaion schools Almos half of he schools surveyed had had only one headeacher in he pas five years, wih over a hird having had wo. There were very few differences beween federaion and comparaor schools in his regard. and comparaor schools were compared on key inake variables. Schools were exacly mached on: school ype gender inake phase % schools Table 4 shows he mach for he variables pupil roll, SEN percenage, and he percenage of pupils reach he hreshold arges for English and mahs respecively. Table 4: Characerisics of federaion and comparaor schools on key variables *=significan difference a he.05 level Pupil roll % pupils wih SEN % reaching hreshold arges in English % reaching hreshold arges in mahs * The only significan difference was on achievemen of he hreshold arges for mahs where comparaor schools significanly ouperformed federaion schools, hough he difference was small. 5 Impac of federaions on suden oucomes

8 Resuls Typology of federaion The daa was inerrogaed o idenify ypes of federaion. Six ypes were idenified: cross-phase federaions consising of wo or more schools of differen phases, eg, a primary and secondary school, or a firs, middle and high school (accouning for 35 per cen of schools in he sample) performance federaions consising of (mos usually) wo, or more schools, some of which are low, and ohers high performing (accouning for 16 per cen of schools in he sample) size federaions consising of wo or more very small or small schools, or a small school and a medium - sized school (accouning for 19 per cen of schools in he sample) mainsreaming federaions consising of one or more special schools combined wih one or more mainsream schools (accouning for 5 per cen of schools in he sample) Impac on performance Mulilevel saisical models were used o look a he impac of federaion on performance. This was done only for he federaions formed in 2005 and earlier and 2006, as no impac is o be expeced for hose federaions formed in 2007 and laer in he ligh of previous research on he lengh of ime i akes for federaions o become fully operaional (see Lindsay e al, 2003). Levels were school (level 2) and pupil (level 1). As he daa relaes o differen cohors in differen years, analysis of each year was done separaely. Models were esed for he year of formaion and daa for he previous hree years combined, and for subsequen years up o A null model was formulaed wih no predicors. In he nex model federaion was added, while in he final model for each year, oher indicaors of achievemen were included, such as gender, SEN saus and FSM eligibiliy. Oucome variables were pupil-level achievemen, such as KS levels or he percenage of A*-C grades a GCSE. As our variable of ineres was a school-level variables, all predicors in he analyses are school-level variables. faih federaions consising of wo or more schools of he same denominaion occasionally overlapping wih one of he above five ypes (accouning for 15 per cen of schools in he sample) academy federaions consising of wo or more academies run by he same sponsor (accouning for 2 per cen of schools in he sample) 8 per cen of schools in he sample were in federaions ha weren immediaely classifiable as one of he above ypes Lindsay, G Harris, A Muijs, D Chapman, C e al. (2007) Final repor on he evaluaion of he federaions programme. London: DCSF 6

9 2005 cohor Primary In he 2005 cohor, analyses are only presened for he primary phase (KS2) because he sample of secondary schools for his cohor was four (making a oal of eigh schools including comparaors) and hus oo small o provide sable esimaes. Table 5: Baseline Mulilevel model English null model - coefficien (sandard error) English full model - Coefficien (sandard error) Mahs null model - coefficien (sandard error) Mahs full model - coefficien (sandard error) Inercep 9.46 (3.86) 12.3 (5.38) 6.1 (2.7) 5.89 (3.8) Federaed? Gender Age FSM SEN School size Level 2 percenage Level 1 percenage percenage level 2 percenage level 1 Toal percenage explained 5.3% 3.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.6% 0.2% =variable no significan 7 Impac of federaions on suden oucomes

10 Table 6: 2006 Mulilevel models English null model - coefficien (sandard error) English full model - coefficien (sandard error) Mahs null model - coefficien (sandard error) Mahs full model - coefficien (sandard error) Inercep 5.1 (1.3) 12.3 (5.38) 5.1 (0.4) 10.2 (3.8) Federaed 2.5 (1.1) Gender Age FSM SEN School size Level 2 percenage Level 1 percenage percenage level 2 percenage level 1 Toal percenage explained 4.7% 36.5% 0.0% 1.2% 0.4% 4.7% =variable no significan 8

11 Table 7: 2007 measure English null model - coefficien (sandard error) English full model - coefficien (sandard error) Mahs null model - coefficien (sandard error) Mahs full model - coefficien (sandard error) Inercep 6.4 (1.1) ) 5.1 (0.4) 10.2 (3.8) Federaed 3.1 (1.4) 3.8 (1.1) Gender Age FSM SEN School size Level 2 percenage Level 1 percenage % percenage level 2 percenage level 1 Toal percenage explained 38.9% 46.5% 0.0% 1.2% 6.1% 6.6% = Variable no significan Tables 5 o 7 show ha for he 2005 cohor here is some evidence of impac of federaion over ime. Overall, he majoriy of in boh English and mahs is explained a he pupil level (level 1). However, a he school level is also significan. I is imporan here o poin ou ha pupil-level is no he same hing as pupil social background, as is ofen wrongly supposed. Raher, his may be a range of facors, including abiliy, moivaion, and, o a large exen, measuremen error. As he samples were carefully mached on hese variables, i is no surprising ha mos predicors were no significanly relaed o he oucomes. is significanly relaed o oucomes in mahs in 2006 and 2007, and o oucomes in English in This is suggesive of impac, alhough oher facors, such as prior capaciy o change in federaion (as opposed o non-federaion) schools may of course be a causal facor as well. The impac of federaion is quie srong in 2007, explaining nearly half of school-level in mahs, and over a hird of school-level in English, making i a highly significan facor. 9 Impac of federaions on suden oucomes

12 2006 cohor Primary Table 8: Baseline measures English null model - coefficien (sandard error) English full model - coefficien (sandard error) Mahs null model - coefficien (sandard error) Mahs full model - coefficien (sandard error) Inercep 4.2 (0.03) 4.6 (0.09) 4.1 (0.4) 4.3 (0.1) Federaed Gender Age FSM SEN (0.005) (0.004) School size Level 2 percenage Level 1 percenage percenage level 2 percenage level 1 Toal percenage explained 4.7% 5.2% 0.0% 0.2% 0.4% 0.7% =Variable no significan 10

13 Table 9: 2007 measure English null Model - coefficien (sandard error) English full model - coefficien (sandard error) Mahs null model - coefficien (sandard error) Mahs full model - coefficien (sandard error) Inercep 7.6 (1.3) 8.7 (0.7) 5.3 (0.6) 6.5 (0.8) Federaed 2.4 (0.9) 3.1 (1.1) Gender Age FSM SEN 0.02 (0.01) (0.007) Number of heads (beween ) Level 2 percenage Level 1 percenage 13.2% 11.1% percenage level 2 percenage level 1 Toal percenage explained 19.9% 22.7% 0.0% 0.% 2.3% 2.8% =Variable no significan For he 2006 cohor we can again see some evidence of he impac of federaion over ime. Overall, he majoriy of he in boh English and mahs is explained a he pupil level (level 1). However, a he school level is also significan, and slighly larger for his cohor han for he 2005 cohor. The variables on which he samples were mached were in general no significanly relaed o he oucomes. However, here was a weak significan relaionship beween he percenage of pupils wih SEN and oucomes. is significanly relaed o oucomes in English and mahs in 2007, and no a baseline. This is suggesive of impac, as again here appears o be an increase in impac over ime. The impac of federaion is quie srong in 2007, explaining nearly around 20 per cen of he in oucomes. 11 Impac of federaions on suden oucomes

14 Secondary Table 10: Baseline measures Average poins score a GCSE null model Average poins score a GCSE full model Table 11: 2007 measures Average poins score a GCSE null model Average poins score a GCSE full model Inercep 7.6 (1.3) 8.0 (0.6) Inercep (0.22) 12.0 (0.94) Federaed Gender Age FSM SEN School size Federaed 5.4 (2.6) Gender Age FSM SEN Number of heads (beween ) Level 2 percenage 17.6% 16.2 Level 2 percenage 19.0% 15.7% Level 1 percenage Level 1 percenage percenage level 2 3.8% percenage level % percenage level 1 0.2% percenage level 1 0.0% Toal percenage explained =Variable no significan 0.7% Toal percenage explained Variable no significan 3.9% = Similar resuls are found for GCSE (Table 10 and Table 11). Overall, he majoriy of he in boh English and mahs is explained a he pupil level (level 1), wih beween 15 per cen and 20 per cen of he being a he school level. As in he primary schools, mos predicors were no significanly relaed o he oucomes. is significanly relaed o oucomes in 2007, and no in This is suggesive of impac, over ime. The impac of federaion is quie srong in 2007, explaining around 20 per cen of he in oucomes. 12

15 Impac on performance by federaion ype In his secion we will look a performance in he differen ypes of federaion. As sample sizes a level 2 (school level) are small in many cases, mulilevel esimaes may be unsable. Therefore we have used simple bivariae analyses o explore his quesion, which we would be able o inerrogae in more deail if we had a larger sample of schools cohor Cross-phase federaion Table 12: Cross-phase federaions (English) Baseline ** ** *=sig a he.05 level, *=sig a he.01 level, ***=sig a he.001 level Table 13: Cross-phase federaions (mahs) Baseline ** ** *=sig a he.05 level, *=sig a he.01 level, ***=sig a he.001 level While no differences were found beween federaions and comparaor schools a baseline, in 2006 and 2007 federaion schools showed higher levels of performance han comparaor schools. Size federaions Table 14: Size federaions (English) Baseline *=sig a he.05 level, *=sig a he.01 level, ***=sig a he.001 level Table 15: Size federaions (mahs) Baseline *=sig a he.05 level, *=sig a he.01 level, ***=sig a he.001 level No significan differences were found for size federaions. Performance, mainsreaming and faih federaions were oo few in number in his cohor for us o conduc analyses. Tables show ha here is evidence ha crossphase federaions may have a posiive impac on performance over ime, in ha federaion schools in his caegory ouperformed comparaor schools in 2006 and 2007, bu no in There was no corresponding evidence for size federaions, alhough he discovery of signfican evidence may have been affeced by he smaller sample size. 13 Impac of federaions on suden oucomes

16 2007 cohor Primary Cross-phase federaion Table 16: Cross-phase federaions (English) Size federaions Table 20: Size federaions (English) Baseline Baseline * Table 21: Size federaions (mahs) Table 17: Cross-phase federaions (mahs) No significan differences were found for cross-phase federaions in primary for he 2007 cohor. Performance s Baseline Table 18: Performance federaions - English Table 19: Performance federaions (mahs) Baseline ** Baseline *** While no differences were found a baseline, in 2007 aainmen in performance federaions was significanly higher han in comparaor schools in Baseline schools showed a beer performance han federaions in English a baseline. No oher significan differences were found. Faih federaions Table 22: Faih federaions (English) Baseline Table 23: Faih federaions (mahs) Baseline No significan differences were found for faih federaions. *=sig a he.05 level, *=sig a he.01 level, ***=sig a he.001 level 14

17 Mainsreaming federaions were oo few in number in his cohor for us o conduc analyses. The only significan differences found were for performance federaions in 2007 in boh English and mahs, where sudens ouperformed heir counerpars in he comparaor schools (his had no been he case a baseline), and for size federaions in English a baseline, where comparaor schools did beer han federaion schools. This was no longer he case in Overall, i would appear ha he main differences in performance beween federaion and comparaor schools appear in performance federaions. The evidence for cross-phase federaions is mixed, while few or no significan differences were found for he oher ypes. I has o be poined ou hough ha in many cases sample sizes were oo small o include paricular federaion ypes in he analyses. Secondary Cross-phase federaion Overall, i would appear ha he main differences in performance beween federaion and comparaor schools appear in performance federaions. The evidence for cross-phase federaions is mixed, while few or no significan differences were found for he oher ypes. I has o be poined ou hough ha in many cases sample sizes were oo small o include paricular federaion ypes in he analyses. Relaionship o Ofsed grades In his secion we will explore he exen o which here is a relaionship beween federaion and Ofsed inspecion grades. In his analysis, all ypes and phases are combined. Because inspecion does no occur annually, in each school, he comparisons refer o school inspecions underaken in differen years, so any findings have o be considered indicaive only. Table 26: 2005 inspecions Variable Table 24: Cross-phase federaions Performance federaion Table 25: Performance federaions Baseline *** ** Baseline *** Overall effeciveness of provision Qualiy of eaching How well do learners achieve? Overall effeciveness of leadership and managemen Noably in he secondary sample only cross-phase and performance federaions were presen in sufficien numbers for analysis. In he daa for cross-phase s, comparaor schools showed significanly higher levels of performance in boh years. For performance federaions, here was a non-significan advanage for performance schools a baseline, and a highly significan advanage for performance schools in Impac of federaions on suden oucomes

18 Table 27: 2006 inspecions Variable Overall effeciveness of provision Qualiy of eaching How well do learners achieve? Overall effeciveness of leadership and managemen Table 28: 2007 Inspecions Variable Overall effeciveness of provision Qualiy of eaching How well do learners achieve? Overall effeciveness of leadership and managemen No significan differences were found beween federaion and comparaor schools in any of he analyses made for inspecion raings. However, i has o be poined ou ha sample sizes were small. 16

19 Conclusion Our analysis leads us o conclude ha federaions can have a posiive impac on suden oucomes and ha he impac is greaes where he aim of he federaion is o raise educaional sandards by federaing high - and lower - aaining schools. This iniial analysis would sugges ha persising wih he policy of federaing schools o raise sandards is a worhwhile enerprise. However, if federaions are o coninue o be used as a srucural soluion we would draw aenion o hree major challenges wihin he sysem: References Fullan, M (2004) Leadership and Susainabiliy: Sysem hinkers in acion, Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press Hadfield, M and Chapman, C (2009) Leading School- Based Neworks, London: Rouledge Lindsay, G Harris, A Muijs, D Chapman, C e al. (2007) Final repor on he evaluaion of he federaions programme. London: DCSF simulaing and developing collaboraion boh wihin and beween schools in very challenging conexs developing appropriae accounabiliy sysems ha move beyond single insiuions as primary uni of analysis. inspiring localised conex - specific approaches o improvemen wihin an overarching naional framework of inervenion, such as he Naional Challenge. These challenges need furher exploraion, including discussions wih performance federaion leaders o draw ou he key issues relaed o he hree challenges and he faciliaors and barriers experienced while esablishing a federaion. 17 Impac of federaions on suden oucomes

20 The Naional College for Leadership of Schools and Children s Services is commied o excellence and dedicaed o inclusiveness. We exis o develop and inspire grea leaders of schools, early years seings and children s services. We share he same ambiion o make a posiive difference o he lives of children and young people Naional College for Leadership of Schools and Children s Services All righs reserved. No par of his documen may be reproduced wihou prior permission from he Naional College. To reuse his maerial, please conac he Markeing and Communicaions Team a he Naional College or publicaions@naionalcollege.org.uk Membership of he Naional College gives access o unrivalled developmen and neworking opporuniies, professional suppor and leadership resources. Triumph Road Noingham NG8 1DH T: F: E: enquiries@naionalcollege.org.uk PB516