Continuum of Partnership Working

Enderbys’ so-called ‘life cycle’ within Creative Partnerships formally concluded in 2009. Over the period 2004 to 2009, the CP programme delivered by the Arts Centre could be considered as a ‘flexible action research model’ steered and guided by participants and cultural based stakeholders. The case made regionally for the Arts Centre to deliver CP with legacy in mind, discussed in theme one, served Enderby well as opportunities for evolution of the programme emerged. Sustaining significant and strategic on-going opportunities for embedding creativity at Enderby School against an emerging backdrop of significant political change was made possible because of the existing and trusted local infrastructure.

A number of schools in North and South Tyneside, including Enderby, sought opportunities to extend their inter-relationships with the Arts Centre and each other as their formal relationship with CP concluded in 2009. They collectively

enactment could continue. Their actions can be considered as an influential strategic move in relation to legacy. Assistant Head Teacher Lucy and Arts Centre Officer Jill spoke of moving forward into establishing a legacy for creativity.

Schools involved in the original programme, reached their life cycle with Creative Partnerships so they couldn’t keep in the main programme when it moved to the change school and inquiry school programme. A number of those ‘first phase’ schools wanted to remain involved as a network and explore issues and build on what they’d already done (Jill)

The legacy forum came about because the original family of CP schools felt they had achieved so much it was important to continue that journey and continue to work together (Lucy)

The cohort or self-named ‘family’ of schools interested in a continuum of enactment ‘post’ CP (including Enderby), had closely collaborated with the Arts Centre to collectively shape and guide the flexible ‘action research’

model of CP. Arguably, mutual trust existed between the social actors

involved and they shared an understanding of the role and value of creativity in teaching and learning, gained as a result of participating as a coalition of schools.

Assistant Head Teacher Lucy spoke of this position from Enderbys’

perspective, and how they perceived the notion of continuation.

We valued the opportunity to continue to work with the Arts Centre and schools who had a shared understanding of what we meant by creativity. At Enderby we saw the CP work we had done simply as the beginning and in order to continue we had the resources within ourselves….. the resources were us, the teachers and children themselves. (Lucy)

CP as a programme delivered by the Arts Centre had supported the development of creativity in each school and engendered a sense of coalition between the social actors. The notion of legacy was explored as a continuum of the action research model of creativity enactment. This was in

direct contrast to the structured, ‘main’ formulaic CP programme model and hierarchical system of ‘inquiry and change schools’ adopted as the

operating model across England by all organisations contracted to deliver Creative Partnerships. In that prescribed model the recruitment of schools, reporting systems and resourcing relating to the ‘main’ programme were tightly defined, operating within a tighter monitoring and accountability framework to meet the requirements of government.

Initial stages of consultation and discussion between the Arts Centre staff and school staff (involving Lucy) led to the formation of the legacy forum. The forum was given a formal status within North and South Tyneside’s CP programme by the Arts Centre. Terms of reference, funding allocation and reporting procedure were put in place. This action provided a legitimate framework for local teachers positioned or conceived as social actors to continue working in collaboration, co-create and enact creativity. Members of the forum, including Enderby, could be considered as having designed and authored their own model of sustainability or legacy.

Forum membership appeared to involve collusive, collective decision making by teachers and Arts Centre staff at a local level separate to the formal national CP delivery framework. Members appeared to wish to benefit from remaining under the umbrella of the programme whilst retaining a high level of local autonomy. The primary benefit of doing so arguably was a desire to continue the enactment of creativity as ‘legacy’ that attracted national legitimacy and validation. This was a pattern or pathway of sustainability that Enderby supported and pursued.

Enderby used the vehicle created by the legacy forum of the ‘North and South Tyneside Creative Learning Partnership’ (CLP) to explore the

embedment of creativity in the curriculum. Jill, Arts Centre Officer, spoke of Enderbys’ research interest.

With Enderby, it was integration of practice into their Magnificent 7 learning tools and they wanted to share that with other schools, but also build on other schools’ learning. They particularly valued learning, seeing that progression of creativity and I think that in essence is kind of where they are and where they were from. They wanted to maintain that progression of creativity. They didn’t want young people to get to secondary school and become siloed in terms of the subjects and the curriculum-specific things that they were doing. (Jill)

Members of the CLP could be considered as having devised a ‘strategy for sustainability’ based upon an established pattern of partnership working and mutuality of trust. As a cohort, members appeared motivated by a self-generated, self- permitting opportunity to maintain and progress creativity enactment across geographical boundaries and education levels, as Jill, Arts Centre Officer, described.

With the Legacy Group, it was great because it was across the two boroughs in North and South Tyneside. It wasn’t just borough-specific and it was secondary schools working alongside primary schools and nursery schools and learning from each other. (Jill)

Enderby actively sought a continuum of partnership working through the legacy forum, action they were committed to undertaking as an established cultural norm. Outcomes from their research activities and personal

reflections from school staff were captured and published in a commissioned report – Creative Learning Partnerships Report (2011). The report’s structure indicated this was a ‘self-reflective tool’ for use by participants (schools) and commissioner (Arts Centre). Its primary purpose appeared to be for ‘internal’

evaluation and archiving of the activities undertaken rather than external scrutiny. The reader is however provided with evidence of contributors’ belief

and commitment to the continued exploration and enactment of ‘creativity’

as a norm, as seen in the two extracts from the report (Appendix 2).

Enderbys’ experience of undertaking research within the CLP was reported as having been motivational for staff.

Our Creative Arts team has been motivated knowing that this enquiry is far more than simply a school project. There has been a wealth of professional interest from practitioners and other teachers (even they haven’t been able to get practically involved so far). Having support from practitioners and experienced CP leaders has been useful and very helpful.

Extract - Creative Learning Partnership Report (2011)

Support from Creative Partnerships for the Creative Learning Partnership was relatively short lived, lasting from 2009 to 2011. New policy settlement under Coalition governance was required to sustain direct enactment of creativity in education. This did not happen. In the reframing of education priorities by the Coalition government there was a shift in policy focus toward

traditionalism and CP as initiative was rejected by policy makers as Miles (2007) and Galton (2009) predicted. A significant national platform for creativity was removed under emerging Coalition ideology. The Arts Centre continued in their role of arts and culture ‘providers’ for North and South Tyneside but CP and the CLP were removed from the Arts Centres formal and informal remit with schools .

Enderby was challenged with embedding creativity against this backdrop of a change in policy direction and ideology. Enderby and their partners were required to function and consider creativity enactment within an emerging coalition policy environment which, according to Williamson (2012),

‘oscillated paradoxically’ between conservative restorationism and post-bureaucratic autonomy, innovation and creativity.

Jill, Arts Centre Development Officer, suggested schools struggled with the new constraints brought in under Coalition policy directives.

I think the changeover government didn’t help, it really didn’t help. Those new constraints, those new objectives and priorities that were put onto schools meant that some schools closed down a little bit in terms of being as open as they had been with Creative Partnerships…. it’s whether that learning is embedded in the school or whether it’s embedded in the staff, and it’s got to be both. It’s got to be within the ethos, and I think that’s what Enderby has. (Jill)

According to Bruce, Local Authority Cultural Services Senior Officer, Enderbys’

established ethos of creativity supported the schools capacity to withstand the need for ‘retrenching’ under new policy pressures.

In some respects schools are either retrenching, because they’ve got less money and there’s more pressure upon them, or they were previously engaged in accessing funds that were available externally and were allowing them to address the creativity agenda in a way that they couldn’t before and, perhaps, arguably can’t now, because those resources aren’t there. There are good examples, like Enderby, where they are able to reshape what they’re doing because they have a positive perspective on how creativity benefits children in the long term, but I don’t think there are many schools around like that (Bruce).

Assistant Head Teacher Lucy spoke of her frustration at the removal of a platform for creativity in schools, and Enderbys’ determination to continue with partners.

The frustration is just when we got a platform to really make things take off a government change or government agenda comes along and pulls the carpet away, and says ‘No sorry we’re taking that funding away, because it has no value’. And we know, yeah we’re keeping things despite the funding cuts, but we know that in a few years’ time that circle will turn and the government or whoever the regime is at the time will go ‘Oh we should have, perhaps the arts and creativity are important’, but it will go back to square one and that’s sad, but that’s why the relationships that we have are so important, and we’re nurturing those and value them so much. (Lucy)

Commitment to curriculum development and supporting creativity within teaching and learning remained on Enderbys’ agenda. Creativity as an ethos still ‘mattered’ despite the demise of scaffolding and national reinforcement under Coalition policy directives. As Head Teacher Emily said, “we have used national opportunities local, regional opportunities to develop partnerships which will help us to enhance what we’ve set out to do”. CP and the CLP as initiatives had formally demised, however the coalition of local and regional partners, primarily Enderbys established partners remained, the social actors involved having declared their intention to sustain creativity.

Arguably, Enderby ‘set out’ to make a difference to the lives and life chances of their students through the schools educational offer. Creativity was

perceived as a central part of that offer enhanced through curriculum development and experimentation. Enderbys’ ethos and culture enabled and supported the social actors as they moved toward embedding creativity in a period of uncertainty. Coalition policy direction and emerging directives sharply contrasted with the schools’ values and beliefs in relation to creativity.

Action was required in order to review and refine how creativity should be developed.