Impact case study database

Building capacity and shaping policy and practice for union renewal

Beginning with his work with the National Union of Teachers (now part of the 500,000 strong National Education Union), Stevenson’s approach to union renewal has had a significant impact on framing the strategic direction of the union as it has adjusted to a transformed English school system (R4, R5, A). This has been reflected in the union’s shift towards an “organising model” involving a focus on activist development and workplace organisation. At the 2018 (NUT) and 2019 (NEU) national conferences, motions citing Stevenson’s work were passed that committed the union to further building workplace organisation and the development of school-based union representatives. As a result, 2020 saw a 33% increase in workplace representative density (A), building the collective voice and strengthening participation in the union (A).

In addition, Stevenson’s research (R4) has featured in training courses for union representatives and is now embedded in the union’s national training course for District Secretaries, identified by the union as its key activist and leadership group. The joint-General Secretary notes how deep this involvement goes: “ He is frequently invited to discuss his research at a range of union events such as local branch meetings, young teachers’ events (including being keynote at the National New Professionals and Young Workers’ conference in 2019) and union training events” (A). This leads him to note: “ Stevenson’s work has, without exaggeration, been a foundation stone of the NUTs organising model” (A).

This work links Stevenson’s research on grassroots activist development with the need for unions to mount a more effective ideological challenge to current developments in education policy (R1 and R5). A leading young NEU activist notes: “ He is an outward facing intellectual who engages dialogically with school teachers and activists in the education movement … he has enabled many of us to not only engage critically with the education system but to engage with a fight to improve it” (B).

This process of union renewal and grassroots strengthening is credited by the joint-General Secretary as crucial to the NEU’s ability to respond effectively to the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic. “ The union … deliberately connected both industrial and professional issues in a way that Professor Stevenson’s international studies have highlighted frequently” (A), growing membership by 50,000 during 2020 (A).

This impact on union renewal has become international in reach in the census period. Stevenson’s international study (R1) for Education International (EI) has had a major impact on union renewal policy and practice internationally and supported unions in responding to the challenges faced by the teaching profession (C). Published in English, French and Spanish, with over 29,000 download impressions, it is EI’s most downloaded research report. It was followed by a webinar involving 83 union leaders globally, and Stevenson presented the findings in keynote addresses at union conferences in Australia, Canada, and Mexico and across Europe (C).

Union renewal was one of four main conference strands at the EI’s 8^th World Congress in Bangkok in 2019, and 900 delegates unanimously passed a motion (directly referencing R1) titled “Union renewal: the new imperative” (D). This motion will ensure a long-term legacy of union renewal benefiting EI and its members, as confirmed by EI’s General Secretary; “The motion commits EI to making a strategic objective in the next four years of its activity... which will have a significant impact on framing the future direction of the organisation. In the longer-term, this will result in further benefits for affiliates and members across the globe” (C).

The work strengthened the relationship between EI and some of its most important affiliates: “ Educational International has also significantly benefited from the collaboration. In particular, the relationship between EI and certain unions has become stronger as a result of their engagement with Professor Stevenson and the study. For example, the SNTE … are one of our most important affiliates, and one, which we rely on financially to support other affiliates globally who are less able to contribute” (C).

In Mexico, the Sindicato Nacional de Trabajadores de la Educación (SNTE) (1,600,000 members - the largest union in Latin America) printed and distributed 6,000 copies of the report (R1) to its leadership nationally and conducted regional debates, presentations and a webinar centred on the report. Its 2018 work plan follows R1 in prioritising the integration of working conditions and professional development issues (C).

In Argentina, Conadu (The National Federation of University Teachers) drew on the work to develop a “ new approach that supports their members by enhancing their participation and ability to take part in union campaigns, leading to a more effective connection and democratic voice in the workplace*” (C).

In Australia, the Queensland Teacher Union’s (43,000 teachers) strategy addresses the issues of principal workload and wellbeing and directly quotes Stevenson (R1, E). In the UK, the higher education union, UCU, used Stevenson’s research (R1) to train 113 members and 35 staff: “ It is undeniable that the programme has been modified and improved by the research and engagement with Professor Stevenson… there has been a qualitative shift in the approach to bargaining in participants’ branches” (F).

In Europe, the end of project conference for R3 brought together participants from 56 member organisations in 26 countries, including 11 general secretaries (G). The recommendations drove a new Action Plan on Organising and Renewal, adopted by ETUCE’s committee in October 2020, which will be submitted to the 2021 Quadrennial Conference for ratification (G and H). This includes working with the European Commission to support ETUCE member organisations across EU Member States and candidate countries to develop their own union renewal strategies (supported by Stevenson). The President of the ETUCE Committee notes: “ I was pleased to hear, as a member the ETUCE Committee, which met in October, how broad the impact of the study has been across a broad swathe of the ETUCE membership, with several contributors citing its influence on their own approaches” (I). These include unions in Germany, Norway, Poland and the Czech Republic (G). ETUCE notes that the implementation of Stevenson’s recommendations: “ will not only help to strengthen EU-wide discussions on the future of work and the future of trade unions, but also ensure the lasting impact of this initiative” (G).

Strengthening the role of education unions in the European semester

Stevenson’s work has supported better international policymaking, benefiting education unions across the EU as well as senior officials and policymakers. In September 2017, ETUCE used R2 to challenge conventional views in the European Commission that social dialogue within the Semester was largely satisfactory. This resulted in a significant change to the annual Semester process to include formal consultation with education trade unions in the Semester Process (G). During 2017 and 2018, inaugural meetings took place between the Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture and education unions from 14 Member States. Through the training seminars delivered by Stevenson, and the Toolkit he helped to develop, education unions were able to intervene more effectively in the process identifying a number of Country Specific Recommendations to member states that directly reflected education union concerns and lobbying (G, J), for example:

• The Spanish unions’ input can be traced from these meetings to Recommendation 2: ‘Reduce early school leaving and regional disparities in educational outcomes’ (G, J1).

• The Czech Republic’s union convinced the Commission to address issues of ‘professional development and teachers’ low pay’ in their 2018 Country Specific Recommendations, and ‘promoting the teaching profession’ in the 2019 Recommendations (G, J1&2).

• Belgian unions communicated their concerns about inequalities among different social groups in education, reflected in Recommendation 2, to “pursue the education and training reforms, including by fostering equity (G, J4).”

The importance of this impact is highlighted by ETUCE’s European Director: “ This unprecedented change in the European Semester is significant in bringing together for the first time the member unions of ETUCE and officers in the European Commission, to allow them to make better informed decisions about their professional processes, resulting in a more inclusive and effective participation in the Semester” (G). Moreover, “ the value of the project outcome is of such importance and scope that it is to provide added value to the social dialogue partnership between ETUCE and EFEE (European Federation of Education Employers) at sectoral level” (G).

ETUCE has also used Stevenson’s research (R2) to persuade the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC) that education is a significant part of the Semester process alongside employment and economic considerations. This has led to new professional practices adopted by ETUC, which now directly utilise ETUCE’s views in its policy documents and therefore allows ETUCE enhanced ability to influence the Semester. ETUC’s Early Stage Inputs for Broad Economic Guidelines 2018 (K) lists, in exact phrasing, many of the ETUCE priorities (C) which references Stevenson (R2). ETUCE notes that: “The quotation of ETUCE priorities in this document was unprecedented, and in 2019, led to many of the priorities being listed in a dedicated ‘Education and Training’ section in the ETUC Action Programme 2019… Stevenson’s contribution can be attributed to ETUC’s commitment to actions on playing an active role and shaping EU policies on education, training and lifelong learning, and taking an active role in the European Semester process relating to education and training at both European and national levels” (G, also L).

The multiple impacts of the research programme range in scale, type and distinguishability. There is not a 1-1 correspondence between output and impact but rather a many-many relationship between a multi-stranded, long-running body of research, translational and advisory work, and impacts on policy and practice.

The case foregrounds the research/researchers’ impact on two key developments in Level 3 qualification pathways for post-16 learners in England: 1) Core Maths qualifications, and 2) General Mathematical Competences (GMC) embedded in the Technical-Level qualifications (T-levels). It also evidences ongoing impact on mathematics across the further education sector arising from 3) research on college-level policy enactment, and 4) the Centres for Excellence in Mathematics programme’s classroom trials and professional development.

In the two cases of qualification development, Noyes and Wake play different yet complementary roles in the pathways to impact. Noyes’ research leadership and advisory roles afford opportunities to synthesise research and influence strategic change (e.g., through the Royal Society). Noyes and Wake both offer tactical research impact in the form of implementation strategy and scalable findings, whilst Wake’s research features more strongly in the **technical design of curriculum, pedagogy and qualifications.

Core Maths

Noyes’ leadership of the EMP and GMAP projects (2007-11) resulted in him being invited as the sole Professor of Education to advise the Royal Society’s Advisory Committee on Mathematics Education (ACME) on post-16 reforms. Noyes’ synthesis of those (and related) research projects, and membership of the working group (2011-12), led to the publication of two key Royal Society reports on the need for a new post-16 mathematics qualification (A) and the strategic considerations necessary for successful implementation (A). In response to the RS reports and following Noyes and Wake’s government-funded EMP recommendations that new post-16 maths qualifications should be developed, the Department for Education (DfE) invited the Royal Society/ACME to convene an expert panel to advise them on qualification design. Wake was the only mathematics education researcher invited onto the expert panel that developed the blueprint for Core Maths (2013, B) and this enabled him to apply his research on qualification development and mathematical modelling into the new Core Maths qualifications. The tactical design principles of the qualifications were strongly influenced by Wake’s research (A) and long-running experience of designing similar qualifications (e.g., AS Use of Mathematics) which “undoubtedly influenced government thinking leading to the current suite of Core Mathematics qualifications” (C).

Four of the major Awarding Organisations developed six different qualifications that were introduced as ‘Core Maths’ in 2014. Currently, 607 post-16 institutions are delivering Core Maths. Nearly 36,000 students have been awarded Core Maths so far with 11,792 in 2020 reflecting 30% year on year growth (A).

Mathematics in Technical Level Qualifications

In 2016, the Government announced its once-in-a-generation ambition to transform technical education in England in the form of T- level qualifications for 16-18-year olds. In 2017, the Treasury-commissioned “Smith Review of Post-16 Mathematics” recommended that “The Institute for Apprenticeships should work with the Royal Society Advisory Committee on Mathematics Education to ensure appropriate expert advice is available to the panels of professionals developing technical routes…Defining the appropriate mathematics for each of the technical routes is likely to be complex. The mathematics should be designed to reflect the requirements of the relevant occupations, wider society and the emerging economy. It needs to be coherently structured, taught and assessed” (para. 134). By 2018, Noyes had been appointed to chair the Royal Society’s committee on Post-16 Mathematics Pathways on the basis of his research portfolio in this area (e.g., R4 and 5). The first task of this group, which included Wake, was to advise the DfE along the lines suggested by Smith (A, D).

Building on Wake’s research, and Wake and Dalby’s Gatsby-funded analysis on the state of mathematics in technical education in England (R3, G4), Noyes and Wake led the framing of advice to the DfE (D). This included defining a set of General Mathematical Competencies (GMC) for adoption into this once-in-a-generation reform of technical education (D, E). Wake’s research synthesis and justification for GMCs (D,G) - “a quite outstanding document…of considerable national importance” (A) - was praised and adopted by the DfE and is now embedded in this reform programme. As a result, “all students taking T levels will be impacted by how Noyes/Wake’s work has framed mathematical competences. This will, in turn, contribute to addressing England’s longstanding quantitative skills deficit” (A). In addition, the GMC development has shaped “the design and content of CPD for technical teaching staff, both within the ETF/DfE TLPD contract and more widely” (F). Furthermore, the DfE were so impressed by this research-informed justification for the mathematics spine of the T-levels that the groups leading on the literacy and digital strands were directed to develop parallel frameworks (E).

Noyes’/Wake’s impact on qualification development has also happened in a) other jurisdictions “Geoff and Andy’s research and development has had a huge impact on the development of qualifications in Scotland” (H); and b) other qualifications “approximately 200,000 learners have been impacted by working towards a qualification [Level 2 certificate in Further Mathematics] with a strong emphasis on algebraic fluency and mathematical problem solving” (C, R5/G9).

Wider impact on mathematics in Further Education

Noyes and Wake’s research leadership on different projects on system change (G3) and on teaching practice (G2) for mathematics education in FE resulted in the CRME being appointed by the Education and Training Foundation to run the core research strand of the £40 million Centres for Excellence Programme (F/G1). Wake is leading this extensive national programme of professional development and trials of classroom interventions that will help to achieve the mathematics education improvement goals of the Industrial Strategy (E).

Noyes’ MiFEC research (G3) “has been highly influential in shaping DfE’s activities and longer-term plans” (E) resulting in the DfE changing their priorities for the CfEM programme to focus more on whole-college approaches to improving mathematics provision. Moreover, Noyes and Dalby were invited by the DfE to design a national programme for training cross-college managers of mathematics (and English) as these are critical to the DfE’s improvement agenda (E). Post-16 mathematics education is a high priority for the DfE and Noyes and Wake’s past and ongoing research has impacted thinking and planning in this strategically important area.

Whilst the latter impacts are ongoing, they have substantial sector-wide momentum. They have had impact on sector reform processes (E) and national professional development programmes: “based on this body of work ETF is revising at least one of its professional development programmes…to include the Noyes and Wake research base, and making methodological changes, which will ultimately lead to changes in the professional skills of the participants in this programme” (F). Coupled with the aforementioned focused work on qualification developments, the evidence is of comprehensive impact on complex sectoral change in post-16 mathematics, particularly in further education.

Since 2013, Day has acted as a consulting expert on school leadership for various policy-making and professional organisations (such as the DfE, England; CONICYT [Commision National de Investigation Cientifica Tecnologica, Government of Chile]; and the Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership). He is currently a Vice Chair of the Board of Trustees of Education Support (ES), a national charity supporting the mental health and wellbeing of all educators in the UK. He has served as a Director/Trustee of White Hills Park School Federation Trust (WHPFT) in Nottingham, where he has advised on the delivery of services that improved schools’ performance, through his Chairing of the Academic Achievement and Standards Committee (2014-2018). He is currently a Trustee of the Djanogly Learning Trust, and Chair of its Achievement, Standards and Wellbeing Committee. The major impacts associated with Day’s research and advisory work are presented in the below paragraphs.

Shaping education policy

Day’s research on successful school leadership (R1, 2, 3, 4, 5) has informed policy debate and reforms in England. In 2017, DfE implemented new guidance on headteacher recruitment in England, informed by Day’s research (A1). Its 2010 National Leaders of Education standards cite Day’s work several times, acknowledging that: “Drawing on their [Day et al., R4] significant experiences of school improvement, NLEs will develop the capabilities of the supported leader” (A2, p.4).

Through his work as Vice-Chair of the Trustees of Education Support, Day has contributed to policy discussions with both DfE and the Department of Health, and unions and mental health charities. A range of these actors now engage in an ES-led policy forum, the ‘Research and Development Wellbeing’ Group, which Day established (B).

At an international level, Day’s research (R6, G2) and advisory work with the Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (since 2013) has fed into the Australian national policy guidelines on “Leading for impact” (C1), and the “Western Australia school leadership strategy” (C2).

ISSPP has contributed to successful school principalship becoming a priority in educational policy agendas and more widely (D). For instance, in 2015 research from the ISSPP network was cited in response to a Government inquiry on the role of pedagogical leadership of headteachers on the quality and development of school operations in Sweden: “There is evidence that this Governmental inquiry, which used ISSPP research …, has led to incremental changes in the way politicians and school leaders’ practice and talk about their work.”. Moreover, the ISSPP research results have been described as “central” for the Swedish Government’s Reform project “Cooperation for Better Schools”, following this inquiry (D). In Norway, ISSPP findings received substantial public attention and were cited in several governmental Green and White papers between 2015 and 2017 (D).

Optimising organisational strategy, services, and outcomes

In Nottingham, Day has worked with academy trusts (G3-5) to develop programmes to support effective leadership and schools improvement (G, H): “As a direct result of our work with Professor Day, we have significantly improved the quality of teaching … Professor Day has a significant impact on the strategy of the schools used to raise standards. One of the huge achievements is that students’ rate of Maths at the Bramcote School increased by 24% from 2014 to 2018”. Two of the schools “…have improved Ofsted … rating from “Requires Improvement” in 2014/15 to “Good” in 2017” (H).

In England, Day’s research has also directly impacted upon the work of Education Support: “… [his] role for (re)shaping the strategy and, consequently, the services provided by ES(P) is key” (B). Between 2018 and 2019 alone, in addition to the provision of other services to over 600 educational organisations, the charity’s helpline received around 10,000 calls from education workers, around 90% of whom were teachers in primary and secondary education.

Internationally, Day’s work has had a significant influence on successful school leadership strategies in educational organisations (D, E). Research project G1 “…informed 2020 CEDP Priorities which are the basis of all system guidelines and policy particularly in relation to the support of Learning in schools” (I). In response to G2, the AIS: “… redefined the concept of ‘middle leadership’ and reshaped our approach to ‘working 'in' the middle’ through a series of initiatives involving both the program leaders and participants” that prompted the improvement in the AIS’s leadership programme, which “…has, consequently, led to positive changes in teacher skill-sets and school leadership practice” (F, R6). The Arizona Initiative for Leadership Development and Research drew on ISSPP’s work to make improvements in student outcomes in its 75 supported schools: “…in the first iteration of the project from 2013-15, 57% of participating schools improved student outcomes in school labels. In the second iteration from 2015-2017, over 80% of participating schools made these gains in student outcomes” (D).

Enriching individuals’ capacities and practices

In Nottingham, Day’s work with the Transform Trust has centred on a schools-university knowledge exchange project across eight schools serving disadvantaged urban communities (G, G4). This led to better practices in teaching and learning. School principals report staff have increased their knowledge post-training, implemented the newly learned skills into their work, and become more efficient in their day-to-day practice (J). Day also facilitated collaborative projects between the White Hills Park Federation Trust and schools from Australia and China. This, in turn, enhanced the professional development of (head)teachers and subsequently improved teaching and leadership practice (H).

Internationally, his work with the Australian Association of Independent Schools led to improvements in its training programme and subsequent outcomes: “…approximately 60 participants in the programme have…been greatly influenced by Professor Day’s work and research. …approximately 10% per cent… have subsequently been promoted to senior leadership roles. … their professional identities had changed by the end of the programme” (I).

ISSPP activities have laid the foundations of sustainable school leadership improvement through new research-informed programmes internationally (D, E), with “… multi-levels of impact, including improved skill levels and career development of academic members, development and implementation of new educational programmes, and improved teaching practices” (D). Highlights include influence on the Swedish National Principal Training Programme and new higher degrees in Australia, Mexico, Norway and USA, which have educated thousands of professionals to date (D).