Building education groups as school collaboration for education improvement: a case study of stakeholder interactions in District A of Chengdu

Abstract

School collaboration has become a popular approach for education improvement in global education reform. This study examined the dynamics of stakeholder school collaboration in China to improve public education using a case study focused on an Education Group government initiative in Chengdu, China. Frist an introduction to a global reform for education improvement through school collaboration is given, followed by a review of global reform for school collaboration and Hargreaves and Shirley's discussion on design and innovation for school networks and collaboration to visualize the framework for the interpretation of the stakeholders' school collaborative interactions. Then, the school collaboration for education improvement in China is examined in detail based on 20 interviews with stakeholders from educational authorities, the lead and member schools involved in the establishment of the Education Groups in Chengdu, China. The interviews were designed based on a review of policy documents about construction of the Education Groups in Chengdu. The findings revealed that the establishment of the Education Groups in Chengdu was driven by both top-down initiatives and bottom-up innovations, and while there had been some success in improving education quality in the lower performing schools, the stakeholder interactions had been hindered by the lack of policy coordination within and beyond the education reforms. It was concluded that a collective institutional context was needed to foster the shared values and trust needed between all stakeholders and promote the sustainable reform of the Education Groups to ensure education equity and quality.

Educational constellations: a systematic review of macro-networks in education

“…that simultaneously contain vertical and horizontal relationships. This is the case, for example, in the studies by Liu (2021) and Azorín and Mujis (2017), which describe networks between schools of different educational levels, the educational administration and different elements of the local community.…”

“…Finally, the literature analyzed underlines two fundamental purposes regarding the creation of networks: (1) to improve school outcomes (Eddy-Spicer, 2017; Liu, 2021; Azorín and Muijs, 2018); and (2) to increase educational equity and decrease inequalities (Azonrín, 2021; Hargreaves et al ., 2018). Regarding the first of these, the study by Eddy-Spicer (2017) and Pino-Yanccovic et al .…”

“…Regarding the benefits for the community, at a general level, networks allow the development of plans and programs that are more adapted to the context and characteristics of the school (Liu, 2021), making each school more accountable (Hernández and Navarro, 2018) and more aware of its pedagogical practices and those of the rest of the schools in the network (Pino-Yancovic and Ahumada, 2020).…”

“…, 2019; Brown and Flood, 2020a, b; Coenen et al ., 2021). As Liu (2021) states, the more interaction among participants, the more likely the network is to succeed.…”

“…In this regard, we can find a combination of semi-structured interviews, observations and documentary analysis (Mifsud, 2015; Peurach et al ., 2016; Glazer and Peurach, 2012; Anderson et al ., 2019; Azorín and Muijs, 2018); of observations, semi-structured interviews and reflective diaries (Kouvara et al ., 2019); or of interviews, focus groups and reflective reports (Zahedi et al ., 2021). Likewise, some studies only use interviews (Liu, 2021; Brown and Flood, 2020a, b; Prenger et al ., 2020; González et al ., 2020; Kilpatrick and Fraser, 2018).…”