As a research school, we are in the privileged position of working with a wide range of school leaders, teachers, and educationalists. I have been fortunate to work within the Research Schools Network for eight years, during which time I have delivered programmes focused on evidence-informed practice.
Much of this early work involved centrally designed, ‘off-the-shelf’ programmes. While valuable, these approaches often paid limited attention to how learning would translate into meaningful, sustained change for our most vulnerable pupils beyond the delivery phase.
A Shift in Strategy
I am now Co-Director of the Research School and lead a large, city-wide partnership working directly with Brighton & Hove. Our approach has evolved significantly. We now work intentionally at pupil, school, and system level, with a clear and shared focus on improving outcomes for disadvantaged learners.
Now in our third year, we are beginning to see the benefits of this way of working across all three levels.
Year 1: Understanding the Challenge
The first year of the partnership focused on evidence exploration. Our aim was to develop a clear picture of where the city stood in relation to the attainment of disadvantaged pupils. This involved analysing attainment gaps and identifying challenges at pupil, school, and system level.
A clear pattern emerged across Early Years, KS2, and KS4: spoken language and communication, alongside significant vocabulary deficits, were at the heart of underperformance across the city.
Year 2: Building Capacity Through Collaboration
In the second year, we worked with 17 schools (Cohort 1) through a bespoke, five-day training programme. This was collaboratively planned by the Research School, the local authority, and participating schools, who together formed the implementation team.
Headteachers and programme leads attended, with each school sending at least two participants. The focus was on the evidence base underpinning spoken language and communication, vocabulary instruction, implementation, and professional development.
Schools were organised into triads, supported by a member of the implementation team, and undertook reciprocal, non-judgemental visits. These visits focused on sharing effective practice, identifying areas for development, and agreeing next steps within each school’s context.
Each school also received a day of wraparound support from the Research School. This was used flexibly—ranging from INSET delivery and joint planning to middle leader meetings and senior leadership support—depending on each school’s priorities.
Year 3: Deepening and Scaling the Work
Following the success of Cohort 1, a second cohort of 17 schools joined the programme in Year 3. These schools ranged from early years providers to large comprehensive secondary schools.
Cohort 1 also received two further training days focused on case studies, refining implementation, adapting professional development approaches, and exploring additional evidence related to spoken language, communication, and vocabulary instruction.
Triads remained in place, with further reciprocal visits completed. A new element for Cohort 1 was the introduction of video exemplification, aimed at creating a Brighton & Hove evidence store. These videos were embedded within training days and helped contextualise evidence-informed approaches—from the ShREC approach in Early Years to explicit Tier 3 vocabulary instruction at KS4.
Wraparound support continued for all schools, with a strong focus on supporting bespoke implementation plans and monitoring impact at pupil, school, and system level.
Three Reflections on Partnership Working: The Three Cs
As we approach the end of the third year and robust evaluation begins to take shape, my thinking has turned to what comes next. This feels like the right moment to share three key reflections on multi-phase partnership working.
1. Collaboration
From the outset, it was clear that this was not an ‘off-the-shelf’ project, nor something done to schools. Local authority colleagues, headteachers, and the Research School worked together to shape the direction of travel.
Training days deliberately created space for structured discussion, ensuring all voices were heard. Meeting schools where they were, and using Brighton & Hove schools as case studies, fostered a partnership built on honesty, trust, and shared ownership.
2. Context
The phrase “that wouldn’t work here because…” is a familiar one in education. Throughout the partnership, we were intentional about engaging with research through a Brighton & Hove lens.
Carefully selected local case studies helped contextualise the evidence, while deep engagement with internal and external data enabled us to understand the stories behind the numbers. Ensuring a wide and diverse range of voices strengthened both credibility and impact.
3. Connecting Implementation and Professional Development
Effective implementation and high-quality professional development were woven throughout the programme. We were explicit that this was a two- to four-year journey, not a one-off initiative.
Schools needed time to explore existing practice, systems, and structures before designing implementation plans. Professional development was mapped deliberately, ensuring clarity around when schools would build knowledge, motivate staff, develop teacher techniques, and embed practice.
Implementation was treated as a live, evolving process—developed collectively, embedded in school improvement planning, and supported by monitoring and evaluation as central components rather than afterthoughts.
Looking Ahead
Before this work, I was sceptical about cross-phase partnership working. Having now helped shape a city-wide approach, I am convinced that if we are serious about improving the life chances of our most vulnerable young people, this is the way forward.
I am excited about the next phase of this partnership and about seeing sustained improvements in teacher knowledge and practice, pupil attainment, and, ultimately, long-term system-level change across the city.
James Crane
Co-Director of Durrington Research School