Switch course ▾
Session 4. Equity, Governance and Ownership
Objective. Map equity barriers for rural and low-resource schools and adapt the flexible parts without breaking the core; write a one-page governance charter with decision rights; and plan the shift of ownership from the originator to the schools.
Networks do not usually exclude a school on purpose; they exclude it by timing, by materials in the wrong language and by decisions nobody owns. A village school hears 'later' and later never comes. This session gives you two practical tools: a short listening visit for the schools that are hardest to reach, and a light governance routine with a change log, so that adaptation is allowed but the core is protected and ownership moves to the schools.
Key ideas
Who is left out when you scale?
- Scaling usually reaches the easy schools first: near the district centre, with a strong head, a good road and a printer. The hardest schools are reached last or never, so the average looks fine while the gap grows. Equity must be designed in from the start, not added at the end.
- The Brookings Millions Learning study of scaling in education stresses reaching the most marginalised children, and finds that many successful programmes began on the margins before they spread. It also stresses an enabling environment, with households, communities and others contributing, not only the school.
- Make a barrier map. For each type of school list what could block the practice: distance, multigrade classes, very large classes, new graduates, a language of instruction without materials, no printer, little power or internet, pupils who miss weeks for seasonal work or family duties. Then ask which school type you have not yet visited.
Adapt the flexible parts, keep the core
- For each barrier, change a FLEXIBLE part from the recipe card and leave the core alone. A school with no printer writes the checklist on the board; a multigrade class pairs an older with a younger pupil; a Karakalpak-medium class explains in its own language; a school with seasonal absence keeps a catch-up card.
- Test in a hard setting before the district roll-out. If the practice only works with electricity, a printer and a strong lead teacher, you have not tested it for the schools that need it most. Ring 2 should include at least one school that is small, far away or short of resources.
- Watch for gaps while you scale: report reach and results by school type (town, village, small, large, language of instruction), not only as one average. If village schools lag, add support there before moving on, and never fix the gap by quietly lowering what is expected of them.
Governance: who decides what
- In a pilot the originator decides everything. In a network, unclear decisions cause quarrels: Who may change a core move? Who decides to move to the next ring? Who may stop it? Who holds the budget and the data? Write these decision rights down before the first dispute.
- A simple one-page charter lists: purpose; an OWNER with authority (for example the district head or a head teacher); a small steering group of 3 to 6 with school and teacher voices; a network lead for daily work; decision rights as DECIDES, ADVISES, DOES or IS INFORMED; a change log for the core; data ownership; and a review date.
- Hopkins argues that successful system reform balances top-down direction with bottom-up professional ownership. In your charter this means the owner sets the goal and the core, and teachers and schools shape how it is done. The more complex the practice, the more judgement must be left with professionals.
From the originator to the schools: shifting ownership
- Coburn names the shift in reform ownership as a dimension of scale: the practice is truly scaled when schools and teachers, not the originator, carry knowledge and authority. Signs of the shift: schools adapt within the core on their own, teachers train colleagues, the practice appears in the school plan and has a budget line.
- Use the 'bus test': if the originator, the champion head or the coordinator left tomorrow, would the practice continue in term time? If not, ownership has not shifted. Fix this with a written handover: the card, materials, monitoring sheet, contacts, decision log and who now owns each.
- Ownership also means the right to say no. A head who was told 'the district decided' will do the minimum. Give schools a real voice at the start (a choice of start date, a way to raise problems) and report back what changed because of what they said.
Who does what in a network
A listening visit to the hardest school
Before you adapt anything, spend 30 to 45 minutes in the school with the head and one teacher, ideally in a real lesson. Bring the recipe card, not a presentation. Ask three open questions: what would make this hard here, what would you change, and what must stay for it to work. Then ask to see one lesson or a pupils' notebook, and note what the teacher already does that is close to the core.
Avoid three habits: explaining the practice before listening, promising materials you cannot deliver, and treating the school as the problem. Write down what you heard in the school's own words, return the notes within a week and say which suggestions you used. A school that sees its words in the plan is far more likely to call the practice its own.
Change log, data and the bus test
A light routine keeps adaptation safe. A school describes a proposed change on half a page; the network lead checks it against the card. A change to a flexible part is approved at once and logged; a change to a core move goes to the steering group, is tested in one school first, and is logged with the reason and the result. Review the log each term and move proven changes onto the card.
Decide data ownership early: the school owns its pupils' work and names; the network receives counts and short notes without names. Then run the bus test twice a year: if the coordinator were away for a term, who would hold the materials, call the meetings and train new teachers? Write the names down and give those people the time and authority.
Examples from the classroom
A listening visit near the Aral Sea
Scene. Malika, a network lead, spends 40 minutes in a small Karakalpak-medium school. The head says the card exists only in Uzbek and Russian, and half the pupils explain better in Karakalpak. The teacher already asks pupils to retell in pairs. Malika asks two teachers to translate the checklist, records that the explanation language is flexible, and returns the notes within five days.
Insight. Listening first turns a barrier into a flexible-part adaptation and builds ownership.
A change request that touches the core
Scene. A lead school in Fergana asks to give partner marks that count towards the term grade. The network lead sees that this changes a core move and a red line. The steering group invites the school to test an alternative: partners give a thumbs-up and one comment, not marks. After six weeks the school reports that pupils explain more freely. The log records both decisions.
Insight. A core change goes through a route with a test and a record, and the school's aim can still be met.
The bus test in month 18
Scene. Nilufar, who started the practice in a Samarkand cluster, is moved to another post. The cluster's handover note lists the card, task sets, monitoring sheet, contacts and who owns each. A deputy head, Aziz, convenes the monthly meeting, and two lead teachers induct new staff. In the next term, 17 of 19 classes still show at least four core moves.
Insight. Ownership has shifted when the practice continues without the originator.
Common pitfalls
- Promising materials 'later' to the schools that are hardest to reach.
- Letting a lead school change a core move without a test, a record or a decision.
- Collecting pupil names and marks in the network office when counts without names would do.
- Naming no second person who can run the network if the coordinator leaves.
Equity and Governance Workshop
- Pairs (15 min): in Table A, for four sample schools, name the barrier, one change to a FLEXIBLE part that fits, and what must stay (the core) for the Pair-Explain Routine from session 1.
- Pairs (15 min): in Table B, mark each of six decisions as DECIDES, ADVISES, DOES or IS INFORMED for the four roles. Only one role may DECIDE each decision.
- Trios (15 min): in Table C, take four governance dilemmas, name the dimension of scale at risk, and write your first move in one sentence.
- Part B, alone (25 min): in Table D, make an equity map for the schools in YOUR network and write the one-page governance charter lines (owner, steering group, decision rights, change log, data, handover).
- Pairs (10 min): exchange tables. Your partner plays the head of the smallest village school: 'Why should I take this on?' Write one change to your charter or map that answers.
- Whole group (5 min): hear two charters and compare with the answer note.
Your facilitator will guide you through this activity in the session.
Questions to discuss
- Which school type in your network have you reached least, and what does that say about the average results?
- Which decision in your network is made by three people at once, or by nobody?
- What would happen to your practice if you left for a year?
Reflect
- Which school in your area is always the last to receive any new programme?
- When did a decision about a shared programme last cause a quarrel, and which decision right was unclear?
- How do the schools in your network tell you when something does not work for them?
Try it tomorrow
- List the school types in your network and mark the one you have never visited; plan a 40-minute listening visit.
- Write half a page describing how a school would ask to change the practice and who would decide.
- Run the bus test on your own practice and write down who would do each job.
Further reading and links
Design for the hardest school first, change only the flexible parts, write who decides what, and measure ownership by whether the practice survives without you.