Collaborative Approaches to 14-19 Provision - Communities and ...

14-19 PATHFINDERS: THE SECOND YEARMain developments295. In order to meet its objectives the pathfinder had first to develop collaborativestructures in the two pathfinder areas. In neither was collaboration deeply rooted, althoughthe challenges and processes of building partnerships were rather different. Partnershipcoordinators were appointed for each of the two areas and worked under the direction of theoverall pathfinder manager and steering group. However, the two partnerships hadconsiderable autonomy to develop the work in ways which suited the particularcircumstances and history of the areas.296. In East Hampshire, although there was no great history of institutional collaboration, astrong collaborative culture was quickly established, particularly at deputy head/deputyprincipal level, between the schools and colleges. This culture became established partly as aresult of the process of developing the pathfinder proposal. It was marked by a willingness tocompromise and to locate resources where need was greatest. For example, as part of thedevelopment of vocational learning it was decided to set-up a catering base (see below) and itwas agreed that this should be sited at one of the schools, while being made available to allthe partners. Similarly with the mobile vocational units (see below) agreement was reachedthat these should move around the schools in ways which would minimise the numbers ofstudents travelling to other sites. Several interviewees emphasised the excellent culture ofcollaboration which had been developed through the pathfinder.297. In South-West Hampshire there was much stronger competition between institutionscentred on the post-16 market – this was described by one interviewee as “fierce”. Several ofthe school sixth forms were small in size, while the two main colleges in the area alsocompeted for students. In this context institutions engaged with the collaborative 14-19agenda with different degrees of enthusiasm – some embraced it whole-heartedly, otherswere seeking to acquire additional resources while one school distanced itself completely.This context for collaboration was reflected, for example, in the decision to site the localskills centres (see below) at what were described as ‘neutral’ venues rather than at any of thepartner schools and colleges.93