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

14-19 PATHFINDERS: THE SECOND YEAR63. The numbers and mobility of students could also be significant in the promotion ofcollaboration since this affected the financial viability of the range of curricular optionswhich could be provided. The establishment of the Gateshead CG6 (see Gateshead CaseStudy) was prompted by the ease with which post-16 students could cross the Tyne to attendcollege in Newcastle, thus leaving fewer post-16 students studying in Gateshead therebycreating a ‘vicious circle’ in which the range of provision which could be offered wasnarrowed.64. History is another crucial contextual factor. The success of the KingswoodPartnership in South Gloucestershire and the four federations in Coventry (see case studies)owed much to their longevity and to the stores of trust and shared practices which had beenbuilt up. Long experience in those two partnerships had showed that collaboration couldproduce results, both in terms of student achievement and organisational effectiveness.History, however, was not always a benign influence. Examples of previous collaborativearrangements which had subsequently withered could be a source of caution, or cynicism.Past competitive relationships could also put a brake upon collaboration, as could ‘mythical’institutional reputations, especially where these raised parental concerns.65. Culture could also be significant and might operate at various levels. In one casestudy, despite strong institutional partnerships and good transport links, students from onearea within the pathfinder were reluctant to travel to institutions in another area because theyfeared they would be victims of violence, abuse and racism. These fears were reciprocatedby students who had opportunities to travel in the opposite direction. This was one exampleamong several where students were described as insular or timid and as being reluctant totravel. Institutional cultural similarities or differences could also be important in enabling orconstraining collaboration and many pathfinders engaged in the careful and explicitdevelopment of protocols through which such differences could be managed.66. Strong local identities were often important in generating support for collaborativeapproaches, especially where these coincided closely with pathfinder or consortia boundaries.In Sheffield and Knowsley, for example, there was a strong commitment to doing the bestpossible for young people in the areas. In other pathfinders there was local commitmentwithin clearly identifiable sub-areas, such as West Cumbria or the New Forest. Sometimes,22