school improvement in the context of a primary school in special measures

Teacher Development, Volume 6, Number 3, 2002

329

School Improvement in the Context of a Primary School in Special Measures

RON RITCHIE University of the West of England, Bristol, United Kingdom

ABSTRACT This article is based on a case study of a large primary school placed in special measures as a result of an inspection by Ofsted (Office for Standards in Education). It examines the processes of school improvement and focuses on the leadership and management roles of the head teacher and deputy head teacher. It addresses approaches to improving the quality of teaching through systematic professional development cycles set up to support teachers. The role of senior staff in facilitating these cycles and the implications with regard to classroom observation, feedback to colleagues and action planning are significant themes. Data cover the perspectives of teachers, senior managers, Local Education Authority advisers and governors. The case study provides insights into school self-evaluation and its relationship to external scrutiny by Ofsted. External inspection may be an appropriate instrument for judging school performance, but cannot, on its own, lead to improvement (Lee & Fitz, 1998). This article explores what happens after a school (in England) failed an Ofsted inspection and was put in special measures. It focuses on the processes involved in improvement, in particular those aimed at improving the quality of teaching. It is, in many respects, a success story that relates to one aspect of a journey of school improvement, during which a school rapidly went from a state of crisis to a situation in which staff could celebrate their achievements in a school that, according to Her Majesty’s Inspector, had ‘notable strengths’.

Context

Inspection by the Office for Standards in Education (Ofsted) is now an established feature of the educational landscape in England. The statutory basis for inspections by registered inspectors (essentially, private teams) was established in the early nineties under Section 9 of the Education (Schools) Act 1992, which requires inspectors to report on: the quality of education

Ron Ritchie

330

provided; the education standards achieved; whether financial resources are managed efficiently; and the spiritual, moral, social and cultural development of pupils. The framework for inspection of schools from 1995 (Ofsted, 1995) was supplemented with additional guidance (Ofsted, 1998a) and then revised (Ofsted, 1999a, 1999b) to provide a differentiated system from January 2000 which places greater emphasis on school self-evaluation. The current framework requires ‘effective’ schools to undergo ‘short inspections’ whilst other schools are still required to have a ‘full inspection’. The need for schools to be accountable is generally accepted by the profession and the population at large, although the mode of inspection is still the subject of considerable debate. The validity of the results of inspection also remains contested although Ofsted claimed that ‘the proportion of schools which regard their inspections and their findings as fair and accurate outweighs those that do not by at least ten to one’ (Ofsted, 1998a, p. 1). The impact of inspections on standards and school improvement is another contested issue. As already noted, inspection on its own cannot lead to improvement. However, an even more disturbing claim is made by Cullingford, who provided evidence that ‘year on year they (Ofsted inspections) lower standards’ (1999, p. 66). This evidence (from the secondary sector, i.e. ages 11-18 years) relates to the negative effect on exam results caused by an Ofsted inspection, possibly as a result of efforts being focused on the inspection rather than pupils.

Another significant contextual feature of school inspections in the last 5 years is the political emphasis that has been placed on literacy and numeracy (Department for Education and Employment [DfEE], 2001, p. 4). The national strategies (DfEE, 1998, 1999) and associated national, Local Education Authority (LEA) and school targets have required schools to narrow their focus and concentrate attention on pupils’ learning in English and mathematics. It is pupils’ achievements in these areas that provide key data to inform Ofsted decisions regarding the success of a school being inspected.

The ongoing debate concerning the relationship between school effectiveness and improvement highlights some of the controversies involved in both fields and the problematic nature of their findings (Sammons, 1999). However, ample evidence does exist regarding the key role of the head teacher in successful schools in school effectiveness (Sammons et el, 1995) and school improvement literature (Day et al, 2000; Ikin & Ritchie, 2000; Reynolds et al, 1996), as well as from Ofsted’s own findings. Ofsted highlights the significant role a head teacher plays when a school is in special measures (1999c, p. 2). The nature of the head teacher’s role is nationally ‘defined’ in the National Standards for Head Teachers (NSHT) (DfEE, 2000), although the framework used is contested (Wilson, 1999) and its failure to recognise the significance of values to the role is recognised by some (Tomlinson et al, 1999). However, a feature of the recent debate about the nature of the head teacher’s role about which there is an emerging consensus is the need for them to prioritise leadership as well as management. The NSHT emphasises leadership skills and the need for head teachers to create ethos and provide educational vision and

A PRIMARY SCHOOL IN SPECIAL MEASURES

331

direction. Research from Hay McBer (National Association of Head Teachers, 2001), which is the basis for the Leadership Programme for Serving Head Teachers, also emphasises leadership over management. Ofsted inspectors appropriately judge whether a school is effectively led as well as effectively managed.

Methodology and Methods

The case study used for this article is offered as illustrative of one school’s approach from which some tentative insights can be gained, but from which the author does not claim generalisable findings have been produced. In line with Stake’s view, ‘the purpose is not to represent the world, but to represent the case’ (Stake, 1994, p. 245). Its goal is more concerned with ‘relatability’ than generalisability. It provides an example within what Hopkins & Reynolds (2001) describe as the ‘Third Age’ of school improvement projects. The discussion is about context-specific school improvement where the focus is on the learning level and goals were developing ‘capacity for improvement’ and ‘cultural change’ (p. 463).

The opportunity for gathering data arose from an invitation (December 1999) to the author from an LEA to support a school placed in special measures (as a result of an inspection in November 1999). The support was in the form of consultancy and involvement in the Governing Body as an LEA-appointed governor. At the point of invitation, the author indicated his intention of maintaining a record of involvement that could, with permission, provide data for research purposes. This record comprised a detailed research journal and ongoing notes and minutes of meetings and notes of discussions. Several months into the period of support (April 2000), the following research questions were formulated:

What factors contribute to improving the quality of teaching in a school in special measures? What leadership skills do a head teacher and deputy head teacher use in supporting teachers in improving the quality of teaching? What factors contribute to the success of an effective professional development cycle for teachers? What contribution can the implementation of professional development cycles make to school self-evaluation and Ofsted inspections?

At this point and in discussion with the Head Teacher, data collection was broadened and became more systematic. Semi-structured interviews were planned with a sample of teachers (three), the Deputy Head Teacher and Head Teacher. Interviews were conducted (lasting approximately 45 minutes each and audio-taped) in April 2000 and further interviews (three teachers, one from the previous sample, Deputy Head Teacher and Head Teacher) were

Ron Ritchie

332

conducted just prior to the final visit by Ofsted (February 2001). The school came out of special measures in March 2001 and at that point permission was gained from the respondents to write up the case study.

Ethical issues were clearly significant in that the researcher was a governor of the school and a consultant appointed by the LEA at the time of data collection and therefore a stakeholder. The primacy of his contribution to the school in those roles informed his actions – he did not allow the research activity to influence his decisions in any way that might limit the support he offered. Indeed, the original round of interviews were set up as a formative evaluation of ongoing support being provided by the Deputy Head Teacher to inform her, the senior management team and governors of its impact. Respondents were aware of the possibility of the data being used for research, although some field notes and documentary evidence were collected before research questions were clarified. It was agreed with respondents that the identity of the school and all respondents would be made anonymous in any research account.

The author’s multiple roles as consultant, stakeholder, evaluator, researcher (and advocate) have clearly affected data collection, analysis, interpretation and reporting of this case. This has led to limited plurality of view and the account should, perhaps, be read as advocacy, based on naturalistic methods.

Case Study

Willing Hill Primary School (ages 5-11 years) is located in a large village in the West of England with a mixed population that has expanded considerably in recent years with the building of new owner-occupier housing estates. The school has over 300 pupils, with approximately 10% on free school meals (below the national average). Twenty per cent are on the school’s register for special educational needs (SEN) (about the national average) and 2.5% have Statements of SEN (above the national average). The school was inspected in 1996 and 1999. The latter inspection was critical of many aspects of the work of the school and the school was made subject to special measures. At that time the then Head Teacher had been in post for many years. A new Deputy Head Teacher had recently been appointed. The inspection highlighted the following key issues: quality of teaching; breadth and balance of the curriculum; use of assessment; and the quality of leadership and management.

The school was ‘stuck’ (Hopkins et al, 1994; Stoll & Fink, 1996) in that it was ineffective and in process terms ‘static’. A teacher who joined the school soon after the inspection reported that ‘the school was in crisis, we just tried to survive each day’. In January 2000 a senior management team was established for the first time. A new focus group of governors, LEA Adviser, Head Teacher and Deputy Head Teacher was established, chaired by the author. This group was charged with producing an action plan by 1 March 2000. In the


333

intervening period the long-established chair of governors resigned and was replaced by one with a professional background in education. Soon after the action plan had been submitted the Head Teacher became ill and an acting Head Teacher was appointed by the LEA on secondment from a local school.

The implementation of the action plan began, including a series of professional development cycles (see below) that were collaboratively planned by the Deputy Head Teacher and author (as consultant). The model used built on his previous approaches to action enquiry and professional development (Ollerenshaw & Ritchie, 1997, Chapter 8; Ritchie, 2001, Chapter 9; Bell & Ritchie, 1999, Chapters 8 & 9). A Teaching and Learning Committee was set up by the governors (chaired by the author), in part to monitor the key issue related to quality of teaching. The incumbent Head Teacher resigned in April 2000. In the first few months after the inspection there was a considerable turnover of staff. Her Majesty’s Inspector (HMI) made her first visit in May and reported on good progress (although some criticisms were made of the action plan being over-complicated). The Acting Head Teacher was appointed to the permanent post in June 2000. At that time the governors reorganised their committee structure and established a School Improvement Committee (chaired by the author), that was charged with monitoring all aspects of a revised action plan. Further visits by HMI took place in October 2000 when, again, good progress was identified in all key issues. Two HMI, made a final visit to the school in March 2001 and reported ‘that [the school] no longer requires special measures’ and ‘is a rapidly improving school which has notable strengths’. Within 13 months the school had improved dramatically: from being ‘stuck’ it had clearly become a ‘moving’ school (Hopkins et al, 1994) that produced ‘effective’ outcomes through being ‘dynamic’.

One strategy (on which this article will concentrate) implemented to improve the quality of teaching was, as noted above, the introduction of systematic professional development cycles (pdcs) for each teacher with focused support for about half a term every year. The cycle was facilitated by a ‘mentor’.

The stages of the cycle were:

Collaborative discussion (recorded on a pro forma) teacher and mentor discuss the cycle; they discuss the teacher’s strengths and weaknesses; agree a lesson to be observed and a focus within it.

Lesson observation plans of lesson given to mentor in advance; lesson observed by mentor and evaluated using Ofsted framework/criteria.

Feedback, discussion and action planning feedback provided to teacher by the mentor on the same day; discussion informed by teacher’s evaluation of the lesson and mentor’s observations (recorded on a pro forma);

Ron Ritchie

334

action plan written (using a standardised format) covering next 4-5 week period. This may involve in-service activities/lesson observation by the teacher/team teaching/collaborative planning/trying out new ideas in the classroom, etc.

Time for progress on areas of development implementing planned action with ongoing informal support and discussion; teacher records progress in a log.

Evaluation of progress a follow-up lesson observation (agreed as part of the action plan); further feedback discussion, informed by the teacher’s and mentor’s evaluations of the lesson; further longer-term professional development discussed.

The professional development cycles were initially implemented by the Deputy Head Teacher (who, it was agreed by the governors, would not have class teacher responsibilities). She was trained for and supported in this role by an LEA Adviser, who observed lessons alongside her initially and ‘negotiated’ judgements of teaching quality based on the Ofsted criteria. Once the new Head Teacher had joined the school he also took an active role in training and supporting the Deputy in facilitating this role. She facilitated the cycles for two or three teachers at any one time. The choice of who was involved and when was negotiated and involved the Head Teacher. Later, members of the senior management team, who had themselves been through the cycle, had opportunities to support others during their pdcs.

It should be emphasised that during the period that professional development cycles were being implemented, other strategies and changes were being introduced. Of particular significance, as the evidence below suggests, were the efforts of the new Head Teacher to change the ethos and culture of the school. His vision involved ‘establishing a whole school ethos as a way of uniting the school, staff, governors, pupils and parents around a clear set of aims’. This was encapsulated in the following mission statement adopted by the school – ‘achieving excellence for ourselves and others’. Induction of new staff (by September 2000, 12 new teachers had been employed by the school) was aimed to foster their commitment to continued improvement. Additionally, another significant strategy was to make much better use of assessment data and to set targets for individuals and groups of pupils.

The pdcs were evaluated in a number of ways, including semi-structured interviews of teachers who had completed the cycles (by the author). Teachers involved also provided informal feedback to the senior management team. These evaluation data and the Deputy Head Teacher’s views on the cycles and their outcomes were monitored by the Head Teacher and governors. HMI also commented on the approach. For example, after the visit in May 2000, HMI commented that ‘there is considerable training for teaching ... tailor made to the needs of staff’. The outcomes of the Deputy Head Teacher’s and


335

Head Teacher’s monitoring of the quality of teaching, in the context of the pdcs, became an important way in which the senior management team and the governors were able to monitor the improvements in the quality of teaching throughout the school.

Outcomes of the Professional Development Cycles

There is no doubt from the range of evidence available that the pdcs led to improvements in the quality of teaching (as judged using Ofsted criteria) whilst the cycles were being implemented and to longer-term improvement, although, again, it is worth noting that other developments in the school may also have had an impact on the quality of teaching and that ‘quality’ was being judged in a fairly narrow way. Some of this evidence was quantitative (percentage of gradings of lessons observed, see Table I) and the governors were able to monitor the ongoing improvement as judged by the Head Teacher/Deputy Head Teacher and LEA Adviser (H/D/L in Table I) and compare it with the equally positive improvements being reported by HMI over the three visits made.

Date Evidence base Indicator % of teachers

Curriculum area

November 1999 Ofsted Good or better Sound or better Unsatisfactory

48 82 18*

Overall

May 2000 HMI Good or better Sound or better

33 83

Overall

July 2000 H/D/L

Good or better Sound or better

33 83

Literacy

October 2000 HMI Good or better Sound or better

50 93

Overall

December 2000 H/D/L Good or better Good or better Sound or better

33 46 100

Numeracy Literacy Overall

March 2001 HMI Good or better Sound or better

50 100

Overall

* (28% of KS2 lessons, i.e. ages 7-11 years) Table I. Evidence of quality of teaching. Other positive outcomes identified from the data resulting from the pdcs were various and included increases in teachers’ confidence: ‘... through knowing you’re getting better ... there’s more pleasure in teaching and there are benefits for the children’, indicating that professional development improved in that teachers were reported as more openly asking for support. Several indicated that they wanted ‘to continue learning’. The Head Teacher regarded

Ron Ritchie

336

most colleagues as ‘now more reflective’. Teachers provided evidence of their attitudes resulting from involvement in the pdcs – ‘ I took the course very seriously ... I read lots and identified steps I could take.’ There was a resulting effect on attitudes towards performance management. Comments about this, which was introduced midway through the implementation of pdcs, were generally positive within the school. The Head Teacher noted that teachers were ‘clear about why they want it [performance management] ... they trust it’. The pdcs were well established at the end of data collection (April 2001) and all staff were, at that stage, asking for support on pdcs as part of their ongoing professional development. As one teacher commented: ‘I still don’t like being watched but I’m happy for it to continue – it’s no longer an ordeal – I benefit and the schools does – it keeps you fresh.’ Another said ‘I would love to be involved in further cycles – there are still areas for development.’ Pdcs have become an accepted part of the induction process. Encouragingly for the senior managers of the school, teachers had begun keeping records of their ongoing professional development in professional portfolios.

The school culture that had been established during the period in which the school was in special measures showed many of the characteristics of a ‘fully collaborative culture’ (Day et al, 1993, p. 9) in contrast to characteristics more akin to ‘individualism’ and ‘balkanisation’ that existed before 1999 (according to teachers who were in post at that time). There was, after the new Head Teacher took up his post, evidence of teachers sharing concerns – ‘an openness about difficulties with the job exists’ – and examples of good practice – ‘… it’s really friendly, teachers are excited to share ... we’re enthusiastic about teaching’. There were increased numbers of professional conversations. Teachers considered that their strengths were valued. This was achieved, in part, through exploiting in-school opportunities for support – e.g. visits to other classes. An experienced teacher felt that ‘it was good to have Deputy Head and Head Teacher involved in my pd [professional development]. There was never anything too negative ... I felt valued ... I’m pleased to be in this school ... if they say good things about you, you do more good things’. For another the feeling of being valued resulted from senior colleagues being ‘interested in my development’. Other comments related to the culture of the school support the view that it was increasingly more collaborative: ‘staff meetings are more open ... we all pitch in ... we’ve all been involved in pdcs ... we’ve all been observed’. ‘It’s now a more open school ... I’ve observed science in every class without there being any problems. There’s an “I can do this well ... you can do this well” attitude. It’s like circle time for teachers ... we know each others’ concerns and ask for support ... being supported is not a weakness ... I can accept I’m not perfect’. Teamwork was increasingly evident. One teacher had initial reservations about the term – ‘the word team is used a lot and at first it grated and sounded American but it’s true, we are a team, we do collaborate together’. Another noted that ‘there is a good team (ethos) ... its [sic] about improving standards ... we all pull together’.


337

It was not only those who were supported who gained. Supporting others provided facilitators with a confidence boost – it led to further learning, especially through the opportunity to work in another key stage. (In England and Wales schooling from between the ages of 5-16 is divided into four key stages. In primary schools, key stage 1 is for pupils between the ages of 5 and 7, while key stage 2 is for pupils between the ages of 7 and 11.)

Finally, involvement in pdcs helped prepare teachers for external scrutiny: ‘I felt happier when HMI came.’

Consequently, the pdcs were seen by those involved as facilitators and participants as contributing in a significant way to the improvement that the school underwent. The next section focuses on factors that respondents identified as contributing to the success of the strategy.

Factors that Had an Impact on the Success of Professional Development Cycles

The data provide evidence that the following factors were significant in ensuring the pdcs had a direct impact on the quality of teaching in the school.

Process

The purpose, process and structure of the pdcs was carefully thought though and thoroughly discussed at the stage when the original Ofsted action plan was written. External advice and support was provided for the Deputy Head Teacher as the key facilitator at planning stage.

Of equal significance was the fact that the cycles were piloted, even though that pre-dated the arrival of the new Head Teacher and was therefore before the new ethos was fully established. The small-scale pilot focused on colleagues who were identified as likely to have a positive attitude to the process and this ensured the Deputy Head Teacher had the opportunity to hone her skills in a context that was not too threatening. She and a teacher colleague recognised the benefit of identifying teachers who were willing to work with her initially. The Deputy Head Teacher was trained and supported in her facilitation role. For example, the school’s link LEA Adviser was involved in the initial cycles. She reported the benefits of joint observation and discussing judgements (a 45-minute review after each observation). Later in the process she also jointly observed with the new Head Teacher to help ensure monitoring judgements were reliable and valid across the senior management team. The Head Teacher and Deputy Head Teacher both attended Ofsted self-evaluation training for 3 days provided by the LEA during the summer (2000).

The concept and principles of the pdcs were clearly introduced to the whole teaching staff – ‘you knew why and what was going to happen’. It was introduced as a democratic process to which all had ‘right of access’. Pdcs were

Ron Ritchie

338

set up to support all teachers, not just those regarded as causing concern – ‘pdcs were not seen as treatment for an illness’. The new Head Teacher was keen to regularly remind colleagues and others involved in the school that ‘you don’t have to be ill to get better’. Consequently, the approach received a positive response from teachers – ‘you felt management were doing it for the right reason’.

The systematic and structured nature of the cycles was seen as a strength. The implementation of effective pdcs in a systematic way was possible because the Deputy Head Teacher was released from other teaching duties. This provided adequate time for formal and informal aspects of support for colleagues to be offered. Resourcing of this was made possible as a result of the funding associated with a school in special measures. However, it required the endorsement of the governors and LEA. This was immediately forthcoming (as soon as the school went into special measures) on the basis that the use of the Deputy Head Teacher’s time would be effectively monitored and evaluated. As the cycles progressed and the new Head Teacher took up his post, there was a convincing case for the Deputy Head Teacher to continue to work in the same way. However, he also commented that it was important, in terms of efficiency and sustainability of the pdcs, that other members of the senior management team became actively involved as facilitators.

From the teachers’ perspective the process was regarded as manageable, partly because each cycle was implemented over a specific period of time – ‘there was closure after a four to six week period’. The decision that the whole staff focused on the same area (initially literacy) at a particular time was highlighted as another aspect of the process that contributed to its success.

Role of Head Teacher and Deputy Head Teacher

The success of the pdcs was undoubtedly linked to the professional and interpersonal skills of the Deputy Head Teacher and Head Teacher. A key factor related to the role of the Deputy Head Teacher was that she had colleagues’ respect and trust, although she noted that their ‘trust needed to be worked on at times’. As a new member of staff she was successful in gaining credibility and trust within a short period of time – ‘I held her teaching in high esteem and value what she says.’ In part this resulted from the respect she gained from colleagues who observed her interactions with children. However, there were other factors that came from the data including her:

ability to identify successful elements of a lesson and analyse why it was successful ; ability to give sound advice and to identify specific ideas for improvement; confidence and decisiveness when working with colleagues;


339

perceptiveness – ‘she was spot on and I found it liberating when ...(my weakness) was discussed ... I felt, at last I’ve been discovered and something will be done’; excellent communication skills – ‘she used open questions and gave you time to talk’; ability to make colleagues’ strengths evident and help them feel valued. The Literacy Coordinator found the first cycle ‘brilliant ... it validated my teaching (by focusing on strengths) and spurred me on to improve’; skills in providing feedback, which were recognised and contrasted positively against those of an LEA Adviser; ability to draw ideas from others; sensitivity that prevented colleagues from feeling scrutinised – ‘she got across needs for development without you feeling judged ... she ensured that it was about progression and moving forward’.

This list indicates an impressive range of skills and professional competence. There was evidence of her supporting colleagues using a variety of modes including a zetetic approach (Harland, 1990; Bell & Ritchie, 1999, p. 105), which can be characterised as ‘let’s enquire together’. She herself recognised that the facilitator does not need to have all the answers, more important in her view was the confidence to ‘know you can find the answers together’. She considered that the Head Teacher offered a significant role model and helped her understanding of this. Her approach demonstrates many aspects of ‘best practice’ in terms of professional support discussed by Bell & Ritchie (1999, Chapter 8) – it included thorough needs identification, careful planning, collaborative implementation and ongoing monitoring and evaluation.

The Head Teacher’s contribution to the success of pdcs was fundamentally related to his leadership skills in terms of having a vision about the school’s direction and creating a positive ethos as discussed in the following section. However, he also contributed positively to pdcs by:

supporting the Deputy Head Teacher directly and indirectly, including moral/emotional support when problems or difficulties arose; trusting her and having confidence in her ability; sharing his expertise in lesson observation and providing feedback; organising regular discussions with her and shared evidence from observations and other forms of monitoring; more direct involvement, particularly where concerns arose (e.g. denial problem, discussed below).

He provided a sound example of a head teacher who recognised the significance of the affective domain of his role (Crawford, 2000). The solution for him in overcoming the problems that the school faced was not exclusively technical – the well-being of all involved in the school (Ikin & Ritchie, 2000, p. 24) was equally important.

Ron Ritchie

340

The Head Teacher valued the support he received, especially from the LEA Adviser, for example, through joint observation of lessons that, he considered, helped validate his judgements. He also had support from the LEA Adviser when serious weaknesses were evident through teacher observations. In passing it is worth noting that overall the support of the LEA whilst the school was in special measures was considered to be good.

Ethos of the School

The key factor that the Head Teacher and Deputy Head Teacher identified as impacting on school improvement, including the pdcs, was the creation of a positive school ethos. There is little doubt that there was a significant change in the ethos and that this was established through effective leadership. The new Head Teacher had identified the need for this change as soon as he had become involved in the school. In his words, ‘it was a school in crisis that lacked a sense of direction ... staff were jumpy and lacked trust ... what was needed was vision’. He was clear that effective leadership was necessary, not merely better management of the school. A criticism made of the previous Head Teacher’s approach concerned his lack of vision and failure to lead – his management skills were less often cited as a concern. The vision that the new Head Teacher shared involved staff ‘doing things for themselves, rather than just responding to external pressure’. The changed ethos came across in interviews in a variety of comments related to school improvement. The Deputy Head Teacher referred to a ‘culture of wanting to improve’ and of staff being ‘on a journey together’. Teachers were clearly aware of the change – ‘the atmosphere/feeling of the school changed ... you felt informed, there is communication at every level ... we have a shared responsibility ... there was good management [sic] knowing which direction we should go in ... I had confidence in the decisions.’

Within this new and positive ethos, involvement in pdcs supported individuals within a collaborative culture and allowed them to build on strengths. The ethos ensured that the pdcs were valued by teachers who recognised the approach as a ‘good tool for working on short (for example, improving specificity of teaching objectives) and longer-term aims (becoming a leading maths teacher) ... they [pdcs] provided steps to getting there’. The vision statement of ‘achieving excellence for ourselves and others’ applied equally to teaching staff and pupils. The interactive relationship between ethos and the pdcs was recognised by the Head Teacher, who referred to the need for a holistic approach – ‘ethos without structures will not work and structures without ethos will not work – both are necessary’.

The Ofsted Report that brought the school out of special measures included several positive comments about the new ethos in the school and the Head Teacher’s and Deputy Head Teacher’s roles in establishing and sustaining that ethos.


341

Issues Related to Use of Pdcs

The above discussion implies that the implementation of the pdcs, which was effectively a rational/coercive approach, was wholly successful and unproblematic. However, there were inevitably issues that arose and difficulties that needed to be addressed. Initially, at least, some teachers felt threatened by the idea of being observed and this required sensitivity on the part of the facilitator. In the examples offered by respondents, it appears that the negative feelings that some initially experienced were eventually overcome – for example, ‘as cycles went on your confidence builds ... on completion it was rewarding and valuable’.

Despite the intention to make the approach democratic and to encourage teachers to feel ownership of the process, this again was not always the case in the early stages. One teacher reported that ‘initially it felt like it was being done to you, you had no say in that it was going to happen. However after the initial feedback it felt like you were more involved.’ Another commented: ‘I never felt complete ownership, but didn’t need to – I’m part of the system and addressing other people’s targets is OK – ownership has got to be treated flexibly – an inexperienced teacher may not know what they need.’ There are issues here that deserve further exploration.

There was one case in which ‘denial’ by a teacher (not included in the interview sample) about the nature of her teaching and the need for improvement was evident. This was eventually dealt with and the teacher ‘accepted’ the areas of her teaching that needed improving. Team teaching alongside the Deputy Head Teacher was a turning point in this developing awareness. Despite considerable support the teacher was unable to make the progress needed. Eventually, the teacher herself realised that even with continued support the quality of her teaching would not be good enough – she resigned and made it clear to others that it was her choice. The advantage of this was that her action had a positive impact on others rather than negative – it was clear to all that the process itself was not designed to identify candidates for competency procedures.

Despite the intention of making the purpose and process explicit to those involved and the fact that this was thoroughly documented, there was evidence that new teachers who joined after the initial introduction to the whole staff were less clear about the purpose, particularly in the initial phases of their cycles. There was also evidence that the attitude of one teacher caused some concern to the facilitator and some other staff. The teacher concerned observed another as part of her action plan and ‘was there for the wrong reason ... she was very judgemental and shared her views in the staff room in a negative way’. Clearly classroom visits, set up in this case to offer a teacher the chance to see a different approach to teaching, need to be organised with care, and clear ground rules need to be established prior to the visit.

Whilst the Deputy Head Teacher’s and Head Teacher’s skills and sensitivity in providing feedback to colleagues were acknowledged as a factor contributing to the success of the initiative, there was evidence that the LEA

Ron Ritchie

342

Adviser was less successful at times in providing feedback in a way that was regarded as constructive and supportive. Perhaps, inevitably, observations by an adviser are more threatening to teachers than observations by a colleague. One teacher commented that ‘the implications of failure seemed greater when observed by the adviser’.

There are controversial questions that arise from this case about: the nature of coercion in the context of school improvement; the limited definition of ‘quality of teaching’ used and the difficulties in making valid and reliable judgements about it; the problems that can result from making classroom action transparent at an institutional level; and the issues surrounding the place of peer observation in performance management. There is not space to address these in this article.

Conclusion

There was general agreement within the school and those involved with it that the Ofsted inspectors made the right decision regarding placing the school in special measures. One long-established teacher said: ‘I didn’t know what was going wrong.’ Another commented that ‘it [going into special measures] was the best thing that could have happened to this school ... we went through peaks and troughs but the pdcs facilitated rapid progress. I had previously worked in schools in special measures ... I didn’t know what a “normal” primary school was like until recently’ (T2).

The approach adopted to school improvement during this turbulent period, involving pdcs as one strategy of many, was clearly successful in getting the school out of special measures. To overcome the weaknesses identified in the 1999 Ofsted Report and ‘turn the school around’ was an undoubted achievement and a sound example of ‘transformational’ leadership (Caldwell & Spinks, 1988). The Head Teacher and Deputy Head Teacher provided excellent models of successful leaders and effective managers who ensured that the school overcame the common obstacles faced by being in special measures (Osfted, 1999c, p. 2).

The school, through its implementation of pdcs, provides a good example of a self-evaluating institution (Ofsted, 1998b). Rigorous and systematic practices were established that ensured teaching quality was constantly monitored and the evidence of that monitoring used for self-evaluation. The school was able to provide HMI with detailed evidence of its approach to self-evaluation and evidence of the impact of its strategies. In many ways, the school has gone further and become a ‘self-inspecting’ school (Ferguson et al, 2000). When it is next inspected by Ofsted, there will be a wealth of data available for the inspection team to use alongside their own evidence of teaching quality (if future Frameworks for Inspection allow such use to be made of school data). The school should be able to provide a convincing case for the validity of the evidence since all classroom


343

observations are carried out against Ofsted criteria and systematically recorded.

One of the most encouraging results of the last round of interviews was the commitment of all involved to continuing with the pdcs (in an adapted format) within the context of performance management. This should ensure the school continues to improve in the area of quality of teaching. A process has been established which seems to be sustainable over time, especially as other members of the school’s senior management team are now supporting colleagues as facilitators.

In response to a question during an interview about ways in which the pdcs could have been implemented differently, the Head Teacher commented that he ‘couldn’t think of a better process – our views (about pdcs) are positive because the outcomes are positive’, echoing the response of a teacher who concluded that ‘it was a very positive experience ... I can’t think of a better tool (for improving teaching)’. There were, it would seem, considerable benefits from the approach adopted although the success of the pdcs was part of a more complex picture that contributed to this particular school’s success in coming out of special measures.

Acknowledgements

With thanks to the highly committed and professional staff of the school involved in this case study and to Professor Saville Kushner for comments on a draft of the article.

Correspondence

Professor Ron Ritchie, Faculty of Education, University of the West of England, Frenchay Campus, Coldharbour Road, Bristol BS16 1QY, United Kingdom ([email protected]).

References

Bell, D. & Ritchie, R. (1999) Towards Effective Subject Leadership in the Primary School. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Caldwell, B. & Spinks, J. (1988) The Self Managing School. London: Falmer Press.

Crawford, M. (2000) Being in Special Measures, Management in Education, 14(5), pp. 21-24.

Cullingford. C. (Ed.) (1999) An Inspector Calls: Ofsted and its effect on school standards. London: Kogan Page.

Day, C., Hall, C., Gammage, P. & Coles, M. (1993) Leadershi’ and Curriculum in the Primary School. London: Paul Chapman Publishing.

Ron Ritchie

344

Day, C., Harris, A., Hadfield, M., Tolley, H. & Beresford, J. (2000) Leading Schools in Times of Change. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Department for Education and Employment (DfEE) (1998) The National Literacy Strategy: framework for teaching. London: DfEE.

DfEE (1999) The National Numeracy Strategy: framework for teaching. London: DfEE.

DfEE (2000) National Standards for Headteachers. London: DfEE.

DfEE (2001) Schools Building on Success. London: DfEE.

Ferguson, N., Earley, P., Fidler, B. & Ouston, J. (2000) Improving Schools and Inspection: the self-inspecting school. London: Paul Chapman Publishing.

Harland, J. (1990) The Work and Impact of Advisory Teachers. Slough: National Foundation for Educational Research.

Hopkins, D., Ainscow, M. & West, M. (1994) School Improvement in an Era of Change. London: Cassell.

Hopkins, D. & Reynolds, D. (2001) The Past, Present and Future of School Improvement: towards the third age, British Educational Research Journal, 27, pp. 459-475.

Ikin, J. & Ritchie, R. (2000) Telling Tales of School Improvement. Birmingham: National Primary Trust.

Lee, J. & Fitz, J. (1998) Inspection for Improvement: whose responsibility?, Journal of In-service Education, 24, pp. 239-253.

National Association of Head Teachers (NAHT) (2001) Primary Leadership Paper 3. Haywards Heath: NAHT.

Office for Standards in Education (Ofsted) (1995) Guidance on the Inspection of Nursery and Primary Schools. London: DfEE.

Ofsted (1998a) Inspection ’98. Supplement to the Inspection Handbooks Containing New Requirements and Guidance. London: Ofsted.

Ofsted (1998b) School Evaluation Matters. London: Ofsted.

Ofsted (1999a) Inspecting Schools: the framework. London: DfEE.

Ofsted (1999b) Handbook for Inspecting Nursery and Primary Schools with Guidance on Self-evaluation. London: DfEE.

Ofsted (1999c) Lessons Learned from Special Measures. London: DfEE.

Ollerenshaw, C. & Ritchie, R. (1997) Primary Science: making it work, 2nd Edn. London: David Fulton Publishers.

Reynolds, D., Bollen, R., Creemers, B., Hopkins, D., Stoll, L. & Lagerweij, N. (1996) Making Good Schools: linking school effectiveness and school improvement. London: Routledge.

Ritchie, R. (2001) Design and Technology: a process for learning, 2nd Edn. London: David Fulton Publishers.

Sammons, P. (1999) School Effectiveness: coming of age in the twenty-first century. Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger.

Sammons, P., Hillman, J. & Mortimore, P. (1995) Key Characteristics of Effective Schools: a review of school effectiveness research. London: Office for Standards in Education and Institute of Education.

Stake, R. (1994) Case Studies, in J. Greene (Ed.) Handbook of Qualitative Research. London: Sage.

Stoll, L. & Fink, D. (1996) Changing Our Schools. Buckingham: Open University Press.


345

Tomlinson, H., Gunter, H. & Smith, P. (Eds) (1999) Living Headship: voices, values and vision. London: Paul Chapman Publishing.

Wilson, J. (1999) National Standards for Head Teachers: some conceptual problems, Journal of In-service Education, 25, pp. 533-543.

Ron Ritchie

346

school improvement in the context of a primary school in special measures

Documents