h1

RELOADED: The Cast of Culprits Part 3. The School Leaders

March 28, 2008

Despite my criticisms of teachers and students I’m still confident that the majority of teachers remain hardworking, dedicated and capable and the majority of students still wish to achieve academically. Although there are excellent secondary headteachers out there – looking for schools where results have improved from nothing to the top of the league table might help you find some of them – there is a widespread problem of heads that cannot make a difference to the problems of their schools and more importantly heads that do not believe they should be solving the problems of their schools.
The reasons for this are probably down to the following:

  • A funding system, inspection system and management systems that are based on paperwork and navigating bureaucracy that conspire to keep heads busy but disconnected from the day to day running of the school.
  • A conservatism that convinces heads that all problems their schools face can be dealt with by traditional methods: good teaching; reminding staff of expectations; letters to parents; telling middle managers what to do, rather than new methods and new distributions of responsibility.
  • Promotion of the weak, ineffectual and visionless. Managers who are committed to the education system as it is rather than towards rescuing schools from the system who would never dream of standing up to pushy parents or incompetent LEAs seem to have a career advantage.
  • The continuing persistence of discredited ideologies. In particular, a belief in mixed ability teaching in as many subjects as possible, and a belief that children from deprived backgrounds cannot be expected to learn or behave.

In practice this means that teachers often encounter the following behaviour from senior managers that undermine them and their ability to teach:

  • Blaming teachers for all discipline problems. This includes disorder in the corridors, and around the site, problems faced by all new teachers, and worst of all verbal and physical abuse of staff. (The key phrase used is “Discipline is all about relationships”). This is made worse when those head teachers do not teach and have had the power and status of being senior management to protect them for years.
  • Delegating discipline to middle managers, and worst of all to departments. If large groups of students work together to disrupt lessons, or if detentions are not attended there is little or nothing that departmental managers can do. Even heads of years have only limited time to deal with discipline problems and do not have the power to exclude, which is often what is required.
  • Appeasing students, parents and LEAs. It’s hard to believe how many headteachers seem to believe that they are representatives of interest groups rather than leaders in their own right, attempting to achieve their own clearly stated goals. Nothing is more damaging to staff morale than having no idea what SMT want, but knowing that they are subject to random complaints and unreasonable demands from management.
  • Bullying management techniques. Some heads ignore statutory conditions, intimidate trade union reps, routinely lie in references, and never keep their promises.

There are a few changes that could be made to improve the situation.

  • A change in school funding so that heads no longer have to become full-time form-fillers in order to ensure a good deal for their students. A general reduction in bureaucracy will make management positions more appealing to teachers.
  • A change in discipline so that the responsibility for discipline (and, in particular, sanctions) falls squarely on Senior Management Teams and cannot be delegated. Discipline systems must state consequences and responsibilities exactly. Any responsibilities that fall on classroom teachers cannot involve unpaid overtime, or be unspecified by their contracts. Failure for managers to comply with their own systems should be considered a breach of contract.
  • INSET for senior management to consist of doing a day’s supply teaching in a neighbouring school. Managers who are disconnected from the realities of teaching life are a huge problem in schools.
  • A statutory duty for heads to permanently exclude pupils who assault or verbally abuse staff, deal drugs or bring in weapons and a corresponding end to all targets and financial incentives to reduce exclusions. No head should be able to say their hands are tied on exclusions.
  • An end to:
    1.  mixed ability teaching (which still persists in the vast majority of subjects)
    2.  inclusion
    3.  the tolerance of poor schools in deprived areas.

Perhaps the worst part of poor management in schools is that a long history of failure is no obstacle to a further career in school management. As I said before there are heads that turn round schools and make a name for themselves as “superheads” and experts in “school improvement”. What there is less publicity for is the army of “not-so-superheads” and “school destroyers” who after turning a good school bad go on to serve for many years as LEA advisors and quangocrats, helping other headteachers to follow their bad example.

About these ads

4 comments

  1. Hi, wondered if you could let me know the research which has discredited mixed-ability teaching. I’m a trainee teacher and we’ve been told that it’s been proven to be the best method. I’m starting to disbelive Uni in many ways however!
    Cheers


  2. I didn’t specify research directly into setting.

    That said, Feinstein and Symons (1999) Attainment in secondary schools Oxford Economic Papers 51:300-321 did find better English test scores for schools that stream.

    And I understand (but haven’t checked this) positive effects for setting were found by:

    Kulik, James A.; Chen-Lin C. Kulik (1992). “Meta-analytic findings on grouping programs”. Gifted Children Quarterly 36 (2): 73-77

    Argys, L. M.; Rees, D. I., & Brewer, D. J. (1996). “Detracking America’s Schools: Equity at Zero Cost?”. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 15 (4): 623-645.

    However, what has discredited mixed ability teaching is actually at a far more fundamental level. Hattie (2003) found that the things that made the most difference to learning that a teacher controlled were:

    Providing feedback.
    Quality of instruction.
    Direct instruction.

    Both experience of teaching, and a quick look at the most commonly promoted methods of mixed ability teaching suggests that these are fair better provided in to a class which has a limited range of abilities.

    I’d be keen to know what research proved mixed ability was best. There has been what seems to be a lot of publications done by a researcher called (I believe) Jo Boaler based on comparing two awful schools and discovering that an awful school with mixed ability teaching in maths is only slightly worse than an awful school with setting, and that this can be reversed if you ignore exam results and make up your own tests. Despite the obvious inadequacies of research done in this way trainee teachers are still given this stuff as if it wasn’t embarrassingly bad nonsense.


  3. […] Old Andrew’s satire of SLT leading the school INSET day, a senior leader announces: “Our first session will be about using data. During this session some […]



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 8,031 other followers

%d bloggers like this: