Primary School Management: Learning from Experience

Case Studies by Primary and Middle School Headteachers

Eric Briault

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2003
• ISBN:
  9781135799830
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education General

This lively book is based on case studies written by heads from a variety of settings, each of them facing different problems and concerns. The issues raised are examined in-depth, including:
* improving the quality of pupils' learning experience
* effective staff organisation and development
* development of policy and the management of resources
* establishing good relaionships between the head, the school and the community

Section 1

Improving the Quality of Pupils’ Learning Experience

Introduction

Contributors to this section were invited to focus on the curriculum-in-action in their schools and submit case studies which centred on initiatives relating to maximizing pupil progress and enhancing the quality of learning experiences offered to pupils. We asked contributors to acknowledge the distinction between the espoused curriculum of the guideline or other such documents formulated within the school and the curriculum-in-action experienced by pupils. We were interested therefore in how guidelines were constructed, or reviewed on the one hand, and how the Headteachers undertook the process of managing and monitoring the curriculum-in-action on the other. Given that management is about the achievement of goals through other individuals we were also interested in any instances of how Headteachers had engaged in this aspect of the management of change.

Study A

Study A provides a case study of how cooperative teaching was initiated and developed in a First School. The study outlines how the classroom autonomy of class-teachers came to be replaced with a cooperative culture, an exchange that had a marked effect on the quality of learning experiences offered to pupils. The value of a collegial approach to management was recognized during an OTTO programme and it was this aspect which provided the focus for development on the return to the school of the Headteacher concerned.

Study B

Improving the quality of learning experiences in the Mathematics curriculum provides the focus of this study. It traces the attempts made to bring about change, first by the adoption of a commercial Mathematics scheme throughout the school, and, following an inspection of the school by LEA inspectors, the role played by two further initiatives: focused visits to other schools to observe the Mathematics curriculum-in-action and the support role played by a newly appointed Deputy Head who also acted as a Mathematics consultant within the school. This study raises a number of issues concerning the management of change which are subsequently explored in the commentary.

Study C

This study outlines the strategies adopted by the Headteacher in seeking to improve and coordinate teaching and learning in Environmental Studies. As a consequence of his own participation in an action-oriented management course the Headteacher was convinced of the value of involving staff in the process of curriculum inquiry rather than the traditional top-down model of change. By doing so the Headteacher sought to bring about greater understanding of teaching and learning processes, and concomitant ownership of the process of change by the staff.

Study D

This study, like that of school B, outlines initiatives taken in relation to the Mathematics curriculum. The focus is upon the role played by a new Headteacher in managing and supporting the initiatives delegated to a senior member of staff, the latter’s own learning on a 20-day course and their role in seeking to implement the recommendations of the Cockcroft Report. It portrays some of the anxieties experienced by a Headteacher deciding to increase the level of delegated authority and identifies some of the constraints on the action noted on the way.

Reference

COCKCROFT REPORT (1982). Mathematics Counts. London: HMSO.

Study A:
Cooperative teaching

Background

School A is a First School with 360 pupils on roll located in a mixed catchment area. Children are drawn from both private and council housing estates.

Three years ago I was appointed to the headship of a first school in the suburbs of a southern town. The school has about 360 children, most of whom live in small privately owned homes. When I joined the school there were eleven classes; in my first year I appointed a Deputy and a probationer, to join the nine long-serving teachers. The main part of the school was built in the 1950s and consists of six classrooms, each opening onto a long corridor. Four of these rooms are linked in pairs. A scola unit has three further classrooms and a shared area. There is also a single and double temporary hut.

It took me much of the first year to settle in. During my second year I attended a 20-day management programme. This was an ideal time for such a programme of self-development; it enabled me to identify and evaluate management issues, formulate plans and devise strategies to implement change. The programme heightened my awareness of my own strengths and weaknesses in leadership and management, giving me confidence to work with staff in my own particular way.

Good practice

My initial evaluation of the school was of good practice throughout. Most of the children knew what they were doing, why they were doing it, and what they would do next. Most of the classrooms were attractively presented with relevant displays. The teachers were committed and hard working, friendly and open, and they welcomed and accepted the new staff. However, they worked in isolation. With the exception of the scola unit, where the Deputy worked, doors to adjacent rooms were kept shut. Year groups met, but only to identify the content of a shared topic which was then pursued separately in each classroom. During my first two years the open climate continued and developed. The staff gained confidence in my management and were receptive to new ideas.

Through my experiences in the management programme I became increasingly aware of the value of staff working together. They can share resources, ideas and skills. They can discuss problems, and colleagues can provide valuable support to resolve weaknesses. I believed that introducing cooperative teaching would improve the learning experiences for pupils, so I identified this as a goal to work towards with the staff. The start of a new school year provided the opportunity.

My first step was to discuss the idea with the Deputy during our weekly meetings, and over two or three meetings a plan was formulated. We planned to use the organization and location of the classes to create groupings of staff, and establish cooperative teaching. We limited the plan to the lower school so that we could select staff receptive to the idea, use rooms suited to cooperative teaching, and direct resources to support the plan. We hoped that the success of the work would encourage the other teachers to want to adopt cooperative teaching.

I identified five teachers willing to take the lower school age range, who had good relationships with each other and who would be open to the suggestion that they use cooperative teaching. I talked informally and individually to them about working together, and whom they might like to work with. I then allocated rooms, giving consideration both to their preferences and to groupings that I felt would best enable the plan to develop. The five were subdivided into a pair and a trio. In a double room were a long-serving teacher, enthusiastic and innovative, and the newest teacher, intelligent and well organized but still cautious. This partnership had complementary skills which would be mutually beneficial. The remaining three teachers would work in a double and adjacent single room. I hoped that they would gain from each other’s particular strengths: Mathematics, language and Music. All the staff involved were good teachers, and I was confident that they would work at the task with a high degree of professionalism, but I was also aware that even apparently small changes can be threatening to staff, and I was anxious not to undermine either their confidence or goodwill.

Advantages of working together

During the Summer Term I spoke to the group about the advantages of working together. I suggested that in the double rooms the doors could be left open for most of the day, and that there should be some cooperation beyond agreement about the topic. As long as these quite limited requirements were fulfilled they were free to interpret cooperative teaching in their own way. I reassured them that they were to remain fully responsible for their own class in all areas of the curriculum and that I was proposing cooperative, not team teaching. They discussed the ideas as a group and as a pair and a trio, and reported back to me. All were very happy to try the plan. The trio decided to do music, TV, logic and stories together, and work separately for other activities. They would link with the pair for singing. The pair embraced the idea fully and seemed to spend every spare minute talking about it; plans changed daily. My advice was sought on some matters but I left the decisions to them. With all the group I was anxious that they should devise their own way of working, a way that they believed in, and could successfully implement.

In September the trio implemented their plan to work together. They worked willingly and cooperatively in planning and running activities, swapping children, rooms and resources as appropriate. But the doors in the double room were often closed. The teacher on one side was keen to have them open and sought my advice. The other said she wanted them shut because the children hadn’t settled yet. When the partner opened the doors, equipment such as the TV or computer trolley was used to create a barrier. I considered the situation; the willing teacher was an excellent practitioner and would continue her good work whether the doors were open or shut. The other teacher seemed threatened. She had a lively class and perhaps felt inadequate by comparison with her colleague. I decided not to put pressure on the teachers to open the doors as the stress incurred might outweigh the advantages gained. All three continued to teach cooperatively the activities they had planned. The children gained by experiencing an extended range of music and logic activities. TV programmes were matched to groups rather than whole classes. Although I was aware that there was only limited cooperative teaching I commented favourably on the work they were doing and highlighted the benefits the children were getting. I hoped this would build the teachers’ confidence in the concept of cooperative teaching so that they would continue to support its implementation. By the end of the year the trio had achieved part but not all of the goal.

In contrast the pair fully achieved the goal. They organized their double classroom together. The adjoining doors were kept open. New furniture allocated as shared items was jointly discussed and arranged. They shared imaginative play areas, and quiet work areas. Displays were planned and mounted together. Discussions about their work went on every lunchtime and evening, and I supported and helped them develop their activities. I made available weekly teaching time by a part-time teacher and myself, and ancillary help. This enabled a variety of teaching arrangements, and also demonstrated my enthusiasm for the work to other staff. I informally monitored progress by dropping in each week to work with the children, and would occasionally sit in on their after-school chats. I took every opportunity to comment favourably about their work to them. They talked with great enthusiasm to colleagues about the benefits of working together.

These two teachers and their children gained from the teaching organization. They made use of each other’s strengths: one devised and organized various imaginative play activities for both classes, while the other planned creative writing activities to extend the abler children. They supported each other by sharing problems: the younger drew on the expertise of the other to help with slow learning children, while she in turn gave advice about the management of lively pupils. They exchanged ideas to create variety in repetitive consolidation activities. By pooling equipment they extended the resources available for logic work in each class. They made use of various organizational techniques: one would take 50 children for story while the other taught a small group. The teachers’ development was evident. The younger teacher’s caution relaxed. She would abandon a planned lesson to make use of an unexpected opportunity such as a snowy day. She gained confidence from successes such as an experiment with poetry writing with a small group, while her partner had the remainder of both classes. Her partner made a point of saying how much she too had gained from the pairing, but perhaps more importantly she saw the benefits to the children of working cooperatively. The quality of teaching and learning improved as the teachers drew on a wider range of teaching techniques and strategies to meet the variety of needs within the two classes.

Consolidating the change

The new academic year has brought new opportunities and challenges. Retirements and an increase in the staffing allocation have allowed the appointment of five new teachers, and all have been appointed with cooperative teaching in mind. Local Authority money for capital works will enable us to create new work areas that can be shared between classes. These changes will enable the expansion of cooperative teaching to most of the school, while the three teachers least confident with cooperative teaching can continue to work in individual class units in the huts. With more staff teaching cooperatively it has been necessary to devise a more formal organization to implement the work. Year leaders have taken on the responsibility of introducing and sustaining cooperative teaching within their year group. Job descriptions and the beginnings of a formal staff policy document, drawn up with the staff in the Summer Term, define and support the organization.

The new year is now half a term old. The building work is hardly started, but the new staff have settled in well. I am optimistic that cooperative teaching will be established in most of the school by the end of the year. The teachers are talking, sharing ideas, agreeing strategies, devising programmes of work, and using different methods of teaching and styles of organization. They are enjoying cooperative teaching. Throughout the school there is a feeling of togetherness, professionally and informally. I no longer see a need to direct all the planning myself; the teachers have taken ownership of the organization and are extending the degree of cooperative teaching within their year groups as they gain confidence. Most importantly I continue to see the improvement in the quality of learning experiences for the children that I first saw in the cooperative work of the pair last year.

Comment

Study a provides an interesting example of the sequence of management behaviour in action. It also demonstrates a Headteacher who adopted a leadership style appropriate to the situation in which change was intended.

• A good deal of attention was paid to assessing the situation planning with deputy and identifying diffenent value positions and there was recognition of the paramount importance of retaining and extending teachers’ confidence in their practice.
• The pace and scale of the change enabled those concerned to own the change and accept responsibility for their actions.
• The necessity to monitor change in a sensitive and supportive way was recognized
• Consolidation was linked to organizational change as indicated in the job description of year leaders and the expectation that they would continue to maintain the policy.
• The change was conceptualized as a learning situation for all converned rather than a top-down model of change which runs the risk of token adoptioin.

Questions for the reader’s consideration

• How might the Head best seek to extend cooperative teaching to the teachers in the hutted classrooms?
• How do we avoid or minimize discontinuity in a situation where buildings constrain a common approach to teaching?

Study B:
Improving the quality of learning in Mathematics

Background

School B is a Group 6 JMI school with 410 pupils located in an outer London borough. The school site is coprised of two buildings, one dating from 1893 and three hulted classrooms. The main building, housing nine of the fourteen classes, has classrooms opening directly onto the main hall. The site is very cramped.

This study focuses on the changes which have taken place over the past two years, both in the basic management structure of the school and in the approaches to the teaching of Mathematics. Both changes were facilitated by the appointment of a new Deputy Head who has played a key role throughout what has been a most interesting and eventful period of development.

The school’s management structure

Before the change, the senior management team comprised Head, Deputy, and Head of Infants—with the Deputy taking on the unofficial role of Head of Juniors. This meant that she coordinated the ordering and distribution of expendable stock for the juniors; organized playground and hall timetables; and carried out a number of other minor administrative functions which, although most important to the smooth running of the school, could in fact have been carried out by someone less experienced and well qualified. This I am sure is a familiar picture in many schools, but one which I would suggest...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Glossary of Terms
• Introduction to the Studies
• Section 1
• Section 2
• Section 3
• Section 4
• Some Concluding Observations
• Bibliography