ARTÍCULO QUINTO

Although some coordinators at local authority level praised the new PSE framework as raising the profile of the subject within schools and as providing helpful and detailed guidance, teachers and school PSE coordinators criticized the PSE framework for placing very challenging demands upon them. The fact that the delivery of PSE is a statutory requirement for schools was seen as having improved the status of PSE with teachers and schools. One LEA coordinator noted that PSE receives much more attention in schools and is seen as important as other subjects:

PSE is getting a much higher profile within the curriculum; it is seen as equally important as other curriculum areas, which is a huge huge step forward [LEA Level PSE coordinator]

This provides evidence for the influence of the policy context on perceptions. The fact that the delivery of the subject has been made statutory

was considered as having increased the status of the subject. Indeed, this change has introduced a characteristic that might make PSE more similar to core curriculum subjects (e.g. McCuaig et al. 2012). Although respondents acknowledged the importance of what PSE seeks to achieve many said that practice looked different.

Alongside a number of other characteristics that set PSE apart from curricular subjects, guidance for assessment of the subject was vague and ambiguous, and the curricular time spent on delivering the subject was not felt to be contributing to the graded performance of core curriculum subjects. As a result, PSE appeared to be considered as having a lower status than examined subjects, by teachers, pupils and parents and it was evident from different data sources that this ‘subject pecking order’ filtered through every level of influence on policy sense making. The semi-statutory status of PSE in particular was seen as contributing to this. Although the delivery of PSE is a statutory requirement for schools to fulfil, the implementation is not regulated in any way and the framework only provides guidance. One participant noted that the publication of the new framework was a missed opportunity for making the full framework a statutory requirement as this would have enhanced the status of PSE within schools:

I think it’s a shame that it’s still a framework and I think there was great opportunity with the curriculum 2008 to make it even a national curriculum subject or to make the framework statutory you know we know that schools are being inspected to the framework but we know it’s not statutory. Sorry we know the framework is not statutory, PSE is statutory. [LEA level PSE coordinator]

LEA level PSE coordinators were the only participant group that explicitly referred to the ambiguity inherent in the PSE policy framework’s semi- statutory status, which was seen as leaving implementation at the discretion of schools. This discretion was regarded as reinforcing the prioritization of examined subjects:

Obviously there’s no requirement for them to arrange a timetable or curriculum in a particular way is there in secondary schools they have autonomy to do as they wish. [LEA level PSE coordinator] These views provide examples for the influence of the policy context and policy characteristics on perceptions, in particular the ambiguity left within the PSE framework about the way in which PSE is to be implemented. It has previously been found that such ambiguities could lead to uncertainty and unwanted analogies between desired and existing processes. Incomplete or superficial implementation might be the result of such unwanted analogies (Fullan 2001; Gentner et al. 1993). Further indications for the ambiguity of the PSE framework were the views of school staff who saw the PSE framework in very contrasting ways. School level coordinators at St David’s and Oakwood School described it as too broad and placing very challenging obligations on schools and teachers. Classroom teachers at Oakwood and Meadow School felt it is too rigid and narrow, shoehorning pupils’ development of life skills into curricular teaching. Indeed, it was felt that the teaching of life and social skills contradicts ordinary school lessons. The transformation of such tacit knowledge into didactic teacher talk that is delivered and tested in the confines of a classroom setting may provide pupils with relevant facts. The creation of the subject PSE with characteristics similar to main curriculum subjects might fit into existing curricular arrangements. However, the delivery of PSE in this format may not help pupils develop appropriate skills. One of the LEA level PSE coordinators (St David’s and Oakwood School) voiced similar concerns. Classroom teachers at Meadow- and Oakwood School criticized PSE as very uniform, assuming all pupils will benefit in similar ways from the framework. These views suggested that the requirements of the PSE framework and contradictions within it make it difficult for teachers to respond to learners’ needs. These are likely to create frustration if teachers feel the lessons they deliver are not necessarily beneficial to pupils:

The pupil is being forced into a hole they don’t fit into you know. [Classroom teacher, Oakwood School]

It has previously been found that if school staff perceive reforms in such a negative way and as differing from their own goals and views of teaching this can lead to disillusionment (Leithwood et al. 2002). In addition, the scope of the framework was considered as too broad to become fully implemented. Responding to the entire framework by wanting to cover the full recommended range of topics adequately is challenging if it has to be tailored to a very diverse group of learners. Particular concerns were raised in relation to sex education, where it is necessary to ensure a whole class equally benefits from the lesson whilst adequately responding to differences in learners’ needs. Particularly in year 7 there can be considerable differences between pupils in the same class: whilst some pupils are very mature or may even be sexually active, smoke, drink alcohol or use drugs, other pupils may not. School level PSE coordinators find it therefore difficult to appropriately pitch the content of the framework whilst ensuring that all of the recommended topics are covered:

It’s a ridiculously huge order I think the framework just covers so much each year […] you have the extreme in each year you have some kids who are grass green naïve and then others have been round the block seven times you know you’ve got to you know such a breadth of information a lot of them are taboo subjects you know it’s a bit of a it can be quite challenging. [School level PSE coordinator, St David’s School]

This illustrates yet another view of the framework, illustrating how professionals’ knowledge structures and views about teaching might shape the way in which policies are perceived (Cohen 1990; Wilson 1990). The separation and formalisation of PSE as a school subject appears to undermine its potential benefit. Specifying that pupils are to be developed personally within the confines of a curriculum subject appears to create a separation between what previously was considered a normal part of teachers’ role: teaching pupils a formal subject whilst informally supporting and developing them. The separation of personal and social development through the designation of PSE as a discrete subject appeared to influence how teachers may perceive their role. They consider it as their job to teach

their specialist subject themes whilst everything covered by PSE is taken care of by those officially made responsible for it. This specialisation and socialisation appears to make PSE ‘nobody’s subject’, creating a barrier to the integration of PSE across the curriculum:

Developing young people should happen every day, not in discrete lessons, it should be every single day that you’re developing a young person as an adult and equip them with things that they are gonna need not just one day this is your PSE day today we’re gonna teach you how to survive when you leave school it’s rubbish done up [...] [Classroom teacher, Oakwood School]

The consideration of PSE as such a separate entity seems to contradict views of good practice, and illustrates how views of policy can be shaped by intrapersonal influences (Leithwood et al. 2002). Implementers’ perceptions of these ambiguities and limitations of the PSE framework showed professional patterning, determined by differences in their proximity to classroom teaching. Whilst LEA level coordinators and head teachers did not refer to limitations of the PSE framework, views held by classroom teachers and school level PSE coordinators highlighted a number of policy limitations. In particular they referred to its breadth as challenging, as well as the contradiction between PSE as a designated school subject and the practical life skills it seeks to convey. Such limitations seemed to have become apparent through the practical experience of attempting to put the PSE guidance documentation into practice and incorporating it within the on-going school curriculum on a day-to-day basis.

5.3. Chapter summary

The PSE policy framework documentation produced by the Welsh Government appeared limited in its ability to provide a clear guidance for teachers, school coordinators and head teachers. The aims of the framework were challenging, broad and unspecific. Ways to achieve these aims through classroom processes were left to implementers’ discretion, as were

organisational arrangements to facilitate the delivery of PSE. It has been found that such policy characteristics can lead to uncertainty (Spillane et al. 2002). Those with key responsibility for implementing the PSE framework have been portrayed as passive recipients of instructions, and their role in the implementation of PSE described using passive voice. This discursive feature within policy documents has been found to contribute to professionals feeling disengaged from the implementation process (Fairclough 2003).

PSE policies that were produced by each of the four participating schools were examined to understand the extent to which they reproduced characteristics of the Welsh Government’s framework documentation. Similar to the framework, the aims and objectives of the PSE programme were largely written in the form of bullet points, using the text from the PSE framework document. The limited extent to which school policies concerned themselves with classroom activities or pedagogic processes reflected the sporadic guidance provided in the PSE framework. However, schools did make an effort to clarify how organisational arrangements are to change in response to the policy, carefully specifying the distribution of responsibilities. This was particularly evident in school PSE policies produced by Meadow- and St David’s School, which contained organisation-specific information about who is responsible for which aspect of PSE. Details about relevant organisational arrangements within the school PSE policies of Oakwood and Elmhurst School were similar to those within the Welsh Government’s PSE framework document.

Limitations of the national- and school-level PSE policies resonated in perceptions of implementers. The flexibility of the PSE framework guidance document was seen as both an advantage as well as a barrier to its full implementation. This finding supports earlier arguments about the uncertainty created by policy documents that lack clarity (Spillane et al. 2002). There were differences in how LEA level coordinators, head teachers, school level coordinators and classroom teachers viewed the PSE policy documentation. Whilst some LEA level coordinators saw the PSE framework as a comprehensive guidance that enhances the status of PSE,

particularly one (Oakwood and St David’s School) was more concerned about the practical implications of delivering PSE and highlighted its limitations. This might be due to a greater concern with or proximity to practice, as it was also evident from the way in which school level coordinators and classroom teachers reflected on the shortcomings of the framework and their pragmatic implications. None of these limitations were mentioned by head teachers who appeared less involved in day-to-day classroom practice. It was evident that these differences in perceptions were influenced by work contexts and related experience, knowledge and skills (Cohen et al. 1998). A lack of guidance for evaluating the provision and the impact of PSE contributed to uncertainty and the view of PSE being of low status with pupils and teachers. The importance of assessment regimes in establishing the status of a subject has previously been emphasized (McCuaig et al. 2012). A further key limitation for the effective implementation of the PSE policy appeared to be its ‘semi-statutory’ status, which implies that the delivery of PSE is a statutory requirement for schools whilst the format of delivery and organisational arrangements remain at the discretion of individual schools. This discretion was seen as devaluing and marginalising PSE in relation to core curriculum subjects. Designating PSE as curricular subject in which life skills are taught but not assessed was seen as making it ‘nobody’s subject’ whose effect on pupils’ lives remains uncertain. This observation relates to earlier arguments suggesting that dissimilarities between main curriculum subjects and health education seem to imply a lower status of the latter (McCuaig et al. 2012).

The way in which PSE policy shaped practice was not only determined by its characteristics and how they were re-produced and perceived by implementers. As this chapter has shown, sense-making of policy and resultant practice was also influenced by the wider context of policy implementation. These include competing national policy priorities, organisational arrangements, social interactions among people responsible for the implementation as well as their perceptions of PSE policy. These in turn are shaped by peoples’ individual characteristics. The impact of these influences on how implementers see practice is explored in the next chapter.

CHAPTER 6 Situated sense-making of the PSE framework and local