This research was carried out with the aim of examining: different factors that influence perceptions of middle leaders’ roles and responsibilities in Saudi and English primary schools. The findings suggest a significant level of similarity between both educational contexts. The similarities between middle leaders in Saudi and middle leaders in England are that all of them are under pressure from the government. However, in the Saudi context, compliance is harder and more rigid, as power is imposed by the King. In English schools the pressure to comply is softer because power is imposed by the government. Further, the power imposed by the King in Saudi and that imposed by the government in England are embedded in different levels of external and internal hierarchical system. The external system is responsible for generating education policies and inspecting activities carried out by similar education agencies (In Saudi, the Department of Education and in England, Ofsted), and forcing the internal hierarchical structure inside schools to comply. The differences between Saudi and English schools appeared mainly in the leeway for freedom given by the external power, to schools’ leaders to practice their daily duties and on the culture of middle leadership.
With the leeway given to middle leaders in English schools in the practice of their daily duties, middle leaders appeared to hold different responsibilities: as Heads of department and subject leaders. Their main duties are teaching, which means they are part of the teaching team, but at the same time, they are part of the line management team. Middle leaders in English schools perceive managerial and administration responsibilities as incidental duties as their main duties are teaching and supporting teaching. Middle leaders in English schools have some control over their subject funds, although they must seek permission from the headteacher. Middle leaders in English schools have the power to arrange in-house training for the teaching staff. However, in Saudi schools, training is centralised. So, although centralisation is an issue in terms of making the decision and promoting change, it is not as hard as it is in the Saudi school context.
Middle leaders in Saudi are appointed according to their years of teaching experience. The process of appointing a middle leader is bureaucratic and controlled by the Education Department. Middle leaders have no choice about where to go and the headteacher has no power to appoint a middle leader, as the decision is controlled directly by the Education Department. Middle leaders in the studied schools expressed their frustration and struggle in conducting their daily duties due to lack of training and experience. The rigid style of leadership and management imposed by the government has left middle leaders in Saudi with no options to lead, and their role therefore tends to be more managerial and administrative and less about leadership.
Middle leaders in Saudi are playing more the role of administrator. The hierarchy in the system and the structure influence the daily practices of middle leaders. The statement “I am a manager” suggests that middle leaders seemed to perceive other teachers as staff rather than as colleagues. This influenced the sense of collegiality because middle leaders are attached to the management line, but not to the teaching line. The findings show that: middle leaders in Saudi perform no teaching duties. They are not subject leaders and their
position in the hierarchy means that they are not Heads of a department, rather they are deputies. While in English schools some middle leaders demonstrated interests in performing monitoring duties, some others tended to hold the stick of government to force the changes and decisions imposed from above. The power imposed by the government seemed to influence the culture of collegiality. This leads to tension not only between local initiatives and government but also between the culture of collegiality and the pressure of the government. In English schools, middle leaders comply with the power of secular ethics. It is a commitment which influences the practices in schools where the secular system is in control. The rhetoric of freedom, which secular ethics supports, is controlled by the government via inspection.
This rhetoric and ethics created a space of freedom and helped teachers to incorporate government pressure. At the same time, the pressure of work leads to conflict between the requirements of the government (compliance) and the rhetoric of secular ethics (freedom). This conflict seemed to influence the daily practices of middle leaders in English schools.
Fear is one of the significant issues identified in this research that influences the way in which middle leaders perform their daily duties. As demonstrated in this study, middle leaders in Saudi and England fear the consequences of failing to comply with government. But in the Saudi context, and due to the rigidity of the system, the fear seemed greater. In England, middle leaders had the power to disagree, even though they had to comply with the government, under threat of a negative Ofsted report. A middle leader is like a taxman, who has illusory power - he can collect the tax but has no power to say who should pay what.
Interestingly, the illusion of power creates an alternative source of energy that motivates middle leaders to do their job. The findings suggest that in both contexts religious and
secular values and ethics appeared to have a positive influence - supplying middle leaders with positive energy to complete their duties. Middle leaders rely on their good values when the pressure becomes high. Taking into consideration that performing everyday over-time duties at home, such as marking for English leaders and planning for Saudi leaders, is not part of their paid hours, middle leaders’ values, either secular or religious, seem to be an effective element that makes them stick at their job. As such, if the education departments and headteachers in both England and Saudi Arabia are successfully keeping their middle leaders compliantly working and ensuring that they in turn keep their subordinate colleagues doing the same, does it really make a difference whether this compliance to the directives of authority is ‘soft’ or ‘rigid’? With all these qualitative findings of unpaid overtime, limited decision-making, expected deference to authority, checking and rechecking before actually being allowed to spend school money (or even change the school bell) it appears that in both contexts a process of ‘self-policing’ is going on. In understanding this process, it is worth looking again at the accepted dichotomy of ‘submission’ to religious ideology and the ‘freedom’ provided by systems of secular ethics. Caught in the middle, between various contested discourses, middle leaders appear to exemplify the position Foucault describes as one of simultaneous compliance and resistance in relation to social structure and the effects of power (Jeffrey and Troman, 2009). Further, it appears that for Saudi middle leaders, commitment to religious values can be an energy source because they believe that their good deeds will be rewarded by the greatest spiritual pleasure, and this grants them the pleasure of satisfaction that they would win from the Lord. Thus, they will be satisfied that they did what they should do to comply, happily, with the Lord. For English middle leaders, similarly, committing to secular ethical values is part of their system of fairness and collegiality. The reward they get from commitment is not material, but is more about the satisfaction of knowing that they did what they should do for their schools.
CHAPTER FIVE DISCUSSION 5.1 Introduction
This chapter discusses the findings of this study and their relationship to existing literature on the subject of middle leaders in primary schools. It is now important to try and find meanings from the data and to understand the position of educational middle leadership roles and the extent to which they operate within their cultural, social and political environments. This study gives the opportunity to compare two different contexts in which middle leaders operate and to identify similarities and differences between such roles in England and Saudi Arabia. The methodology applied in this study gives the study a unique insight into both these contexts in allowing middle leaders in Saudi Arabia and England a voice; the methods selected, of interviewing and document analysis, along with some observation provide a balanced approach.
The first component of this chapter focuses on how middle leaders perceive their roles and responsibilities in Saudi and English primary schools. It identifies how leaders believe they fit into the management system within their school environment. Also, the discussion analyses areas where there are similar views, as well as where there are different perceptions of their responsibilities. This explores the first research question for the study: How are the roles and responsibilities of middle leaders perceived in Saudi and English primary schools?
Factors shaping that role are then discussed; such factors relate to the wider environment within which they operate and the structures that dominate the extent to which they can make decisions and create change. The second research question which this section explores is: What factors contribute to the shaping of roles and responsibilities of middle leaders in primary schools in Saudi Arabia and England?
The third section discusses the effectiveness of the organisation by focusing on power within schools. The chapter explains how power and communication channels are used to comply with decision-making. This is in response to the third research question: What kinds of factors are likely to make the school more effective in its organisation? Within each section differences and similarities between the contexts are highlighted. The concluding section summarises the discussion of the research questions and main themes.