COMISION DE POLITICAS DE DESARROLLO ESTUDIANTIL Y CENTROS UNIVERSITARIOS

Global interest in school culture and its effect on all aspects of the life in and beyond schools, remains of interest to academics (Bland, 2012; Moree, 2013; Bipath & Moyo, 2016; Ohlson et al., 2016; Karadag & Oztekin-Bayir, 2017; Glusac, et al., 2017; Greany, 2017; Harris, 2018). Some researchers continue to investigate the connection between school culture and student achievement (Bland, 2012; Ohlson et al., 2016) whilst others examine the relationship between school culture and school leadership (De Villiers & Pretorius, 2012; Bipath & Mayo, 2016; Harris, 2018) and between school culture and the quality of teaching (Glusac, et al., 2015). The renewed interest in school culture has emerged at a time when many national educational systems are experiencing rapid change driven by three key international factors: increasing decentralisation and marketisation of educational provision; increased competition between countries based upon international measures of effectiveness and the development of system-led improvement models (Greany & Waterhouse, 2016). My focus is the English education system, but there is ample evidence to support the notion that marketisation, national competition and system-led designs impact on school culture and education policy beyond the UK (Mourshed et al., 2010; Barber, et al., 2012).

The demise of English Local Education Authorities and the rise of centrally-controlled state- funded academies has accelerated rapidly in the last five years. Arguably, this process began in 1992 with the introduction of ‘local management of schools’ (LMS) whereby school leaders were granted greater autonomy over finance and personnel. School autonomy accelerated most rapidly following the 2010 Academies Act which allowed successful schools to become convertor academies, free from Local Authority control. The creation of new MATs and the expansion of existing MATs accelerated after 2011 to include both sponsored and convertor academies. According to the House of Commons Education Committee, there were 1,121 active MATs in England in November 2016, an increase from just 391 MATs in March 2011 (House of Commons Education Committee, 2017, p. 4).

The creation of academies and MATS, free from Local Authority control and with greater autonomy over staffing, teaching, finance, training, and curriculum, was intended to promote significantly higher standards of achievement. However, the same report found that

“evidence of their (academies’) ability to raise pupil performance is limited and varied” (House of Commons Education Committee, p. 4). The impact of legislative changes and

20

greater autonomy for school leaders needs to be seen in the context of greater accountability and the introduction of more demanding GCSE and A Level courses, many first examined in 2018. Greater autonomy, combined with increased accountability in a quasi-market setting seems to have influenced the behaviour of school leaders, but might not, according to Greany (2017), have impacted upon the quality of teaching. Nonetheless, academy status and the creation of MATs provided, in theory at least, a new opportunity for school leaders to explore improvement strategies, including those which might use or shape school culture.

Rationalisation of educational provision is not new. School amalgamations have, for many years, been a response to demographic change. Two or more schools might be merged to form an economic unit able to deliver an affordable curriculum. Such an amalgamation creates a new school, but one which inherits the history and culture of its predecessor

schools. By contrast, MATs are a relatively new construct and the schools which join a MAT have either done so voluntarily (converter academies) or are sponsored academies, taken over because of poor academic performance. In a MAT, schools remain separate institutions but are controlled by an overarching Trust, usually led by a successful school. Partner schools will have their own culture, but this is likely to be impacted by the ambitions of the Trust (Morris, 2018). Some Trusts may respect the culture of each partner and allow for individual development. Other Trusts may impose their vision on schools and, by implication, their culture, as part of a drive to improve standards. It is clear that amalgamated schools and schools in MATs will experience cultural challenges different to those of stand-alone schools. This study explores the extent of these challenges and considers the effect on school culture. My interest in school culture, and its development in MATs and amalgamated schools therefore sits within this evolving policy landscape in England. Schools that are in MATs or are products of amalgamations are in a different context to other schools; they are either entirely new entities or part of a new partnership working in close collaboration with a lead school or in parallel with other schools. Thus, the cultural dynamics are likely to be different to stand-alone mainstreams schools whose culture develops over time unaffected by either a merger or MAT partner. Understanding the development of culture in these very specific settings is of increasing relevance as the MAT programme unfolds.

Interest in school culture as a school improvement tool can be seen in response to the increasing competition between individual schools and national school systems. The global imperative for schools to improve student outcomes, particularly since the introduction of

21

international comparisons of effectiveness such as the programme for international student assessment or PISA launched by the OECD in 1997, has transformed many governments’ approaches to their national education systems. PISA scores can cause turmoil or delight for governments (Jerrim, 2014). “Pisa results have been used to justify sweeping controversial reforms in England since 2010 and today are seen by a growing number of countries as a guide to how to create the perfect school system” (Stewart, 2013). The PISA rankings now accompanied by TIMSS (Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study) and PIRLS (The Progress in International Reading Literacy Study), have transformed how governments evaluate the success of their own schools. But the PISA ‘effect’ and development of ‘quasi’ educational markets is not just of concern to national governments. There is growing interest in how entire school systems can be transformed to produce better outcomes for pupils and this justifies the need for further research into school culture (Barber, et al., 2012).

English education policy and practice, in recent years, has been characterised by the concept of the ‘self-improving system’ (Greany, 2015) where teachers and schools become

responsible for their own improvement, learn from the latest research and extend their responsibility to effect improvement in other schools. This model of improvement, with MATs acting as the primary vehicle for increasing school effectiveness, sees lead schools sharing expertise and strategies and, potentially, approaches to create a ‘healthy’ school culture. This development emerges at a time of significant school autonomy accompanied by high levels of accountability (West, Mattei & Roberts, 2011). But this self-improving school system has it challenges. Potential problems of capacity, funding and the core need for deep partnership between schools have to be overcome (Greany, 2015). A worldwide version of system improvement was outlined by Barber, Donnelly and Rizvi (2012) in which the authors suggested that a global system for education required society to “furnish a culture that is progressive and open to the transmission of new ideas, welcoming of diversity and rules based” (Barber et al., 2012). The culture Barberdescribed in Oceans of Innovation5_,

comprised “values that are universal and vital: respecting opinions different from one’s own; respecting individuals equally regardless of their wealth, race, gender, sexual orientation or origin; recognising the diversity of life” (Barber et al., 2012).

5 _{In Oceans of Innovation, Barber and colleagues also described what students should know and be able to do}

as E(K+T+L) Where K is knowledge & skills, T is critical thinking, L is leadership and the ability to influence, and E is ethical framework (Barber, et al., 2012).

22

School culture is thus an identifiable element within the recent analysis and development of global and self-improving systems. Alongside this, the development of strategies to influence culture positively are now widely recognised in schools as tools which impact outcomes (Harris & Lambert, 2003; Ohlson et al., 2016). The relative importance, however, of the management of school culture in relation to other school improvement strategies remains a key issue for debate. The UK Government, for example, argue that Ofsted inspections are a key stimulus to school improvement, although this is hotly contested (Ferguson, Earley, Hoston & Fidler, 1999; Chapman, 2005; Gaertner, Wurster & Pant, 2014). If culture, including school culture, truly were, like the weather, outside human control, then effective practices, habits and routines amongst teachers could not affect school culture.

Meteorological references aside, the evidence from the literature, my long tenure as a school leader and passionate headteacher with experience of amalgamating two secondary schools, overwhelmingly indicates that school culture is at the heart of school improvement and can be influenced, managed, even manipulated or engineered. As Hargreaves (1991) suggests, “differences in outcome are systematically related to variations in the school culture.... school culture is amenable to alteration by concerted action in the part of the school staff”

(Hargreaves, 1991, p. 110). The specific actions leading to cultural change within a school will vary according to circumstances and the local environment, but, whilst “there are no blueprints for successful school improvement” it is clear that common practices can be identified (Harris & Lambert, 2003, p. 24).6

2.8 Conclusion

If academics remain unclear on a precise definition of school culture, there is consensus that it is important in securing sustained school improvement. The problem of definition and difficulty of separating school culture from school climate or ethos has posed researchers further problems. Agreement on school culture essentials remains elusive. However, whilst these gaps in research have yet to be fully addressed, there is sufficient common ground, particularly on the components of school culture to move forward and use Gruenert and Valentine’s survey tool as a basis for this study.

6 _{Full quote: “While there are no blueprints for successful school improvement there are some core activities}

that have been show to lead to cultural change…..In summary, the goal of school improvement is to bring about positive cultural change by altering the processes that occur within the school” (Harris and Lambert, 2003 p 24).

23

Much of the research into school culture has focused on educational systems in the United States (Beaudoin & Taylor, 2004; Valentine, 2006; Muhammad, 2009; Ohlson, et al., 2016) although some work has also been undertaken in the Netherlands (Maslowski, 2001), Serbia (Glusac et al., 2015), South Africa (Bipath & Moyo, 2016), Turkey, (Karadag, 2017), Spain (Miravet, 2013) and Ireland (Daley, 2008). Rather less research has been undertaken in England and therefore school leaders and policy-makers have not benefitted from knowledge and information derived from enough domestic studies which examine school culture in a uniquely English setting. The potential benefits, therefore, that may be derived from a greater understanding of how school culture contributes to or detracts from school development are missing for the leaders of English schools. This gap in knowledge is compounded for those working in MATs or schools that are products of amalgamations. Vital information about school dynamics in these contexts does not exist. Moreover, an increasing global focus on system rather than school improvement has become more evident and has already recognised the importance of school culture in making schools more effective (Barber, et al., 2012). The relationship between school effectiveness and improvement is an important one. Therefore, before I outline my research design and methods used for this study, it is important to consider the role of school culture in the context of the school effectiveness, school improvement and educational effectiveness traditions.

25 Chapter 3

School effectiveness and school improvement; the relationship with school culture in the context of amalgamated schools and MATs.

3.1 Introduction

Research outcomes from school effectiveness and school improvement disciplines may have shaped policy, determined school systems and influenced the educational experience of millions of young people globally, but explicit reference to the importance of school culture has, at best, been limited. However, in the last fifteen years, evidence supporting its crucial role in school improvement and school effectiveness has gathered momentum (Deal & Peterson, 2009; Fullan, 2009; Hargreaves, 2004; Reddyk, 2000; MacBeath et al., 2007).

The focus of this study is very specific. It considers school culture as it emerges in secondary schools in England which have been the subject of an amalgamation or are part of a new formal partnership or multi-academy trust. In these schools, some of which are recently created or part of a new partnership, school culture is newly emerging and therefore of particular interest to scholars and educationalists exploring how culture develops in a period of rapid change and challenge for the teaching staff of a school. This chapter explores the relationship between school culture and school effectiveness, school improvement and educational effectiveness and seeks to explore the inter-relationship within the context of MATs or school amalgamations. In short, this study draws upon 40 years of research in these key traditions and considers the importance of school culture as an improvement tool.

In the first part of this chapter, I present a review of the school effectiveness and school improvement movements focusing on the English context. I consider the impact on policy and practice and refer to the management of school culture as an improvement strategy. I also analyse the apparent synergy between school improvement and effectiveness, and consider the limitations of respective methodologies. I argue, for example, for the continued development of combined school improvement and school effectiveness models so that school leaders and policy-makers may benefit from a wider understanding of school dynamics and the creation of additional improvement tools, including more research into

26

school culture. Finally, all these developments, and particularly the creation and development of healthy school cultures, are explored through the lens of schools facing the challenges of amalgamation or new partnerships. They create the context for the central theme of this study.