2.88 Teachers spend considerable time planning together (TC 8)
7.5.2 Teacher Collaboration – Qualitative analysis year one / two
Analysis of paired interviews in year one of the research provides improving perceptions of Teacher Collaboration within School B but less so across the partnership with School A. Senior leaders were clear that there were significant efforts being made to develop
collaboration, “I think there is encouragement to work together and certainly training days, time is being built in to try and encourage subject areas to work together”. Experienced teachers also confirmed the positive perspective of Teacher Collaboration within School B. “I think in (name of school) there is good collaboration. We share resources, we try not to re-
142
invent the wheel every single time.” Middle leaders were keen to see more working
together.“I think that it is critical and crucial to move a department to outstanding, you have to be sharing best practice, you have to be collaborating with those in your team.” Middle leader perceptions of Teacher Collaboration with partner School A, on the other hand, were less positive. “I think again in terms of the partnership, it is hit and miss depending on your department.” This view was confirmed by an NQT: “across the two schools I haven’t seen much evidence other than some of the INSET meetings…”.
By year two, perceptions of Teacher Collaboration within School B had improved further but remained mixed about collaboration across the MAT. Senior leaders reported that the need for further improvement in standards, following Ofsted’s monitoring visits, intensified efforts to spread good practice through increased Teacher Collaboration. This was noted by an NQT: “I have seen a lot of staff talking to each other more, just generally, and then that leads far more easily into the general helping with all kinds of ideas that go across subjects”. However, year two perceptions about Teacher Collaboration across the partnership varied. While senior leaders were adamant that collaboration had improved, others were less convinced. One middle leader said that she was “paying lip service to it really” and that “there’d been no real collaboration regarding subject to subject”.
A summary of the main themes and constructs for Teacher Collaboration is provided in Table 7.11 and confirms the positive and improving perspective of teachers over time, contrasting with a less positive view of collaboration across the partnership. Year one therefore is summarised by the theoretical construct collaboration improving and responding to change and is perhaps, best exemplified by a senior leader: “I would say it is probably variable. I think it is variable by subject, by subject leader, by the characteristics of those roles.” The same teacher went on to explain the challenges facing School B and its local partnership moving forward. “We’ve moved a long way, but you’ve only got to look at the size of our populations to see there is that culture to break within the people who have lived in the town.” This highlights the specific context of School B where teachers work in partnership with a much larger, more successful and popular school.
Despite the variety of views, the combined themes emerging from year two can be summarised by the construct collaboration improves trust since this best describes the increasing co-operation between Schools A and B. Several teachers noted “there’s no
143
competition anymore, it’s just that we’re working together, so that’s helped” and “I think this year in (school name) there has had to have been more collaboration purely because where the sixth forms have been merged”.
Table 7.11: Teacher Collaboration – Summary Themes and Theoretical Constructs
Summary Themes
Year one
Variable collaboration Strong collaboration within and between specific departments Limited but improving collaboration across Federation
Year two
More collaboration Variable collaboration within and between departments Limited but improving collaboration across Federation
Theoretical construct
Collaboration improving and responding to change
Collaboration improves trust (Based on Auerbach & Silverstein, 2003)
Analysis of the qualitative data using the role ordered matrix in Table 7.12 highlights how Teacher Collaboration developed over time, the views of the four groups interviewed and the context in which developments took place. Contextually, senior leaders point to the
significant cultural barriers that seem to exist. “We are trying to break a massive culture within the town where School A has been high achieving, high flying, whereas School B has been a technical college with behavioural issues.” Table 7.12 identifies the strategies senior leaders have used to overcome those barriers to improve Teacher Collaboration between schools.
The use of training days, the creation of a common marking policy, sharing of resources and best practice are specifically identified strategies to improve collaboration, particularly across both school sites. The impact of these strategies is, however, disputed, and confirms the earlier finding of a split between the perspectives of groups interviewed. Senior leaders and NQTs refer to significant progress, improving collaboration and shared initiatives. This is not a view shared by middle leaders and experienced teachers who refer to collaboration as ‘one- way’. Feelings of resentment and continuing suspicion are evident. “I get collaborated with when somebody wants something.” For these teachers, Teacher Collaboration within School B is a strength, but the development of ever closer ties with School A are greeted less favourably.
144
Table 7.12: Role Ordered Matrix – Teacher Collaboration
Position in School Perception of Teacher Collaboration Factors or strategies which initiate or influence change
Perception of change over time
SLT
Variable across school Variable across partnership Variable by subject Trying to overcome barriers Trying to change a ‘massive culture.’ Moved a long way
Encouragement to work together Use of training days Looking to break a town wide culture Development of specific initiatives
Massive progress Initiatives shared across partnership
Remaining suspicion between some middle leaders
ML
Driven in some depts. Variable
Hit and miss Inconsistent
Development of marking policy across partnership
Resources developed collaboratively Sharing of best practice within school and between schools
Some improving collaboration
Other collaboration is lip service
Collaboration rules different between schools Increasing sense of resentment ET Good collaboration within dept. Sharing of resources within dept. Depends on relationships Examples of distrust and resentment Sharing of resources Sharing of ideas within depts.
Less collaboration across partnership Collaboration tends to be one way Collaboration remains varied NQT Little evidence of collaboration across sites
A feeling of ‘them and us’
Different view if teachers teach across both sites
Feeling that teachers from School B always go to School A.
Sixth form between two schools merged on site of School A
Improving collaboration Sense of inevitability Collaboration takes place School A site
145 7.6 Unity of Purpose
7.6.1 Unity of Purpose – Quantitative analysis year one / two
Figure 7.5: Unity of Purpose in year one and two
Despite varied responses to several of Gruenert and Valentine’s measures of school culture, quantitative outcomes from questionnaires indicate that teachers in School B have a
consistently positive perception of Unity of Purpose. In year one teachers scored more than 3 in three of the five statements, and a similar proportion of modal scores also indicated
positive teacher perceptions. Table 7.13 summarises the most notable quantitative outcomes and shows that participants reacted particularly positively to the statements UP 5 and UP 31.39 The statement with which teachers were in least agreement was “the school vision reflects the values of the community” (UP 27).
Perceptions of Unity of Purpose by teachers in School B significantly improved in year two of the study. Table 7.13 shows that all five of Gruenert and Valentine’s statements scored a more positive response from teachers than in year one, and all statements scored between agree or neither agree nor disagree with an overall mean of 3.73. All five modal scores showed that teachers were in agreement with the statement asked. Most notable were positive teachers’ responses to the statement UP 19, UP 5 and UP 12.40
39 UP 5 Teachers support the vision of the school.
UP 31 Teaching performance reflects the vision of the school.
40 UP 19 Teachers understand the vision of the school.
UP 5 Teachers support the vision of the school.
UP 12 The school vision provides a clear sense of direction for teachers.
3.43 2.91 3.11 2.76 3.34 3.8 3.72 3.84 3.64 3.64 1 2 3 4 5
UP5 UP12 UP19 UP27 UP31
Unity of Purpose
146
Table 7.13: Unity of Purpose – Teacher perceptions quantitative outcomes
Year one Year two
Mean Statement Mean Statement
3.43 Teachers support the vision of the school (UP 5)
3.84 Teachers understand the vision of the school (UP 19)
3.34 Teaching performance reflects the vision of the school (UP 31)
3.80 Teachers support the vision of the school (UP 5)
3.11 Teachers understand the vision of the school (UP 19)
3.72 The school vision provides a clear sense of direction for teachers (UP 12) 2.91 The school vision provides a
clear sense of direction for teachers (UP 12)
3.64 The school vision reflects the values of