Cuantificando la dependencia p(T) – La ecuación de Clausius-Clapeyron

8.4.2 Collegial Support – Qualitative analysis year one / two

Teacher perceptions of Collegial Support varied significantly and whilst there was some limited improvement in perceptions between years one and two, there remain sharply

contrasting views which conflict with the overall picture from quantitative outcomes. As with perceptions of Collaborative Leadership, memories of past experiences in the school are reflected in some teachers’ views and it is important to separate these from perceptions within the time period of the study. Overall, Collegial Support can be summarised by one teacher who makes the distinction between vertical and horizontal aspects of trust within School C. “Vertically, trust has been very limited. I think at the beginning it was ‘we were all in it together’ and there was a degree of trust because nobody had done anything to misplace that trust…but I do think trust horizontally is much better.” In other words, the new school leadership which took control of School C shortly before the study began, inherited an atmosphere where trust in leadership was much more limited than trust between teachers. This is confirmed by a teacher who also suggested that vertical trust was dependent upon who was involved: “I think within areas trust is good, for the most part…. Vertically, with my Line Manager not a problem at all, I don’t know really for other people, I think trust there is fine, that’s not a problem.”

175

Whereas quantitative data indicates some improvements in Collegial Support in year two, there is less evidence from the interviews. There was acknowledgement that “this year has been a really difficult year in that there have been a lot of anonymous complaints going on. There are people out there complaining about everybody else.” The threat of redundancies took its toll on Collegial Support in year two and further undermined trust; “and because of that it puts a strain on the whole staff body”. Nonetheless, there is evidence that staff want to create greater trust and more collegiality, as this interview extract shows, “I think most people are desperate to have trust in that whole focus, I really think that we want to. We are professionals, we know that if we can create that, we can be so much more successful. We really want it, don’t we?”

Detailed analysis of the interview data using elaborative coding highlights a series of key themes which, in turn, produce the year one theoretical constructs legacy of mistrust and

emerging confidence. The legacy of mistrust is deep-rooted and can be traced to the closure

of the two former predecessor schools and the creation of an amalgamated school. “A lot of staff, I would say, lower down there is a ‘them and us’ no matter how much we try and break it down. I don’t know whether that’s improving or not,” said one teacher. Another added “I think there are still massive inconsistencies”. Detailed coding also identifies the impact of staff changes on Collegial Support and shows that in a period of high staff turnover, trust is often undermined. “I do think, with staff turnover being so high as well, especially in our department, we had most of our department leave last year, so obviously that’s difficult because you’re building new relationships, getting used to new ways of thinking and ways of doing.” Despite the negative impact on Collegial Support, Table 8.8 also highlights a more optimistic construct emerging confidence which is supported by comments from teachers who suggest that trust within departments is a strength. “I think everybody trusts within department people enough in terms of if they wanted to speak to them about a problem” and “yes, I think there is a lot of trust more so within areas within departments. I have no

problem in going up to my head of department and telling him that I’ve had the worse lesson in the world.”

176

Table 8.8: Collegial Support – Summary Themes and Theoretical Constructs

Summary Themes

Year one Limited vertical trust ‘Baggage’ hinders trust in leadership

Desire for improvement Staff turnover undermines trust

Good horizontal trust

Year two Trust undermined Impact of redundancies Legacy of past

Significant challenges for leadership Signs of improvement Willing audience Theoretical construct Legacy of mistrust Emerging confidence Scale of task Emerging optimism (Based on Auerbach & Silverstein, 2003)

Two further constructs emerge in year two of the study, scale of task and emerging optimism. Here, the heavy legacy of past events affect the current culture. This mistrust is sometimes described in extreme terms as poisonous. “I will be very honest with you… the lack of trust, the poison that just runs through. It’s not making this school a very nice place to work.” These views, whilst not widespread, reveal the challenge facing the executive headteacher and headteacher who joined the school in the second year of the study. Trust was further undermined by the need to cut costs. “When it (redundancy notice) was given to those people, they were almost in a state of shock and panic then, whereas I was going ‘no, it doesn’t mean we’re all going to lose our jobs.”

It was clear that teachers wanted a working environment where trust was strong both vertically and horizontally. The second round of interviews revealed this and empathy with the new school leaders who were trying to address fundamental issues. “It’s not that I don’t trust them and I think the people we’ve got at the moment have tried really, really hard to do something that has been a difficult job.” A willingness to see improvement is also evident and is explicit in the construct emerging optimism. There is a clear willing audience for

improvement. “I think overall I could ask anybody in this school for help with something and they would help me…. I think people are willing” and “I think within subjects there is a tendency to have a lot of support within departments. That can be seen because subjects would work together and there is sharing of resources.” In short, despite the challenges, the

177

interviews provide some support for the quantitative outcomes that Collegial Support is marginally stronger in year two than year one.

The role ordered matrix in Table 8.9 shows opinion divided between groups but with signs of improvement from half those interviewed. Senior teachers are clear that vertical trust, or trust in them, was limited. “They don’t trust us” said one senior leader. The ‘baggage’ of the past was often manifest in negative relations with other leaders in the academy and where events were influenced by “the voice that shouts the loudest”. Senior Leaders recognised the challenge facing teachers and how the pressure to improve outcomes often undermined relationships. “I think the core subject teams have really taken a beating. This isn’t related to that, it’s just another pressure. The pressure the English teachers are under, the maths teachers are under is huge and they are absolutely exhausted by it.”

Table 8.9: Role Ordered Matrix – Collegial Support Position in School Perception of Collegial Support Factors or strategies which initiate or influence change Perception of change over time SLT No trust in SLT ‘Baggage’ Negativity ‘Baggage’ Variable Anonymous complaints Little improvement Poisonous Culture undermined ML

Limited vertical trust Trust needs to return Good horizontal trust Want improvements

Regular meetings Feeling of being let down

Trust missing for a long time

Poisonous Demoralising

ET

Good level of trust Good listeners Good in depts.

Can talk to others Big trusted group TEEP increases trust

Trust is improving More sharing of resources NQT Trust is good

Good trust in depts. Little support

High turnover affects trust

Much more structure Increasing support

Similarly, middle leaders had a less than positive view of Collegial Support. Despite regular meetings, they agreed that vertical trust remained a problem but trust within departments was generally good. “I think trust has been missing for a very long time. I think that comes back to collaborative leadership, doesn’t it?” said one middle leader. The legacy of mistrust was deep-seated, but not universal. The school amalgamation cast a long shadow over

178

relationships between staff, particularly between senior and middle leaders. By contrast, two of the four groups had a much more positive view of Collegial Support, perhaps because it relied less on line management and hierarchy, as this comment from an experienced teacher shows: “I think I can go and tell anybody what I want to tell them and they will listen…. so, you can see there’s a ‘big trusted’ group going on.” This positive view of experienced staff continues into year two of the study: “I think because we have more teacher interaction with the TEEP sessions I think you’re making more contacts, so it probably has improved”. NQTs, whose only knowledge of the school’s past are stories told by more experienced teachers, were particularly positive about Collegial Support. There is recognition that a high turnover of teachers undermined trust and, as one NQT reflected, “it just depends on the people who are here because obviously they change the atmosphere, change the willingness to discuss”. Overall, the view of NQTs is summarised as follows: “I think there is a lot of support.”

8.5 Teacher Collaboration

8.5.1 Teacher Collaboration – Quantitative analysis year one / two

Figure 8.4: Collaborative Leadership in year one and two

The individual scores for Teacher Collaboration in School C were the least positive in years one and two for any of Gruenert and Valentine’s six factors. Figure 8.4 and Table 8.10 includes data of particular interest and shows that mean scores were more negative than positive about Teacher Collaboration in the first year of the study. For example, the average score for the six items relating to Teacher Collaboration produced a mean of 2.38 indicating

2.34 1.83 2.2 2.79 _2.71 2.39 3.3 2.95 3 _2.83 3.18 _2.89 1 2 3 4 5 TC3 TC8 TC15 TC23 TC29 TC33

Teacher Collaboration

179

that teachers disagreed with the statements presented. The statement TC 2350 produced the most positive score at 2.79 but even this suggest that teachers still disagreed with the statement. The weakest response with a mean of 1.83 was TC 851 and scored the most negative perception of any response. Moreover, half of the six modal scores also produced negative teacher perceptions and only one, “teachers are generally aware of what other teachers are teaching” (TC 23), produced a positive response.

Table 8.10: Teacher Collaboration – Teacher perceptions quantitative outcomes

Mean Statement Mean Statement

2.79 Teachers are generally aware of