When considering culture, there might be an initial inclination towards the consideration of ‘Saudi’ culture versus ‘British’ culture, both of which clearly elicit different images in their portrayal (Alqahtani, 2011). Yet culture is a very difficult thing to define and can include sub-components, such as educational culture. It is in this instance that we see some similarities in the way that culture is understood between the primary school environments in both Saudi Arabia and English contexts. This is because the foundational principles in both locations seek to develop knowledge and humanity among all those in attendance. Therefore, when examining the findings of this research through the different perspectives of culture, certain similar themes emerge.
According to the findings of this study, Saudi society has the belief that the power lies in the hands solely of the King, and this was seen in the way that middle leaders from the Saudi schools accept that their role is to carry out the wishes of the King, as Huda (S4/S) explains. Although the King may not personally make decisions, he is the one who has the vision and directs the way in which policy should be made and implemented by his government. This means that the people making decisions about schools may be quite removed from the reality of school life, as the findings suggest. Ali (S5/S) commented that: ‘‘the policy is in one place and reality totally in a different place’’; the middle leaders have lost control of the outcomes. It is of some frustration that those most involved do not have a voice, as they feel they should have some influence over what is happening on the ground (Musaid S6/S). As Ali (S5/S) stressed, the government does not listen, and this results in ‘mess and problems everywhere’. Yet only the Education Department has the power to make decisions that affect the lives of teachers and students in schools. This may be the norm but it is not necessarily the reality (Foucault, 1981).
While the power of the King plays a considerable role in the functioning and the perspectives of Saudi citizens, participants’ comments generally focus on how the role of the King plays a part in the educational foundations of the primary school system, and consequently, how middle leaders must undertake their jobs. While in the English context, the Queen does not have such levels of authority over the educational foundations of the primary sector, there is a similar hierarchy in the British context. In England, policies also influence the organisational culture of the school system. These structures include aspects of standardised testing that generally encourage teachers to ‘teach to the test’. Because many of the funding options available generally rely on the outcomes of such tests, management seeks to maximise numerical scores. For teachers, in both contexts, the focus is on learning. It is acknowledged that learning can be achieved in a variety of different ways and may not necessarily be directly correlated with numerical
outputs. In both Saudi and English contexts, these sometimes polarising perspectives can put a focused strain on the middle leader, who must navigate the needs of teachers, while still attempting to uphold strong numerical scores among students. In both contexts, the educational culture follows a similar structure. When Solafa (S4/S) discusses the great vision of the King and his top down approach to policy implementation in schools, she is echoing statements made by Fatima (S3/E) who suggests she must not deviate from the government’s vision. Both of these situations are highlighted in the literature. For example, Bush and Glover (2016) suggests that middle leaders are essentially institutional agents of adherence to government policies. This suggests that the educational culture of both Saudi Arabia and England demonstrates some similarities in the way top-down policy initiatives circulate through the schools.
The Education Department wants people to believe they are in control in their schools. As one respondent commented, schools are given the impression that they can make decisions or implement changes, but this is ‘‘the power of illusion’’ (Sami, S6/S). The only power that schools have is to implement government policy. A number of respondents were quite vociferous on this subject: there is recognition that middle leaders cannot be involved in changes and nor can the headteacher as this is outside their remit (Saod S5/S); some think the decision-making is out of their hands because they are not trusted (Solafa S4/S); others feel the government does not want to lose control over education (Rashed S5/S). Both English and Saudi leaders believe that the effectiveness of their role, responsibilities and power is founded on trust. This is in line with the work of Bennett et al. (2007) who argue that middle leaders in a collegial atmosphere assume that teachers are accountable professionals. Power is an inherent characteristic when it relates to culture. According to Hofstede (1980), a power-distance index exists. This index considers the extent to which members of less power within an institution accept and expect power to be unequally distributed. At the country level, Saudi Arabia and
England would score very differently with Saudi Arabia obtaining a high score, suggesting a clear hierarchy that is established and executed among members of the nation. Contrastively, England would score considerably lower on the index, signifying more instances where members of society are seen to question authority.
From the findings of this study, the power-distance index at the country level does not seem to apply at the organisational level, suggesting that a shift is occurring in both contexts. It is evident that Saod (S5/S) and Solafa (S4/S) are more willing to question authority when faced with challenging educational situations, which would generally defy the high power-distance scoring exhibited at the country level. The English middle- leaders, in a similar shift, generally seem to be acknowledging that a hierarchy exists that stems from Ofsted and levels of senior management. The similarity, in this instance, is that both countries are seeking to achieve a mid-ground position within the power- distance index, as decisions are made to assist in the compilation of a shared vision that pleases everyone. For the middle leaders in this study, this requires moves to be made in order to better the situation of all.
These middle leaders, despite feeling that they have no power, were found to have a voice. They could express their concerns over the role they have, and they could criticise the lack of power extended to schools and middle leaders. This in its way is a form of resistance, to which Foucault (1977) referred as force relations, where power is a strategy that depends on a multiplicity of resistances; although the middle leaders are changing their behaviour by complying or navigating the intricacies of working in the middle, they are also quietly resisting that power. They therefore also have power, which can come from below as well as from above (Foucault, 1981). In this instance, the middle leaders are indeed adhering to the norm of hierarchical power, but the reality is that they are also resisting that norm by voicing their opinions. Discourses can identify power but can also undermine it by identifying it (Foucault, 1977); the middle leaders identify that power is
coming from above, but they are also criticising the policies that they are complying with as they do not fit reality.
Educational culture is again illustrated by the above discussion on the use of voice. For middle leaders, there seems to be a need to encourage collaboration instead of the top down model that seemed to be more commonly applied. While it was apparent that both contexts demonstrated the use of voice by middle leaders, what was also evident was the lack of implementation of changes as a direct result of use of this voice. One example of this is a school meeting that occurred in S3 in England. In this meeting, the middle leader was permitted, and even encouraged, to express views on teacher concerns and to address functional changes within the school. While the concerns were acutely listened to by the headteacher, none of the issues discussed in the meeting were decided upon. A similar example can be shown in the Saudi context, though in this case there was more acceptance that the concerns being presented were illusory because of the assumption that headteachers in the Saudi context had considerably less power to make changes. This power relationship, as it pertains to educational culture, is summed up in the literature by Kurdi (2011), who notes that educators generally have very little autonomy.
The middle leaders from both countries in this study echoed their fears and powerlessness in the face of a state-operated system of school inspection and reporting mechanisms that hold the individuals accountable for their actions and decisions at ground level. Safia (S4/S) worries about the regular visits from inspectors from the Saudi Education Department ‘‘we have to be ready and show them we are ready, otherwise it will appear in the reporting mark’’; Sara (S1/E) explains that the headteacher in her English school ‘‘is very critical about Ofsted reports….that report shows our school’s performance and as more boxes have been ticked, the better grades the school will receive’’. These fears and anxieties expressed by middle leaders absolutely resonate with the word “terror” used by Perryman (2009) as it relates to inspection and comparisons, and with the “neo-liberal
forms of government that feature not only direct intervention by means of empowered and specialised apparatuses [inspections, reports, performance] but also characteristically develop indirect techniques [inspections, reports, performance] for leading and controlling individuals”, as argued by Lemke (2000:12). Productivity is thus prioritised over experience at an organisational level, and this belittles the leadership role and label of middle leader, taking their focus away from improving teaching practices (Hunter, 1999).
While middle leaders in both contexts indicated a frustration of the overarching government bodies, there were indications in the research that monitoring and assessment by middle leaders is generally not undertaken to a high standard (Hammersley-Fletcher and Strain 2011). In both countries, there was a desire for middle leaders to ‘pick a side,’ and many chose to attempt to support the needs of the teachers, in a balancing act of regulatory policies. Yet, several studies (i.e. Hammersley-Fletcher and Strain, 2011) suggest that educational culture puts the responsibility to demonstrate success on the student (e.g. through standardised assessment) and the focus on the evaluation of teaching is often an afterthought. Within this study, there was very little reference by the middle leaders to evaluation of teachers, as culturally it did not appear to be one of the responsibilities they chose to undertake in their working environment.
In a similar vein some of the middle leaders in the English schools also complain about the limits of their power to make decisions. Although some may believe they have some elements of power in their role, this too may be the power of illusion. As Julie (S3/E) explains, government legislation overrules other considerations. The changes that are imposed by central government come through so quickly that it makes it difficult for middle leaders to try and implement them. Despite the belief that there is more freedom in the English system, the middle leaders make it clear that they do not have a voice when it comes to decision-making. Like their Saudi counterparts, they are simply managing a
process. Nevertheless, it can also be seen in both contexts that minor decisions can be made within the school environment. As Rashed (S5/S) commented, these were decisions that did not affect education policy. It should be noted that Reda (2014) and Romanowski (2014) argue that many of the policies embraced by Saudi governments have been shaped by Western ideology, and little attention has been paid to considering systems that are more in line with their own religious, cultural and philosophical context. This may help to explain why so many similarities are evident between Saudi and English schools; Romanowski (2014) clearly states that even when reforms happen in education policies, they are still shaped by external forces rather than internal needs.
This thesis finds that culture is a key element that is similar in the two countries. Culture has broadly been defined as more extensive, including aspects of power and authority as well as to include the culture within the educational context. The centralised system of education in both countries is similar, meaning that there is an authoritarian approach to compliance which can sometimes intimidate middle leaders. Middle leaders feel controlled by the system and are not encouraged to focus on pedagogy in schools. This leaves them at an impasse. Some leaders were once teachers themselves, and even for those who were not, there is an inherent tendency to support the needs of teachers while still attempting to implement the policies of senior management. The middle leaders both in Saudi and in England felt that trust was a crucial component in their roles and responsibilities. The leaders, especially in Saudi, are controlled by the centralised system, which causes anxiety and lack of confidence. The damage is high as was observed in the case of Safa, who kept checking the guidelines every time she was asked a question. In contrast, although middle leaders in English schools mentioned trust as one of the barriers to efficiency, they were more comfortable and able to make a decision and implement change.