perceptions of Collegial Support became more positive with the average of the four means strengthening to 3.68. Three of the four mean scores improved and the fourth mean declined by a mere 100th decimal place. All modal scores in year two also showed positive teacher responses.
7.4.2 Collegial Support – Qualitative analysis year one / two
Teacher perceptions of Collegial Support varied significantly and contrasted sharply with the outcomes of the quantitative whole school data. All groups interviewed recognised the extra pressures upon staff in the light of the Ofsted ‘special measures’ judgement and
the redundancies which followed. As one senior leader observed “I think that trust has taken a bit of a battering over the redundancies apart from anything else”. Other groups interviewed recognised the impact of School B’s context and recent history on teacher perceptions of Collegial Support. The impact of the Ofsted judgement, according to one middle leader, was profound. “Once you get over the shock and the heartbreak that you are in special
measures…you feel the pressure and it’s almost like on your shoulder there’s just someone always watching you.” Levels of trust were also affected and some teachers felt ‘blamed’ for the schools’ current circumstances: “it was very much ‘you’re the reason we are in it’. you are the teachers, it's your fault”.
Interview evidence indicated that Collegial Support was not a strength across School B, but there was plenty of evidence of its impact elsewhere. One NQT noted “within our
137
working together”. By contrast, an experienced teacher suggested that staff were being used as scapegoats: “I hate that. It doesn’t happen often but when it does it's quite spectacular.”
By year two, when School B had obtained a better Ofsted judgement and with a new headteacher in place, responses to the levels of Collegial Support changed markedly. One middle leader commented “I think there’s complete trust between teachers within this school”. This was echoed by an NQT, “I’d say there have been changes here and I think there’s a lot more trust across the school”. Such a change in view may partly be explained by the teacher who pointed to an increased sense of job security following the previous year’s round of redundancies: “for the most part, I feel that a lot of people feel a lot safer within their jobs”.
Table 7.8: Collegial Support – Summary Themes and Theoretical Constructs
Summary Themes
Year one Significant trust in some departments
Special measures judgement undermines trust
Redundancies undermine trust
Pressure to improve creates blame culture
Year two
Improving trust across school Variable trust across
partnership
Job security improves trust
Theoretical construct
Uncertainty undermines trust
Trust re-emerging (Based on Auerbach &Silverstein, 2003)
A summary of the main themes and constructs for Collegial Support for teacher interviews in years one and two is outlined in Table 7.8. Here the external pressures of School B’s ‘special measures’ judgement, combined with a phase of planned teacher redundancies, weakened the feeling of Collegial Support despite significant levels of trust existing within some
departments. The perception prevailing in year one can be summarised by the construct
uncertainty undermines trust and this difficult period in School B’s history is described by a
senior leader who appears almost helpless. “We’ve done absolutely everything we can and I think lots of members of staff can see that…that’s really, really difficult and its almost like you become the enemy.” The concept that some senior members of staff consider themselves
138
‘the enemy’ is confirmed by other teachers who refer to “a bit of a blame culture” and people “panicking”.
Table 7.9: 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 Trust in Partnership continues to grow Redundancies affect sense of trust
Some staff bitterness
Reduce staff
Increased workload for those left Redundancies Attempts to reduce effects of
redundancies
Support is varied Improved trust in some areas
Trust across Federation improving particularly at senior level
More partnership roles ML
Blame culture
developed after ‘special measures’ judgement Trust in School B but division across Federation
Lack of trust and sense of the inevitable
Special measures causes a blame culture
Sense that teachers are useless
External factors affect strategies
Increase in sense of blame Greater sense of inferiority of teachers in School B Greater sense of camaraderie in difficult times ET Scapegoating Chasm Increase of Chinese whispers
Sense of being at the bottom Void created by headteacher leaving Chinese whispers increase Deterioration in Collegial Support
Events affect atmosphere Support seems to decrease
NQT
Support is good within departments
Support less good between departments and across schools
Changes in staff and roles
Better working together
Huge wall has disappeared More trust developing Some resentment remains
Twelve months later, perceptions had begun to change. Improving standards and a new headteacher, although temporary, had positive impact on teacher perceptions. “I think its better than it was by a long way” commented an NQT about Collegial Support both within School B and across the partnership of schools. “It’s no longer them and us, it's them and us in a much smaller way.” An experienced teacher reinforced that view: “individuals have helped us”. Although this period is best summarised by the theoretical construct
trust re-emerging, it is worth noting that, for some teachers, improvements were much less
139
Analysis of teacher interviews by role confirms a contrasting view of Collegial Support over time combined with a perception of limited improvement by year two. A summary of
findings is presented in Table 7.9 and shows that, while senior leaders and NQTs express a growing sense of Collegial Support within School B and across the partnership, middle leaders and experienced teachers are much less convinced. They refer to the emergence of a ‘blame culture’ originating from the actions of school leaders once Ofsted had placed the school in special measures and an increasing sense of uncertainty as redundancy put jobs at risk.
Table 7.9 reveals how each group interviewed perceived the changes happening in School B at this time and how actions and strategies manifested themselves. Despite the optimism of senior leaders, there remained clear recognition of the impact of redundancies. As one senior teacher explained “I think there have been a number of staff who are quite bitter about what has happened to them”. Middle leaders and experienced teachers are much more explicit in their views, commenting upon the void created caused by the departure of the
headteacher after an Ofsted monitoring visit, a reduction in the ‘self-worth’ of teachers in the light of the special measures judgement, and the increasing use of ‘Chinese whispers’ as a means of finding out the latest school developments. For those staff, Collegial Support is much more limited and, according to one NQT, even more so between the two partnership schools.” I don’t think we’ve reached a position where we can consider trust between teachers across the schools.”
The quantitative and qualitative outcomes for Collegial Support seem to follow a similar pattern similar to the findings for Collaborative Leadership and Professional Development, that is quantitative results show more positive teacher perceptions than those expressed in the group interviews. How can we explain this? Firstly, the interviews enabled teachers to
express in-depth views and extend their comments more broadly than in questionnaire
responses. More importantly, the qualitative responses for Collegial Support enabled teachers to express views about ‘trust’ between teachers rather that ‘trust’ in a more general sense. The questionnaire, for example, did not invite responses about ‘trust’ based on hierarchy or role but it is clear that some teachers in the interviews were keen to express how whole school developments were influenced by the actions of senior leaders and external factors which were beyond their control.
140
These differences between the quantitative and qualitative findings create rich data. The mixed methods approach provides a more comprehensive view of teacher perceptions in School B during a difficult period in its development.
7.5 Teacher Collaboration
7.5.1 Teacher Collaboration – Quantitative analysis year one / two
Figure 7.4: Teacher Collaboration in year one and two
The individual scores for Teacher Collaboration in School B, summarised in Figure 7.4, provided a standard deviation which was less than half of the mean, indicating that the means for Teacher Collaboration were good indicators of an average. Table 7.10 includes statements of particular interest and shows that mean scores were slightly more negative than positive about Teacher Collaboration in year one. For example, the average score for the six items relating to Teacher Collaboration produced a mean of 2.88 indicating that teachers either disagreed with the statements presented or neither agreed nor disagreed. Three of the
statements, TC 8, TC 29 and TC 3337 scored between 2 and 3, whilst the most positive scores were TC 15 and TC 23.38 The overall conclusions from year one confirm that teacher
37 TC 8 Teachers spend considerable time planning together.
TC 29 Teachers work together to develop and evaluate projects.
TC 33 Teaching practice disagreements are voiced openly and discussed.
38 TC 15 Teachers take time to observe each other teaching.
TC 23 Teachers are generally aware of what other teachers are teaching.
3.11 2.51 3.09 3.06 2.91 2.59 3.83 2.88 3.08 3.32 3.28 3.24 1 2 3 4 5 TC3 TC8 TC15 TC23 TC29 TC33
Teacher Collaboration
Year 1 Year 2141
perceptions of Teacher Collaboration are less than positive, and probably reflect the context of School B as seen from perceptions of other cultural components in year one.
Despite the more negative views expressed in year one, perceptions of Teacher Collaboration noticeably improve in year two of the study. The average mean of the six statements, for example, improves markedly to 3.27 and only TC 8 “teachers spend considerable time planning together” scored a less than positive mean. Indeed, responses to all year two statements suggest perceptions have improved and indicate that successful strategies had encouraged more collaboration to occur. The year two outcomes, listed in Table 7.10, support this theory. Statements TC 3, TC 23 and TC 15 show that teachers have a more positive perception of ideas focused on improving the planning of lessons and quality of teaching. This is borne out by the qualitative findings.
Table 7.10: Teacher Collaboration – Teacher perceptions quantitative outcomes Year one Year two
Mean Statement Mean Statement
3.09 Teachers take time to observe