It was found that the power to make major decisions and promote change was centralised in all the schools studied in both the Saudi and English contexts. In this section, however, decision-making and change relating to implementation refer to the amount of leeway given to the leadership in primary schools to implement decisions and change imposed from the top (by either the King or the government). In Saudi schools, the leeway given to middle leaders to make implementation decisions or changes was very limited, compared with that given to middle leaders in English schools. Abdulla, from S6/S mentioned:
“To me the word ‘decision’ is very powerful; I would not use it to refer to simple acts. In schools we have no power to make decision, but we have the power to find the correct act to implement. We are like the tax man: he has the authority to collect the tax, but he has no authority to say who needs to pay and who does not” (Abdulla, S6/S).
A few middle leaders declared that although headteachers are required by law to empower them to make decisions, some do not give them any freedom to make even very minor
decisions. Complaining that the power to implement government-imposed change and decisions is dominated by the headteacher, one respondent from Solafa in S4/S said: “I think I should say that one of the most important obstacles we are facing in
managerial work is asking for the headteacher’s permission for any matter or decision related to my field of work”. (Solafa, S4/S).
When the middle leader was asked if the headteacher was able to implement what was agreed during the meeting, she responded that the request was rejected at first. However, the middle leader and the headteacher were able to gain approval in the end due to their good reputation and the use of their personal relationship:
“Emmm, well I and the Head used our own networks and relationship to give a push. Also, the school has a good performance report, so we used this as credit [silence] but also depending on the situation and the amount of changes we are asking for” (Huda, S4/S).
Middle leaders agreed that leaders in primary schools had no power to implement change because financial decisions are controlled by the Department of Education and she wondered how the school would implement more significant changes without the freedom to make financial decisions. For example, Rashed, from S5/S declared that: “I always recommend new ideas, asking the school master to apply it, but in most cases he politely refuses to implement it due a shortage in the school budget. Therefore, implementing change is always prevented by a group of roadblocks including the financial budget controlled by the education department” (Rashed, S5/S).
Observing the duties of the middle leaders in Saudi schools confirmed the lack of power given to middle leaders over the schools’ budget. It has been observed that even for a minor financial decision, such as changing a classroom’s lock, the middle leader needed
to seek permission from the headteacher who was expected to seek funding for the lock change (O2/S5).
The problem is not only that change is imposed from the top, but also that the implementation of change is restricted by each school’s need for approval from the Education Department, which has control over fiscal decision-making. As a means of overcoming this restriction, middle leaders and heads collaborate to use their personal networks and influence to persuade the Education Department to cooperate, but the school should have a good credit balance of “reputation” in order to achieve success.
The power of the personal relationships between headteacher, middle leaders, and other staff and their influence on decision-making and changes related to implementation in Saudi schools was recognised during an observation in S5 in Saudi (O1/S5). Rashed, from S5/S knew that the Education Department allowed the use of an electronic registration system to check in and check out for all students and teachers. The Head did not put the suggestion to a vote during a meeting because a group of teachers with whom he had a good relationship rejected the suggestion. Rashed, from S5/S felt that the taking the decision to a vote could be useful for many teachers and staff who are committed to their work, and they were willing to encourage other colleagues to participate. Hence, Rashed, from S5/S talked to the headteacher and advised him that it would be better to put the issue to a vote because then the other staff could not say he was taking sides, or that he was not fair. The headteacher accepted these points.
At the same time, Rashed, from S5/S created a larger pressure group made up of other middle leaders and staff to support the implementation of the decision and speed up the process. In the meeting, the middle leader group was able to win the vote and the system was implemented with the support of the headteacher. From this observation, we can see that although the power of implementing decisions in primary schools is given to the
headteacher, middle leaders can still use their communication and personal skills to create a group of colleagues to advocate for and support each other and to enhance the practice of middle leadership in primary schools in Saudi. In other words, although middle leaders have not been given power by the government to fight bad practice, they can create a powerful group within the school itself to make decisions in relation to the implementation of government recommendations.
In the English schools, middle leaders held two different perspectives in relation to decisions and changes relating to implementation. The first perspective supports the view that the headteacher takes the lead in implementing changes imposed by the government. The headteacher knows and understands what changes the government needs to implement and creates a vision to help realise them. Nicola from S1/ E was aware that if the government policy says “promote these changes”, then the headteacher needs to envisage the best ways to make that initiative work – so she sought ways to operationalise the initiative. The following quote provides an example of when a headteacher only appears to give the staff a choice – by presenting them with ideas about how to do something, and asking them to pick one. This is not how a headteacher could behave and is particularly restrictive. The middle leader said:
“You know the government promotes new changes and we have been asked to work in line with the changes. Those changes require new plans and methods of
implementation. When the Head comes he has with him the agenda of implementation, how we are going to implement the changes. So, we will be voting on the methods of implementation” (Nicola, S1/E).
In this case, the headteacher thinks about the choice of implementation methods, which will be on his or her agenda. His or her choices correspond to the government policies. The headteacher uses staff meetings to hold a vote on the various choices, which means the middle leaders have the power to vote for change, but the change is suggested by the
headteacher, who in fact has no power to actively initiate changes independently of the government.
Middle leaders who adopt this opinion also think that a headteacher’s attitudes are what make some of them accept middle leaders’ suggestions for implementing change, while others do not accept the intervention of their staff. Helen, from S2/E declared this opinion clearly by saying:
“I do have the power really, ha, it’s nice! I’m very lucky because the headteacher, as long as I can give a reason to do it and as long as it benefits the children she’ll let you do it, because of the type of Head she is. I’ve worked with other not very kind Heads who won’t let you do that. She’s very kind and lets us, gives us the power to do things” (Helen, S2/E).
The middle leaders who gave similar opinions saw that power is given by the government which has the authority. The headteacher is the head of the hierarchical structure of the school. The headteacher can only trust staff who comply with authority. The headteacher has the power to make decisions about implementation, but subject leaders are only empowered to vote for the best. These are the roles of management staff in the school as shaped by the government.
The second perspective suggests that middle leaders have the power to make decisions in relation to implementation, and this is because middle leaders who are at the same time subject leaders know more about the topic and the teaching and learning needs. However, any decision should be made after discussion. Vicky from S2/E stated that:
“So, there are some things that are statutory – that have to be done by law. And then by discussion, I would have my ideas, but by discussion I would implement the things that we can negotiate with other members of staff” (Vicky, S2/E).
Here, it seems from the previous evidence that discussion is limited to a choice of ways to implement change –the change itself and its value for education are not discussed. So, changes around implementation start with the headteacher who has the authority to roll the various ways of implementing policy down to the senior leadership via meetings. Middle leaders also have their own choices and ways of implementing change but during staff meetings all choices will be filtered down. The middle leader role is the band between top management (the Head) and the teachers. Rachel, from S1/E confirmed that: “The vision is seen by the headteacher – that’s his vision. As we go down to
management and leadership that’s where it starts to be implemented so as a middle leader you have one foot with the teachers and the other on the side of overseeing and evaluating what’s being done” (Rachel, S1/E).
The middle leaders as subject leaders are responsible for monitoring and observing choices around implementation, and for communicating with teachers to evaluate change. Fatima, from S3/E added:
“It is my responsibility to make sure that I am not veering away from the government or the headteacher’s vision.... Therefore, after implementation starts it is my role to keep evaluating and monitoring” (Fatima, S3/E).
The middle leader role is a managerial rather than a leadership role. The headteacher depends on the regular weekly meeting to find out whether change will be achieved or whether any changes have been missed, and the school is missing something important. The middle leaders think that the headteacher has given them power to vote on different ways to implement change, but is this really power? One of the middle leaders said: “Yes, we have different types of meetings to suggest how to make change happen. How to implement them…. The Head will be in the meeting and he is the head of the
implementation. We discuss how to do things with him, but he also has his own vision … Eventually, we are collaborating to implement” (Emma, S3/E).
This quotation suggests that the middle leaders believed that they could have power. In one observation carried out in S3 in England, the researcher was invited to attend a school meeting. When the meeting started, the headteacher was behaving very politely (O1/S3). All the teachers and middle leaders were given a chance to express their opinions during the meeting. However, I noticed that although the meeting went on for about 2 hours, none of the issues discussed in the meeting were decided upon. Many issues were bounced onwards for further discussion in other meetings. Perhaps final decisions were deferred because I was present in the meeting. I therefore questioned whether it was the culture of participation that drove the discussion in the meeting, or whether the staff were convinced they had the power to make decisions. My presence may have been the reason that decisions were deferred, but other evidence from different interviews suggested that this (extensive discussion without decision-making) was usual practice.
It was noticeable that in both perspectives, middle leaders were aware that the power of the headteacher is imposed through a strong, hierarchical management system. It was clear that they all understood that the headteacher could, however, give more leeway to subject leaders to promote change in the way their vision is implemented when the change was closely related to a subject. One leader declared:
“I cannot do major implementation decisions…. But I can do independent decision when the decision is related to my subject” (Fatima, S3/E).
At the same time, all respondents were aware that the final decision around implementing change in the school is in the hands of the head. As one middle leader confirmed: “…my opinion may not make a big difference to the final decision, but I would not feel bad because I said what I have in my mind. We all know it is the Head who gives the final word” (Julie, S3/E).
To conclude, in the context of both Saudi and English primary schools, middle leaders agreed that they have limited power to make decisions and changes related to implementation. However, compared with the freedom given to middle leaders in English schools, middle leaders and headteachers in Saudi had less leeway. In both the Saudi and English contexts, the power given to headteachers seemed illusory rather than real – the power of ‘how to’ rather than the power of ‘why’ or ‘whether’ to do something. Middle leaders in Saudi felt that although headteachers have been given the illusion of power, the reality was that none of the leaders were trusted by the government and consequently have not been given decision-making powers. In Saudi primary schools, creating a pressure group helped in making implementation decisions, and using personal relationships helped the school leaders to access decision-makers in the Education Department. A good reputation, good networking and good networks and links could all have an impact on implementation decisions.