The sub-themes for the second theme of Systematisation for Research Question 1 can be seen again in Table 27 below and are discussed thereafter:
Components/Perceptions Emerging Themes
Time
Responsibility Teamwork
Being listened to, feeling valued, and feeling equal
Access to SLT including the
Systematisation: Sub-theme:
Leadership for collegiality (including emotional intelligence)
135 Headteacher
Salary
Table 27: Components/perceptions and the emerging theme of Systematisation, with sub-themes as a result of Research Question 1
Sub-theme: leadership for collegiality including emotional intelligence
In the second section in Chapter Two, I stated that it has become increasingly apparent that leadership is dependent upon situational and organisational facets and that an effective leader will adopt different leadership styles for different situations (Grint, 2000; Harris and Muijs, 2003; Bush and Glover, 2003; Bush 2003; Crainer and Dearlove, 2008; and Day et al., 2010). It has already been established that all of the Middle Leaders had an understanding of the concept of collegiality, and responsibility and teamwork were the most referred to components (Table 9, pp. 87-88). The components of openness, freedom, value, support, encouragement, common purpose, sharing, being listened to, feeling valued, and feeling equal were also explicitly referred to in the participants‟ responses to the first interview question.
It is suggested that „leadership for collegiality‟ needs to foster these components. It needs to instil and embed a culture whereby teachers feel listened to and valued, take responsibility for decisions that they make, are proactive members of a team, and feel equal. Supporting and leading others arguably demands a developed emotional intelligence. With regards to emotional intelligence, Goleman‟s (1996) five main domains have been used: knowing one‟s emotions; managing emotions; motivating oneself; recognising emotions in others; and handling relationships. This is discussed further in Chapter Six. It is also suggested that „leadership for collegiality‟ needs to take the time factor into account.
136
Time is mentioned several times throughout the literature review and the comments presented in Chapter Four made by the participants, demonstrate how important time is to them. This mirrors Cemm‟s (2011) research whereby the participants identified three aspects of a day-to-day life in an educational establishment which needed improving: “continual educational change, communication and time” (p. 198). Time was also mentioned by two questionnaire respondents (Bosher, 2007): collegiality “takes time”; and
“staff seem to be so busy trying to keep on top of everything that sometimes the students are coming second best” (p. 27).
Time is a recurring feature of the work by HMIE in their recognition of the value of collegiality. In 2009, they found that:
good use [was] being made of collegiate time … the agreements [had] provided a structure [for school improvement activities, and there was] … better teamwork in many schools as a result (p. 23).
Time is the essential element here because in schools with a “strong ethos of collegiality” (HMIE, 2009, p. 23) they found that staff were “increasingly expect[ing] to be consulted and involved in decision making” (p. 23) and this way of working “resulted in greater ownership of developments” (p. 23). In the case study, Participant 1‟s view mirrors that of HMIE:
“I don‟t think people expect decisions to be just made without their consultation. If they suddenly had decisions imposed against them they‟d be genuinely quite shocked”.
This belief indicates that collegiality is an accepted way of working within the case study and that collegiality permeates the decision processes within the school. HMIE (2009) stated that “good communication is essential for effective collegiate working”
137
(p. 24), and this communication meant regular times for staff to meet and talk. Inherent in this is the time needed to reflect in order to evaluate. With the Middle Leaders in this study spending at least two-thirds of their time in school teaching, the time to monitor and evaluate and be „change agents‟ in a professional way, is arguably somewhat restricted. This, coupled with the belief of Bush (1995) and cited by Brundrett (1998) that collegial approaches “will inevitably elongate the decision-making process” (p. 67) can put additional pressure on the Middle Leaders.
In their work exploring “what‟s behind the push for professionalism” (p. vii), Goodson and Hargreaves (1996) state that the concept of teachers becoming more professional was at the forefront of the educational reform experienced by teachers in England in the 1990s. One of their four ways of what it means for teachers to be professional is extended (or „new‟) professionalism whereby teachers embrace:
the broader social context of education including CPD, and collaboration with parents, other staff and the students (p. 14).
Ironically, one of the “disadvantages [of this way of professionalism] may include … the teachers spending less time with the students” (p. 14). Once again time and impact on teaching and learning is being raised here.
Nine of the participants mentioned explicitly or implicitly, feeling listened to and valued, and taking responsibility as components of collegiality. Seven participants mentioned teamwork, and one participant mentioned feeling equal as being components of collegiality. It is suggested that these components enable a person to feel involved in the development of the organisation and can therefore minimise teacher isolation. This builds on Bosher‟s (2007) research whereby one questionnaire respondent said that one
138
year after collegiality was introduced “you don‟t feel isolated to work it out for yourself” (p. 31). Loe (2010) presents the concept of teacher isolation suggesting that teacher collaboration can address this, and Cemm (2011), acknowledges:
Hammersley-Fletcher and Brundrett (2008) [who] support the argument that it is beneficial for staff to share their expertise (Cemm, p. 166).
One of the four characteristics presented by Hargreaves (1994) of collaborative cultures considers job satisfaction stating that collaborative cultures:
Do not arise from compulsion but from their perceived value among teachers and a belief that working together is productive and enjoyable (p. 192).
Indeed, the feelings of belonging, being valued, and being listened to are also included in the SNCT Statement about Collegiality (2005):
Staff should be valued and respected
Staff views, expressed orally or in writing should be fully considered
Staff should be able to contribute to decisions on all areas of school life
comfortably, openly and with dignity (p. 1).
In his research on the case study, Bosher (2007) presents “the three continuing fundamentals for the school” (p. 6). The first of these is:
Collegiality: As professionals in the school we are all equal and have equally contributions to make. We also have a responsibility to play a full part in how decisions which affect teaching and learning are arrived at (pp. 6–7).
Indeed in the book by Hazlewood and Bosher (2008) it is stated that “as professionals we are all equal, have an equal voice, and are trusted” (p. 38).
The responses from the participants mentioned above suggest that being listened to and being equal is understood and appreciated in the case study. This builds on a comment from a questionnaire respondent (Bosher, 2007) who believed that collegiality “is great as everyone can have a say” (p. 23). In this research, Participant 14 made a comment
139
which perhaps illustrates the relationships, support and respect between people within the case study: “collegiality is … giving colleagues the chance to shine”.
Leadership for collegiality also includes being available to listen and support, and to support the development of others as leaders and practitioners. Access to SLT including the Headteacher was mentioned by Participant 3 who felt that it is possible to see the Headteacher with ideas whether you are a NQT or an experienced teacher. Participant 16 described a situation whereby access to members of the SLT including the Headteacher was easier compared with her previous school which she joined as an NQT and where she said “you never approached the Head at all”.
As mentioned in Chapter Two, the Headteacher as the traditional leader is not the only leader in an educational establishment. Day et al. (2010) describe the Headteacher not as the only leader, but as the “main source of leadership in their schools” (p. 3). This top down approach is linked to accountability as mentioned above in the form of the school vision and ethos. Hazlewood and Bosher (2008) assert that:
collegiality recognizes that anyone can lead at a given time and the leader will emerge from consensus and negotiation by the team (p. 79).
As mentioned in Chapter Four, this selflessness, humility and being open to others are recurrent themes within the interview responses and have been identified as attributes necessary for collegiality to be allowed to be effective. These comments suggest once again, that emotional intelligence deserves consideration when considering appropriate leadership for collegiality to become second nature. Further attributes are discussed within Research Question 3.
140
Participant 11 refers to the pay structure in schools when she said:
“In schools we aren‟t paid equally and I think there would be resentment if people were paid more but had less responsibility for that”.
The pay structure was also commented on in Bosher‟s (2007) research: collegiality “sits well and functions well, however there are constraints with pay and responsibilities” (p. 24). Considering pay and responsibilities and equality in the case study, one other questionnaire respondent (Bosher, 2007) believed that students “may be unsure about who „is in charge‟” (p. 27), and in his summary of the research, Bosher (2007) wrote “There are still some feelings that those who are paid money should do the job” (p. 72). Cemm‟s (2011) participants:
“argued that the headteacher is „paid‟ to take ultimate responsibility and as such they accepted that the final decision is theirs” (p. 196),
but this led to frustration about not feeling empowered to implement change.
Sub-theme: strategic awareness
All of the components mentioned above are also pertinent to strategic awareness. Meeting the needs of learners and embedding educational change is part of strategic awareness and within this, CPD is implicit. In her research to explore Hargreaves‟ concept of „contrived collegiality‟, Datnow‟s (2011) findings were threefold. One of these findings was teachers needing time and space to develop classroom practice. Developing classroom practice implies sharing and Participant 10 talked about always being aware of “sharing things, whether it be in the department or whether it be across the school”. Participant 11‟s response also mirrored this way of working. Participant 17 said that the way she works means that “nothing is done without a discussion. It is just my normal way of working”. This sense of sharing is recurrent when the Middle
141
Leaders considered how staff work together in a collegiate way, and strategically in the case study, this seems to work.
With regards to leadership, I stated in Chapter Two that the leadership style adopted by leaders depends on the situational and organisational facets and the strategic leadership of a school is of paramount importance. When considering collegiality, the SNCT (2007) continues this clear assertion stating “every school is different and [there is] no single model of collegiality [that] will apply to all schools” (p. 2). This matches Hazlewood and Bosher (2008) in their assertion that in the development of collegiality as a leadership strategy, “the structure never stands still” (p. 130). Cemm (2011) identified eight factors which could promote collaboration in a primary school: lead by example; motivate; inspire; give „voice‟; time to collaborate; accountability/change; communication; and reflect, which are all factors which are implicit in strategic awareness and management.