3.91 2.8 3.43 3.69 3.69 3.88 2.92 3.64 3.84 4.29 1 2 3 4 5 PD1 PD9 PD16 PD24 PD30
Professional Development
Year 1 Year 2131
7.3.2 Professional Development – Qualitative analysis year one / two
Views expressed in teacher interviews were not entirely consistent with the quantitative analysis. Whilst some teachers strongly agreed that Professional Development opportunities had continued to improve, other teachers expressed reservations about the underpinning rationale and lack of personalisation. There was general agreement that Professional Development in School B was co-constructed with its partner School A in order to secure maximum benefit for both schools. One participant observed “I think there’s been a lot of creative thinking to develop people and it’s lovely to see”. By contrast, and acknowledging that they could be wrong, another teacher observed “I think there’s a little bit of a
difference…they seem to have more money to offer, whereas here it is quite restricted
because of the amount of money we have”. Despite these reservations, there were others who were more complimentary about what was on offer and its lasting effects: “I think
professional development here looks very sound… and I think it has been very successful for the school”.
Table 7.5: Professional Development – Summary Themes and Theoretical Constructs
Summary Themes
Year one
Creative opportunities to develop people
Home grown success in training
Box ticking exercises of limited value
Pace of change restricts time for effective training
Year two
Joint development practice as a tool for development Variability of opportunity Greater direction and structure Imposition of training accelerated by external factors Theoretical construct Creative approaches to CPD Unwelcome imposition of ineffective training Structured CPD
External control of training
(Based on Auerbach &Silverstein, 2003)
Interviews with teachers conducted in year two did not reflect the improved perceptions as seen in the quantitative analysis. Whilst some participants still reflected on the overall
benefits of Professional Development offered by the school, others were quick to criticise the motives for the training and lack of time training. One teacher acknowledged the benefit of the training “there’s a lot of direction and it seems more structured to me”. By contrast
132
another teacher suggested “my professional development over the last few years has been entirely sitting listening to someone talking from a Powerpoint, told to go and read something and that’s it”.
Further analysis of teacher interviews based on elaborative coding, confirmed the mixed perception of Professional Development in contrast to the quantitative findings. Table 7.5 summarises the main outcomes and identifies contradictory themes and theoretical
constructs observed in years one and two. Here, the construct creative approaches to CPD, acknowledges the opportunities provided for teachers and the focus on ‘home-grown’ staff: “the teaching staff who have been home-grown so to speak, have been the kind of person that gets the kids who are here and I think that’s a huge element of the success we’re in at the moment”. Equally, there is reference to the challenging context of teachers working in School B and the effect this has had on Professional Development. As one teacher described, “I think it’s taken on a new type of prominence because of the quick change in expectations and all these things being implemented and us feeling left behind…it’s a serious box-ticking
exercise”. For some teachers, the unwelcome imposition of ineffective training is linked to the relationship with partner School A and the organisation of training across the MAT. The understandable need to centralise training and share good practice was not always welcomed and created a feeling of inferiority amongst some staff in School B where historical baggage was always near the surface. “It’s always been ‘them’ and ‘us’” said one teacher; another considered the approach patronising.
In the interviews conducted twelve months later, it appeared little had changed. The quantitative outcomes supported an improved teacher perception of Professional
Development while the theoretical constructs created from elaborative coding confirmed a continuing mixed picture. More structured CPD was evident as one teacher noted “possibly more direction as well I think”. However, this was accompanied, presumably owing to the need to improve standards quickly, by external control of training which created further frustrations for some participants. “Again, there’s a lot of things being imposed…. Nothing about what do you want to do, what do you need to do, what would help you, but you’ve got to do this because we’ve got to tick this box, so we did it and they ticked the box so
everyone’s happy.” Whilst this sentiment isn’t representative of all the teachers interviewed, it highlights a crucial dilemma facing school leaders in the drive to improve standards: how can Professional Development be tailored for the benefit of individuals whilst at the same
133
time responding to the need to raise standards quickly and in a cost-effective way? I will return to this issue when considering comparative data across three schools in Chapter 9. In the meantime, in the section below, I analyse the same data through a role ordered matrix to identify other factors and specific leadership strategies which influenced outcomes and views as observed by the groups interviewed.
The role ordered matrix in Table 7.6 overleaf provides a thematic snapshot of teacher
perceptions of Professional Development according to role in the school. It therefore helps to answer research questions 4 and 5 which considers the impact of external factors actions taken by school leadership. Table 7.6 and evidence from teacher interviews show that
Professional Development is characterised by several factors, some of which were welcomed by teachers and others less so. For example, there is evidence that some training has been personalised, borne out by a senior teacher “what can we do to support them on the next step of their journey?” There is also significant evidence to show that Professional Development has been approached from the perspective of two schools working together in partnership rather than individually and this is confirmed by another senior leader. “One is part and parcel of the other because it is planned from a Federation point of view.” Unfortunately, some teachers in School B regarded the centralisation of training less favourably: “that was my least favourite experience, going over there”. For such teachers it seemed to confirm the belief that one school was better than the other, and therefore under-valued the role of teachers working in School B. Despite attempts to negate this view, some School B teachers looked unfavourably on training in general: “sometimes I feel we’re paying lip service, ticking a load of boxes, getting everybody together to do things where we’ve had to because we’ve been in special measures”.
The wide range of teacher perceptions of Professional Development becomes even more apparent when the views of the four specific teacher groups are considered. Senior leaders and NQTs are more positive about Professional Development and tend to describe training designed to benefit the individual and the school.
134
Table 7.6: Role Ordered Matrix – Professional Development
Position in School Perception of Professional Development Factors or strategies which initiate or influence change Perception of change over time SLT
CPD planned across the Federation
Sense of satisfaction in training
More creative thinking Training planned across schools
Training conducted on both school sites Personalised training Training changed to focus on Hargreaves’ JPD model More personalised training Development of policies out of training CPD has become more thorough
ML
More Opportunity Separateness
Sense of ‘them and us’
Amalgamation of training across partnership Training driven by ‘special measures’ Increased sense of cynicism over time Externally driven training
Sense of being undervalued
ET
Box ticking exercise Feeling of being left behind Imposed training disproportionately applied Centralised training across Federation Training not tailored
CPD imposed and not differentiated
Training accelerated by external events No increase in trust Staff appear separate NQT Over use of power point
More development of people as a result of partnership
Training seen as sound and successful
More direction and structure to training SLT provided more energy and dynamism
Less time for training after NQT year Time pressure limits impact of training
Middle leaders and experienced teachers describe a process less well received, with
insufficient time allocated and dominated by the need to respond to external pressures. Senior leaders are adamant that Professional Development is bespoke but also structured for
maximum impact across both schools. They see teachers brought together to work on strategies based on the Hargreaves’ model of joint development practice: a more solutions lead process, than the usual ‘sharing good practice’. NQTs appear to share this view: “people have been able to develop themselves professionally and I think that’s been a really big bonus and it’s helped us within our school”. Middle leaders and experienced teachers, however,
135
appear less convinced. Their view, as characterised in Table 7.6, is flavoured by two issues. Firstly, that Professional Development is guided by the requirements of Ofsted and the DfE, rather than the needs of teachers. Secondly, training across two schools, however well explained, appears predicated on the notion that one school is successful and one is not. This creates resentment rather than acceptance. It's probably best summarised in this middle leader comment “we are still ‘us’ and ‘them’….I guess it hasn’t changed”.
7.4 Collegial Support
7.4.1 Collegial Support – Quantitative analysis years one / two
Figure 7.3: Collegial Support in years one and two
Quantitative outcomes from questionnaires indicate that teachers in School B have a positive perception of Collegial Support. Teachers were generally in agreement with all four
statements with an average score of 3.55. All four of the modal scores also indicated positive teacher perceptions. In year one of the study, participants reacted particularly positively to statements CS 10 and CS 25. 3.2 3.77 3.71 3.53 3.68 3.76 3.6 3.68 CS4 CS10 CS17 CS25
Collegial Support
Year 1 Year 2136
Table 7.7:Collegial Support – Teacher perceptions quantitative outcomes
Year one Year two
Mean Statement Mean Statement
3.77 Teachers are willing to help out wherever there is a problem (CS 10)
3.76 Teachers are willing to help out wherever there is a problem (CS 10) 3.53 Teachers work co-operatively in
groups (CS 25)
3.68 Teachers work co-operatively in groups