Teorías sobre Estilos de Liderazgo

If school culture is a relatively under-researched concept buried deep in papers about school improvement and school effectiveness, academic studies on the effect of school

amalgamations and systems re-organisations are more common place (Reddyk, 2000; Welsh & Frost, 2000). Globally, the movement of peoples within and across continents has directed public resources to adapt to demographic change to meet consumer demand. As populations move, demand for services fluctuate, requiring a rationalisation or consolidation of resource provision. The changing demand for educational provision has meant that in many developed countries, schools have merged for demographic reasons; sometimes also in response to

37

changing national or regional priorities as financial resources have shrunk and the need to do more with less has become the norm. These changes are current, ongoing and exemplified in Britain, where in recent years, the Northern Ireland Education Authority identified 27 schools which may close or merge owing to sustainability issues (Northern Ireland Education

Authority, 2016). Equally, the notion that successful schools should be able to take over less successful schools in the English setting as part of a multi-academy trust has become the most significant development in English secondary and primary schools this century

(Wilkins, 2017). These changes have created new circumstances for school leaders, teachers, parents and students. Very little has been written about the cultural impact of joining a MAT or school amalgamation, but what literature exists is revealing, and consistent with my experience leading an amalgamated secondary school for eight years.

The limited, but growing literature on system leadership, a self-improving school system and MATs in England reveals a need for school leaders to understand the importance of school culture in improving student outcomes (Greany, 2018). Very recent research (Andrews, 2018), has explored the effectiveness of academies, MATs large and small, and school to school support models such as Teaching School Alliances, as part of an overarching self- improving school system policy established by the 2010 Academies Act.

Central to recent developments was the introduction of the academies programme which “has been one of the biggest changes to the English education system of the last few decades” (Andrews & Perera, 2017). In 2002, the then Labour government encouraged sponsors (including businesses, voluntary groups and philanthropists) to take failing schools out of local authority control and set up independent state funded academies with greater autonomy for headteachers and governing bodies. In 2010, the new coalition government extended the academies programme by encouraging successful schools to become converter academies. Many of these new converter academies later joined to form MATs and took less successful schools, known as sponsored academies, into their new partnerships. Thus, the English education system, particularly at secondary level, is now dominated by MATs, led by successful converter academies under the leadership of a CEO and a single Trust Board, encouraged to take over less successful schools which, in turn, become sponsored academies. Greany and Higham (2018) describe this process as one of “mergers and acquisitions.” (p. 15) where the system has become one of ”winners and losers” (p. 17). The merger is a ’win’

38

for the converter academy whereas the acquisition is a ‘loss’ for the sponsored or targeted academy whose property and assets are transferred to the overarching Trust.

The success and effectiveness of the academies and MAT programme remains in dispute. Andrews and Perera (2017) conclude that academies have not provided a solution to school improvement and whilst many of the highest performing schools are in MATs, MATs are also over represented in the lowest performing school groups (Andrews & Perera, 2017). Further recent research by Greany and Higham (2018) also concludes there is no positive impact from MAT status. In addition, in a very recent DfE report published in December 2018, Greany provides CEO’s, Academy Trusts and school leaders with compelling evidence of best practice in systems leadership and also includes reference to the importance of school culture.

Table 3.2

Five strategic areas for sustainability  Vision, values, strategy and culture  People, learning and capacity  Assessment, curriculum and

pedagogy

 Quality assurance and accountability

 A sustainable learning organisation

Five school improvement fundamentals  Establish sufficient capacity  Analysis of needs

 Deploy and support leadership  Access to effective practice and

expertise

 Monitor improvement in outcomes

(Based on Greany, 2018, p.12)

Table 3.2 summarises Greany’s findings for sustainable school improvement and includes explicit reference to the existence of a shared culture in those Trusts where “the vision and values were understood and subscribed to by both core team and school-based staff” (p. 59). “In these MATs and federations” he continued, “levels of commitment, trust and

collaboration appeared to be high” (p. 60).

School mergers and amalgamations make the creation and maintenance of a healthy school culture, greater school effectiveness and sustained school improvement much more difficult to achieve, especially in the short term. The largest school district consolidation in American history, in 2011, revived race considerations and class issues for the Memphis School Board to manage. Whilst few re-organisations generate similar problems, the effects of change

39

create periods of uncertainty for all those involved (Dillon, 2011). Analysis of school amalgamation and school merger research over the last forty years highlights a series of factors that significantly undermine attempts to create positive school cultures (Wallace, 2012). These challenges include the increasing stress levels amongst teachers, a propensity to create sub-cultures, a cultural divide, or prolonged cultural fragmentation and therefore, for school leaders, a greater need to manage culture and to understand the role culture has to play in educational change theory.

In the first instance, I explore how teacher stress levels increase by the prospect of,

involvement in and consequence of a school amalgamation. “Mergers mean more work, more commitment. Mergers are challenging situations. Challenges are exciting; they can be

stressful too, for they present dangerous opportunities” (Speed, 1988, p. 47). This extract is one of the conclusions of Graham Speed in his 1988 case study of eleven school mergers in England. Speed’s research, whilst not explicitly referring to school culture, does, nonetheless provide an insight into the multiple dynamics of post-amalgamated schools including the negative impact on school culture and the effect on teacher stress. His study is as relevant today as it was in the 1980s and shows the effect of not understanding the levels of

uncertainty that amalgamations cause. Speed concludes that “maintenance of the morale of staff is crucial because, although some staff may see new opportunities, all are faced with a new situation not of their choosing” (Speed, 1988, p. 43).

Other writers concur with Speed on the potentially damaging effects that school mergers can have, particularly in the short term. A study of school mergers in Northern Ireland published in 1993, explicitly warned of the negative impact of school amalgamations: “it would seem that such school mergers present major trauma and upheaval for all teachers associated with the event (McHugh & Kyle, 1993). This Northern Ireland study also isolated the fears

teachers expressed as they faced organisational change through school mergers, including the threat of redundancy and the effect on morale and loss of job satisfaction (McHugh & Kyle, 2006, p. 14). McHugh & Kyle (2006) warn education leaders not to underestimate how powerless and stressed teachers feel during times of school reorganisation. The theme of teacher stress during a school merger is also developed by Kyriacou and Harriman in their 2006 study of teachers involved in secondary school amalgamations in the north of England. They examined how mergers heightened stress amongst teachers, particularly around changes in role or school ethos (Kyriacou & Harriman, 1993, p. 298). In short, school amalgamations

40

significantly increase the levels of stress amongst teachers and therefore undermine the development of a healthy school culture. Research studies over the last thirty years confirm that amalgamations, or any significant educational upheaval, shift school culture as teachers move from their established environments into the new setting and context of an

amalgamated school. Moreover, some teachers find the transition process difficult because they fear unemployment (Barter, 2014, Reddyk, 2000).

Theories of organisational change stress the challenges, uncertainties and anxieties that new working environments create. Whilst there are plenty of studies which examine the financial opportunities, academic outcomes and the structural effects of school amalgamations

(Thorson, 2017; Berry & West, 2008; Boddington, 2010; Warner & Lindle, 2009; Mills & McGee, 2013; Kees, 2012), few researchers consider the impact of school and system re- organisation on teachers or upon school culture. In Managing Complex Education Change (2002), Wallace and Pocklington refer specifically to ‘cultural fragmentation’ and ‘cultural transition’ (Wallace & Pocklington, 2002, p. 54) caused by a school merger and suggest that leaders need to embark on a period of ‘culture building’ as part of the change process

(Wallace & Pocklington, 2002, p. 230). In a later book, Wallace (2003) also explains how the ambiguity caused by a school amalgamation undermines established beliefs and values (p. 12). These dramatic upheavals can undermine a healthy school culture and increase conflict and tension between teachers (Reddyk, 2000). Moreover, “stakeholders will probably hold allegiance to a plurality of partially incompatible beliefs and values” and make the task of ‘culture building’ in a new school much more difficult (Wallace, 2003, p. 20). Increased ambiguity also makes the management of change challenging, but this phenomenon scarcely features in organisational research (Wallace, 2003, p. 14).

Other studies consider the specific nature and origin of educational change and its impact on participants involved in such a school merger. Hargreaves differentiates between change which is mandated and change which is self-initiated. Change through self-initiation, he argues, can evoke emotional responses from teachers and help to create a positive school culture (Hargreaves, 2004). Mandated change on the other hand, such as school

reorganisation, tends to have the opposite effect, which “grinds most teachers into the dust” and undermines the creation of a positive school culture (Hargreaves, 2004, p. 304).

41

Central to the success of managing organisational or educational change, including school mergers, are the skills deployed by school and system leaders, a group Fullan refers to as Culture Change Principals (Fullan, 2002). To be successful, he argues, these CCPs need a moral purpose and the wisdom to understand how “re-culturing” can assist the change process (Fullan, 2002, p. 6). Hargreaves also highlights the importance of leadership in managing major change. He points out that success can depend on whether school leaders take an inclusive approach where teachers are involved in shaping change, or an exclusive approach, where participants are reduced to powerless bystanders having to accept outcomes without any sense of ownership. Shen (2008) explores the importance of participation in shaping change and helping to develop a positive culture in the face of change. He further suggests that resistance to change is sometimes because people don’t know how to cope with it (Shen, 2008). Wildy and Louden (2000) also agree that participation is key in managing change, whilst Leithwood (1994) suggests that school restructuring needs leadership that is sensitive and can build a productive work culture (Leithwood, 1994).

The evidence seems to indicate that the process and effect of re-organisation follows a well- established pattern; school culture becomes more toxic and the creation and emergence of a stronger culture is delayed for some considerable time (Reddyk, 2000; Hargreaves, 2004). This pattern mirrors my own experience in leading a secondary school through an

amalgamation. First, an announcement of an amalgamation or re-organisation creates uncertainty for teachers as the closing date of the ‘old’ schools is confirmed. Since planning and organising a new school can take considerable time to implement, the period of

uncertainty can last up to a year or more. In the second phase, teachers, understandably, became pre-occupied with securing their own jobs, so the spotlight tends to move away from learning and student achievement towards a focus on the employee, their career and their future place in the new organisation (Wallace, 1996, p. 464). Third, there is the ‘cultural shock’ of moving into newly, and mostly larger, merged accommodation, possibly in a new location, with new systems, procedures, structures and people. No matter what strategies school leaders use to create a positive new culture, many participants remain ‘caught in the headlights of change’ and fall into new or old sub-cultures, commonplace in large

organisations (Hargreaves, 1992). This ‘creeping balkanisation’ as Hargreaves (1992) describes it, whether strong or weak, will undermine any new school culture that leaders try to cultivate. Whilst headteachers leading amalgamations seem to understand the need to develop a new school culture quickly, Hargreaves’ research suggests the challenge for school

42

leaders is “how to create an inclusive environment for developing and implementing educational change” (Hargreaves, 2004 p. 306). Indeed, my own experience concurs with this view. I would suggest that the creation of a new brand or school identity is a vehicle which can mitigate some negative effects of mergers and help accelerate the transition to a new, vibrant culture based on optimism and high expectations.

The emotional rollercoaster described above is outlined in more detail by the change curve in Figure 3.1. Here I have merged an already existing diagram of human response to change based upon Kubler-Ross (1969), Hopson and Adams, (1976) and Williams (1999) with changes identified by Wallace and Pocklington (2002), Hargreaves (2004) and Reddyk (2000) in their studies of organisational transition. The original diagram forms the top part of Figure 3.1 whilst the new additions form the lower part with the three phases of cultural change highlighted in blue. In Phase One, the excitement or numb feeling at the beginning of the process is soon replaced by uncertainty and confusion. Symbolically, this matches the cultural allegiance, cultural retention and allegiance retention referred to by Wallace (1996) in the first stage of organisational change. In Phase Two, as uncertainty and confusion take over, a sense of ‘sacrificing culture’ prevails whilst in Phase Three there is either new confidence, recovery or extended crisis, accompanied either by a new cultural acceptance, prolonged fragmentation or balkanisation.

Figure 3.1 summarises these chronological developments and underlines the impact on school culture through transformational change. What is significant, based on my own leadership experience and the view of other researchers, is that there is no guarantee that an

amalgamation, no matter how altruistic or however carefully managed, will ultimately achieve a healthy school culture (Reddyk, 2000). The challenges of cultural transition are so all-embracing, demanding and potentially overwhelming, that historic cultural allegiance and prolonged fragmentation can lead to years of cultural toxicity where there is a cultural

43

Phase One Phase Two Phase Three Cultural allegiance Sacrificing culture New cultural acceptance or Cultural retention or Prolonged fragmentation or Allegiance retention or Balkanisation

(Based on: Kubler-Ross, 1969; Hopson, & Adams, 1976; Williams, 1999) Figure 3.1: Amalgamation – Change with cultural transition

The unintended consequence that amalgamations can have on school culture suggests the importance of managing transformational change carefully to create the circumstances and environment in which a newly merged school can thrive for the benefit of all stakeholders. In a Canadian study, Reddyk (2000) analysed the process of school division amalgamations in Saskatchewan and concluded that “it is readily apparent that effective management of the technical, political, and cultural strands of an organisation is a necessary ingredient of successful mergers” (Reddyk, 2000, p. 6). Also, financial performance, rather than student outcomes, were considered the “most common indicator of a successful merger”. Lessons learned from the study highlighted the future need to pay more attention to the “cultural aspects of amalgamation” (Reddyk, 2000, p. 24). Indeed, Reddyk not only

understands but rightly identifies some of the critical leadership strategies that make cultural transition more likely to succeed. For example, there is an acknowledgement that

“organisational culture is what holds an organisation together” (Reddyk, 2000, p. 234) and “competing cultural traditions can threaten successful integration of the amalgamating divisions” (Reddyk, 2000, p. 235). From my experience, Reddyk is right to assert that the

44

creation of new cultures following an amalgamation “does not just happen” but requires careful management of people and the process of transformational change (Reddyk, 2000, p. 242). In England, insufficient attention is paid to the importance of school culture in

amalgamations (Reynolds et al., 2014). In short, the importance of understanding school culture, particularly in the setting of a newly merged school cannot be underestimated. Culture can either assist effectiveness and promote improvement, or totally undermine the efforts of school leaders to create a successful place of learning (Reddyk, 2000).

3.7 Conclusion

School culture is central to school effectiveness, school improvement and educational effectiveness. Each of these research communities has developed their own characteristics and evolved from separate research paradigms. Yet the importance of school culture, for each discipline has grown. The struggle to agree a definitive description of school culture,

however, has continued to limit the widespread acceptance, particularly in England, of school culture as a key school improvement tool. When the complex issue of a school merger is thrown into the school re-organisation mix, the need to understand the importance of school culture grows significantly. The tensions and anxieties caused by the merger of schools, combined with the creation of a more toxic school culture, can undermine school improvement and school effectiveness, and hinder school function. The resulting sub- cultures, fragmentation and balkanisation can erode relationships and lengthen the time needed for a healthy school culture to emerge. Above all, cultural upheaval will potentially threaten the focus of teachers and, therefore, the performance of students. It is for this reason that understanding school culture is crucial to successful management of transformational change.

45 Chapter 4

Research design and methodology