touching base: the management of staff development in ... · of staff development in british...
TRANSCRIPT
Touching Base: The Management of Staff Development in British Curriculum Schools Overseas.
Leicester University Ed.D. Thesis
By: Stephen Lewis Supervisor: Professor Tony Bush
July 1999
UMI Number: U113493
All rights reserved
INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.
Dissertation Publishing
UMI U113493Published by ProQuest LLC 2013. Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author.
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.All rights reserved. This work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest LLC 789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
University of Leicester.EdD. Thesis.
“Touching Base: The Management of Staff Development inBritish Overseas Schools”
By: Stephen Lewis Supervisor: Professor Tony Bush.Submission Date: July 1999.
Abstract
The thesis identifies current staff development issues in the United Kingdom through literature and research findings from the 1970’s to the present. The focus of the research is to relate these issues to policy and practice in a global survey of British curriculum overseas schools with the central them e of “touching b ase” and the dilemmas of adopting British methodology.
The case study material on professional development cultures (Glover and Law, 1996, p.p. 127-144) w as used a s the starting point for the questionnaire. The survey of 173 schools of all age ranges (which represents the target population in the European Council of International Schools database), illustrates the diversity of the staff development experiences of the 115 schools which replied, although they are linked by the common them es of isolation, financial constraints and staffing.
T hese findings are supported in four case study schools in the Arabian Gulf which follow a British curriculum and represent the three major age range groups; primary, secondary and all-age range schools.
The overall findings suggest the need for schools to adopt the idea of “internal consultancy" (Bennett 1997) and the need for a co-ordinator of staff development, and a model is suggested for this. Although the findings suggest that many staff are involved in their own professional development, in a climate of rapid change and increasing accountability, British overseas schools need to ensure that their m anagem ent team s are sufficiently qualified to lead their schools into the new millenium and encourage staff development to occur in a strategically m anaged way.
Abbreviations and AcronymsAPEL Accreditation of prior experiential learningCARE Centre for Applied Research in Education, University of East AngliaCATS Credit Accumulation and Transfer SchemesCPD Continuing professional developmentDES Department of Education and ScienceECIS The European Council of International SchoolsEFTA European Free Trade AreaERA Education Reform Act (1988)ESG’s Education Support GrantsEU European UnionGCSE General Certificate of Secondary EducationGEST Grant for Education Support and TrainingGMS Grant Maintained SchoolsHEADLAMP Headteachers’ Leadership and Management Programme HMI Her Majesty’s InspectorateINSET Inservice education and trainingIQEA Improving the Quality of Education for All (Cambridge University)ITT Initial teacher trainingLEA Local Education AuthorityLEATGS Local Education Authority Training Grants SchemeLMS Local Management of SchoolsNCE National Commission on EducationNPQ National Professional QualificationNPQH National Professional Qualification for HeadteachersNPQSL National Professional Qualification for Subject LeadersOFSTED Office for Standards in EducationPDC Professional Development Co-ordinatorPDD Professional Development Day, or “Baker Day”.PDP Professional Development PortfolioSDC Staff Development Co-ordinatorSDP School Development PlanSENCO Special Educational Needs Co-ordinatorsSMTF School Management Task ForceTRIN Thames Regional INSET NetworkTTA The Teacher Training AgencyTVEI Technical and Education Vocational Initiative
Acknowledgements.
I would like to thank the following:• The European Council Schools for the use of their data for the target population.• All the schools which participated in the survey, and in particular to the four case study
schools, their staff and headteachers• Professor Tony Bush for his help, guidance and support• My parents, Cyril and Jean Lewis for their moral and financial support• Mr Jeremy Salisbury of Dubai College who acted as “critical friend”• Mr Eric Parton, headmaster of Dubai College for his support• My wife, Bronwen, and family for their support and patience
Contents
Chapter 1: Introduction p.1The Purpose of the Study, p. 1 The Context of the Study, p.8
Chapter 2: Literature Review p.12The Context of Staff Development, p. 12 Staff Development Issues, p.26 Types of Staff Development, p. 33Managing Staff Development: Roles and Responsibilities, p.40 Culture, Collaboration and Reflective Practice, p.49 Individual and Institutional Development, p. 52 Other Staff Development Issues, p. 55
Chapter 3: Research Methods, p.66An Overview of Educational Research Methods, p.66Research Approaches, p.68Research Tools, p.73Analysis of Data. p. 79The Research Instruments, p.80Case Studies, p.90
Chapter 4: Survey Findings, p.98Nature and Level of Responses, p.98 Staffing, p. 102The Management of Staff Development, p. 105 Types of Staff Development, p. 109 Attitudes to Staff Development, p. 122 Perceived Strengths, Limitations and Future Goals, p. 130
Chapter 5: Case Studies, p.138Results from “The British Secondary School", School 1. p. 139 Results from “The Desert Village Primary School", School 2. p. 145 Results from “The British City Primary School", School 3. p. 152 Results from “The London School", School 4. p. 160 Summary of the Findings, p. 164
Chapter 6: Analysis, p. 167Definitions of Staff Development, p. 169The Importance of Staff Development in the Schools, p. 169Responsibility for Staff Development, p. 171Staff Development Co-ordinators, p. 172Types of Staff Development, p. 173Strategic Planning, p. 180
Chapter 7: Conclusions and Recommendations, p.191Conclusions, p. 191 Recommendations, p.202A Model for the Practical Organization of Staff Development in the British Overseas School, p.206
Appendix, p.210
References, p.226
List of Tables and Figures.Chapter 1.Table 1.1 Fig. 1.2 Fig. 1.3
Chapter 2.Fig. 2.1 Fig. 2.2 Fig 2.3 Fig. 2.4 Fig. 2.5 Fig. 2 6 Fig. 2.7
Chapter 3.Fig 3 1 Fig.3.2
Fig. 3.3 Fig. 3.4 Fig. 3.5 Fig. 3.6 Fig. 3.7 Fig .3.8 Fig. 3.9
Chapter 4.Table 4.1 Table 4.2 Table 4.3 Table 4.4 Table 4.5 Table 4.6 Table 4.7 Table 4.8
Table 4.9 Table 4.10 Table 4.11 Table 4.12 Table 4.13 Table 4.14 Table 4.15 Table 4.16
Table 4.17 Table 4.18 Table 4.19 Table 4.20 Table 4.21 Table 4.22 Table 4.23 Table 4.24 Table 4.25 Table 4.26
Table 4.27 Table 4.28
The target population by region and country, p. 4 The case study schools, p. 10A flowchart to identify the connections between the various stages of the thesis,p. 10
Differing definitions of staff development, p. 14Practical considerations: the Fife policy document, p. 19Getting policies off the ground: management checklist (Fife Region), p.20Important stages in staff development, p.23Summary of changes in staff development, Gilroy and Day (1993), p. 25 Suggested roles of the SDC: approaches from two LEAs, p.46 Proposed job description for the staff development coordinator, p.48
Research questions and hypotheses, p.66A summary of the strengths and limitations of research approaches ineducational management, p.69Sampling methods used in educational research, p.75Interview types, p.77Observation as a research tool: types, strengths and problems, p.78Participant and non-participant observation, p.78Research approaches and tools, p. 80Distribution of schools by school type, p.84Distribution of schools by size (number of pupils), p.85
Method of response, p.98Timing of the responses and their origins by region, p.99Responses: school types and proportional responses to the survey, p.99Responses: school size by code and type, p. 100Responses: school size by region and regional responses, p. 100Numbers of full and part time teaching staff in the school (question 1), p. 103Responses according to school type (question 1), p. 103Approximate proportion of staff recruited from the U.K. on overseas contracts(question 2), p. 103Responses according to school type (question 2), p. 104Approximate proportion of British nationals on the staff (question 3), p. 104Responses according to school type (question 3), p. 104Person(s) in charge of staff development in the school (question 4), p. 105Responses according to school type (question 4), p. 105Means by which school staff development needs are decided (question 5), p. 106Responses according to school type (question 5), p. 106Means by which individual staff development needs are decided (question 6),p. 107Responses according to school type (question 6), p. 107How INSET and staff development are funded (question 7), p. 107Responses according to school type (question 7), p. 108Views on the level of funding (question 8), p. 108Responses according to school type (question 8), p. 108In-house INSET on whole-school based issues (question 9), p. 109Frequency of in-house INSET on whole-school based issues (question 10), p. 109Responses according to school type (question 10), p. 109Schools with specific staff training days (question 11), p.110Frequency of specific staff training days in schools where they occur (question12), p.110Responses according to school type (question 12), p. 111 Frequency of subject-based INSET (question 13), p.111
Table 4.29 Table 4.30 Table 4.31 Table 4.32 Table 4.33 Table 4.34 Table 4.35
Table 4.36 Table 4.37 Table 4.38
Table 4.39 Table 4.40 Table 4.41 Table 4.42 Table 4.43 Table 4.44
Table 4.45 Table 4.46 Table 4.47 Table 4.48 Table 4.49
Table 4.50 Table 4.51 Table 4.52 Table 4.53 Table 4.54 Table 4.55 Table 4.56
Table 4.57 Table 4.58
Table 4.59 Table 4.60
Table 4.61 Table 4.62
Table 4.63 Table 4.64
Table 4.65 Table 4.66
Table 4.67 Table 4.68
Table 4.69 Table 4.70
Table 4.71 Table 4.72 Table 4.73 Table 4.74
The use of external advisors (question 14), p.112 Replies indicating INSET on a regular basis (question 14), p.112 Responses according to school type (question 14), p.112 The types of advisors used (question 15), p.113 Responses according to school type (question 15), p.113 Geographical distribution (question 15), p. 113Frequency of inter-school liaison on subject or whole-school issues (question 16), p.114Responses according to school type (question 16), p.114 Geographical distribution (question 16), p.114The frequency of whole staff and specific role-related meetings (question 17), p.115Responses according to school type (question 17), p.115School funding of staff on courses (question 18), p.115Responses according to school type (question 18), p.116Types of courses funded by schools (question 19), p.116Responses according to school type (question 19), p.116Schools with staff currently involved in self-financing distance learning courses,or who have completed courses in the last two years (question 20), p.117Responses according to school type (question 20), p.117Courses undertaken by staff in schools (question 21), p. 118Responses according to school type (question 21), p. 119Geographical location: responses by region (question 21), p.119Geographical location: examples of well represented countries (question 21),p.119Presence of an appraisal system (question 23), p. 120Responses according to school type (question 23), p. 120The type of appraisal system in place (question 24), p. 121Responses according to school type (question 24), p. 121There is a positive attitude towards appraisal (question 32), p. 121Responses according to school type (question 32), p. 122Perceived impact of professional staff development on the school (question 22),p. 123Responses according to school type (question 22), p. 123Staff at the school are keen to participate in staff development opportunities andkeep in touch with developments in education (question 25), p. 123Responses according to school type (question 25), p. 124It is important for the school to keep up to date with U.K. developments in thearea of staff development (question 26), p. 124Responses according to school type (question 26), p. 124The curriculum of the school is closely linked to the British National Curriculum(question 34), p. 125Responses according to school type (question 34), p. 125Quality assurance initiatives such as Investors in People are valid for our school(question 27), p. 125Responses according to school type (question 27), p. 126Staff development in the school is generally concerned with providing essentialin-service training (question 28), p. 126Responses according to school type (question 28), p. 126Staff development in the school is generally concerned with ensuring that staffare performing effectively (question 29), p. 127Responses according to school type (question 29), p. 127As an overseas school, it is much more difficult for staff to receive ongoingsupport from external bodies with regard to professional development (question30), p. 128Responses according to school type (question 30), p. 128 Geographical location: regional responses (question 30), p. 128 There is a positive attitude towards staff development (question 31), p. 129 Responses according to school type (question 31), p. 129
Table 4.75
Table 4.76 Table 4.77 Fig. 4.78 Fig. 4.79 Fig. 4.80
Fig. 4.81 Fig. 4.82
Chapter 5.Fig. 5.1 Fig. 5.2
Chapter 6.Fig. 6.1
Chapter 7.Fig. 7.1
The geographical location of the school makes it difficult to keep up with developments which are not always relevant to the needs of the school (question31), p. 129Responses according to school type (question 33), p. 130 Geographical distribution (question 33), p. 130 Response rate to questions 35-37, p. 131 Categories and the number of responses, p.131Categories and the proportion of responses (percentages of total in Fig.3.79, p. 131Responses regarding strategic planning, p. 132Access and accessibility: strengths and weaknesses, p. 133
Interview questions and categories, p. 138The main points arising from the case studies, p. 164
Stages of the analysis, p. 168
Model for the role of staff development co-ordinator, p. 207
Chapter 1: Introduction
The Purpose of the Study.The term “Staff Development” is a broad one which covers a wide range of areas from
teacher training, induction and appraisal to distance learning, although until recently it
tended to be more closely associated with in-service training. Its importance is identified
by McMullen (1991, p. 106):“There is no doubt that staff development is a high priority for teachers and headteachers, particularly at the time of the introduction of the national curriculum, with all that that implies; but staff development must be more than the identification of in-service needs. It must be part of a systematic process of review and development for which the government has legislated under the local education authority training grant scheme and this legislation ensures that every school will have an appraisal system”.
The purpose of the investigation is to consider the relevance of British methodology and
practice to the British curriculum school abroad in the field of staff development, how
they have responded to change and what they could do to improve the quality of
provision for this valuable resource. The idea of “touching base” is a critical one for the
school in this position because of the need to take on-board developments in Britain, and
draws attention to the need for an awareness of these developments, although schools will
be in a position to gauge the extent to which they interpret and follow British
methodology and practice. The term “touching base” is an appropriate sporting analogy
which highlights the idea of the need to refer back to the “home base”, or the United
Kingdom, for direction and guidance and implies the dependence of such schools on the
“base”. Embodied in this idea is the unique nature of the overseas schools as British
curriculum only.
It is important to begin with a definition of the “British curriculum school abroad” which
has certain unique characteristics to differentiate it from the more usual, problematic and
generic term of “international” school which is general, misleading and could be
manifested in a plethora of ungeneralisable types. Within any educational system it is
usually possible to define a school according to nationally recognised criteria, and the
same can be done internationally. In the case of most countries, the national system
would begin simply with the category of public or private, and would be further
differentiated by age range or school type, possibly religious denomination or other
specific governing body or philosophy orientation. Within a system it is unlikely that the
schools which cater for expatriate needs would be classified as being significant to, or
l
part of, that system since they cater for specific, externally-based minority groups (the
children of diplomats, expatriate workers or nationals desirous of providing an alternative
type of education which they might consider to be more prestigious than, or superior to,
what is offered in the “national” schools). These so-called “international schools” are
under pressure to respond to developments in their countries of origin to ensure that the
best quality education possible is provided and that pupils can re-enter the system in the
mother-country at all levels (including tertiary education). These “international schools”
may also be under pressure to respond to customs, laws, policies or conventions of the
host country.
In the case of one of the Gulf States, which is the focus of the case study research, it
would be possible to find a wide range of “international schools” which fall into a wide
range of categories. These include Arabic medium or bilingual schools which integrate
local needs with syllabuses from Britain and Australia; an American school; an
international school which offers both International Baccalaureate and British
examination courses; French and German medium schools, and a range of schools which
meet the specific needs of the Indian, Bangladeshi, Pakistani and Malay communities, or
all of them combined, but which may also offer GCSE and A Level examinations, and a
Catholic school which does the same. With such a confusing range of school systems, it
would be extremely difficult to come to any valid generalisations about their management
of an area such as staff development since the origins, expectations, education and even
salaries of staff vary so widely.
This diversity therefore highlights the importance of specifically defining the term
“British curriculum schools abroad”, which will henceforth be referred to as “British
overseas schools” for simplicity, in which the focus is on delivering a British curriculum
in the medium of English with public examinations at General Certificate of Secondary
Education (GCSE) and General Certificate of Education at Advanced Level (GCE A
Level) in the appropriate age categories. The extent to which the school follows British
practice is an interesting question, and the remoteness of many of the targeted schools
must make it difficult for them to keep up with change. In practice these schools fall into
some different age categories to their counterparts in Britain, with many of them offering
an education throughout the 3 to 18 age range. Many of them have developed to serve the
needs of expatriates in overseas communities who wish to avoid sending their children to
2
boarding schools in the United Kingdom. The staff can be categorised as local or
overseas contract, and it is likely that they will be more dependent on the school than
they would be in Britain because of the more holistic relationship which may involve
flights, housing, help with local bureaucracy and the lack of support from bodies such as
Local Education Authorities (LEAs) and Trades Unions.
With the focus on the British overseas school, it is easier to relate practice overseas to
practice in Britain. Despite its probable insularity, unless it is in an area where there are a
number of other schools, the school of this type should be under considerable pressure to
deliver a curriculum and education which is in line with developments in Britain,
particularly if GCSE and A Level courses are offered, and this may be critical for pupils
whose parents are on short-term contracts and moving from one country or region to
another. In the target population which covers sixty-four countries, in most cases there
are only one or two schools of this type in each country. This is illustrated in Table 1.1
which gives a breakdown of the defined regions, the numbers of schools surveyed and the
proportion of the total sample, the number of countries surveyed and the proportion, the
mean number of countries per region and the number of individual schools surveyed.
Hong Kong (16 schools), Kenya (13), the United Arab Emirates (UAE, 12) and the
U.K.and Spain (10 each) have by far the largest number of schools and between them
account for more than one-third of the total (61 schools in the target population , or
34.3%). Sixty of the countries (94% of the total number of countries) produced three or
fewer schools. In Africa, almost one-third of the schools surveyed were in Kenya
(32.5%), Hong Kong accounted for 40% of the Asian schools, and Spain and the U.K
with 16.4% each of the European schools, with the UAE contributing 38.7% of the
schools to the Middle Eastern sample. The inclusion of U.K. schools as “British overseas
schools” in the survey is explained by their inclusion in the European Council of
International Schools handbook (ECIS) and their role as schools for an international
community.
3
Table 1.1 The target population by region and country.
1. Africa 2. Asia 3. CIS America 4. Europe 5. Middle EastSurveyed: 40 Surveyed: 40 Surveyed: 6 Surveyed: 61 Surveyed: 31% of Total: 22.5 % of Total: 22.5 % of Total: 9.4 % of Total: 34.3 % of Total: 17.4Countries: 15 Countries: 15 Countries: 5 Countries: 20 Countries: 9% of Total: 23.4 % of Total: 23.4 % of Total: 7.8 % of Total: 31.2 % of Total: 14.1Mean: 2.6 Mean: 2.7 Mean: 1.2 Mean: 3.1 Mean: 3.4Botswana 4 Bangladesh 1 Brazil 2 Belgium 4 Bahrain 1Gambia 1 China 1 Costa Rica 1 Cyprus 7 Egypt 4Ghana 1 Hong Kong 16 Falkland Is. 1 Czech Repub. 1 Iraq 1Kenya 13 India 4 Mexico 1 Denmark 1 Jordan 1Lesotho 1 Indonesia 1 Venezuela 1 France 1 Kuwait 5Libya 1 Japan 1 Germany 3 Oman 1Malawi 3 Malaysia 4 Greece 3 Qatar 3Mozambique 1 Nepal 1 Hungary 1 Saudi Arabia 3Namibia 1 Pakistan 1 Italy 1 UAE 12Nigeria 2 Philippines 1 Luxembourg 1South Africa 1 S. Korea 2 Netherlands 2Swaziland 1 Singapore 1 Norway 2Tanzania 2 Sri Lanka 3 Poland 2Uganda 2 Taiwan 1 Portugal 5Zimbabwe 5 Thailand 2 Russia 1
Spain 10 Sweden 3 Switzerland 2 Turkey 2 UK 10
The mean refers to the mean number of schools per country.
The school will need to decide on the extent to which systems are implemented since
they are not bound by British requirements (such as an appraisal system), other than the
regulations imposed by the syllabuses and assessment of the Examining Boards.
Schools are likely to be under pressure to ensure that their staff are properly qualified and
trained to deliver a curriculum which satisfies the fee-paying requirements of the parents.
The staff themselves, and the schools in general, may find it difficult to keep in touch
with the latest developments in Britain, and without the information and back-up which a
school there would expect, the British curriculum overseas school may struggle to
respond to the continuous change which has been a feature of British education over the
past decade. This may in time have a negative impact on the quality of teaching and
learning in the institution as a whole, and individual needs may not be met. As most staff
will at some stage be looking to move to a different school, particularly if they are on an
overseas contract, staff development policies are of great significance.
It is therefore important to establish the views of schools on the importance of staff
development policies, how these policies are put into practice and to what effect, and to4
identify ways in which schools of this type can improve in this area. These schools have
two major dilemmas which are reflected in all their policy making, and they concern the
extent to which they need to adopt British practice and an identification of the relevance
of that practice to their particular context. This can be applied to the area of staff
development and leads to the following research questions which will be considered in
the context of current thinking in staff development and by means of a large-scale survey
and four case studies:
1. What importance is placed on staff development by British overseas schools?
This question concerns the philosophy of the school with regard not only to the definition
and importance of staff development, but also on their views about adopting British
practice and the extent to which this should be followed. This may be constrained by
local considerations such as staff recruitment or local laws or requirements, and it needs
to be considered from an institutional and an individual perspective.
2. How is staff development managed in British overseas schools?
Here the reality of the management of staff development is considered to see the extent to
which school type and region are influences, and to examine the range of specific issues
which arise for this type of school. Information and access to outside expertise are major
concerns for this type of school, and there may be important financial considerations or
constraints. The nature of this management is also important, with consideration given to
the extent to which staff are encouraged to contribute, and how their own individual
professional development may be linked to the development of the institution. It will also
reflect the culture of the school and its receptiveness to new ideas, which may involve a
pooling of expertise from staff from their previous schools.
3. How effective is the staff development programme in the school?
For it to be worthwhile, staff development needs to be effective. In a large-scale survey
with a single respondent this may be difficult to evaluate, but effectiveness may be
reflected in identified strengths or limitations. In the case studies there is more scope to
compare the views of the managers of staff development with the staff, and to consider
whether effectiveness is measurable through any systems of evaluation and monitoring.
5
4. What could be done to Improve the staff development programme in the school?
Respondents to the surveys and staff views in the case studies raise many important
issues, and in relation to the literature review it should be possible to consider a model
which the British-style overseas school could consider.
In addition to the research questions, the following hypotheses will be tested:1. Staff development programmes are likely to be ‘'bolted on”.
The formalisation of staff development programmes in Britain with statutory appraisal,
integration into the school development plan (SDP) and evaluation by means of the
Office for Standards in Education (Ofsted) inspections is a phenomenon of the 1990’s.
Overseas schools are more likely to react to developments, and as a result are more likely
to still reflect the more ad hoc approaches to staff development which were in evidence
before that.
2. A wide range of Interpretations and systems are likely.
As the school in this category is likely to be autonomous and self-managing, the
interpretation of British practice is likely to reflect the specific needs of the school, and
possibly the specific expertise of the team responsible for managing the programme. The
school may work in isolation from other British schools, or be influenced by other
neighbouring school types, including hybrid British schools (e.g. schools which offer a
combination of curricula such as British, American, International Baccalaureate, local
and other). The relative prosperity, or lack of it, will significantly impact on the school’s
propensity to attract and recruit staff, and carry out any subsequent staff development
programmes.
3. Staff development is likely to be led by the headteacher or senior management team.
It is unlikely that the more isolated overseas school will share the same level of
democratization and openness which its British counterpart may enjoy, and it would be
expected that there would be few staff involved in the management of the staff
development programme below senior management level (e.g. staff/professional
development co-ordinators or committees). As a result of the need to survive and flourish
in a different culture, it may be considered necessary for the school management to take
more responsibility for the administration of all aspects of the school so that it does not
compromise its position with the local authorities. This may make more collaborative
6
approaches more difficult, particularly without the direct back-up of Local Authorities,
British Trades Unions and other organisations which could provide support and guidance.
4. There are serious financial constraints for schools of this type unless they can share
costs and resources.
The cost of external support is a major consideration for the British overseas school and
will restrict the amount of staff development possible. The cost of bringing in consultants
or subject advisors from the U.K., for example, could be prohibitive for many schools.
Similarly it is expensive to send staff on courses abroad, particularly if there are no
guarantees that they will stay at the school afterwards. As we have seen above, the cost of
recruiting staff is high and it would be expected that, due to the differing economic
conditions of the sixty-four countries in which the schools are located, there would be a
wider range of economic considerations than in Britain.
7
The Context of the Study.The international context of the study is determined by the definition of a school as
British curriculum only. This type of school is defined by entry in the European Council
of International Schools Handbook from 1997-8 (henceforth referred to as ECIS) as a
British system only school type (either as a member of ECIS or as an additional entry in
their handbook), or by the title “The British School of ... ” Some of the schools were in
Britain, but were included in the survey because they shared the same characteristics as
the other European entries (private schools which are ECIS members and serve an
international community, and therefore an entry in the ECIS handbook). The handbook is
an important source of information for the overseas school market, both for prospective
parents and for staff, schools and the dissemination of information. ECIS with its British-
system entries proved to be much larger than COBISEC (the Council of British Schools
in the European Community, whose smaller membership was also a part of ECIS) and
the American organisations. Membership of ECIS within Europe is subject to a quality
assurance award, which is renewable on a seven year cycle, and it is therefore prestigious
to be a member. Although entry outside Europe is not subject to the same criteria, and the
type of membership is different, acceptance is a significant marketing tool for the school
as the handbook is an important source for prospective parents and staff (also via the
Internet), and with its professional support programmes the ECIS plays a valuable role in
developing international education. In previous research and analysis by the author (for
an Ed.D assignment on Quantitative Research methods) in 1997 of the ECIS membership
of just over 400 schools, seventeen different school system types were identified which in
turn fell into three broad and equitably distributed categories: British system, and British
and other type (e.g. American, national); American system, and American and other type,
and International or International and other (International Baccalaureate).
The most practicable method of obtaining information from the schools was by carrying
out a postal survey by means of a questionnaire. It was felt that to come to generalisable
conclusions across the different system types (e.g. British compared to American
systems) with such a wide range of influences would be extremely difficult and beyond
the scale of this investigation. With the additional entries in the handbook which included
non-members of ECIS, it was possible to filter the approximately 1000 school entries
down to a target population which stated that it was British curriculum only, thereby
avoiding the influences of one or more other systems on the management of the school
8
(and avoid the hybrid British school). There were 178 schools world-wide in the British
curriculum only category and the whole target population was surveyed (this was reduced
to 173 in the light of responses which indicated changes). The choice of the sample was
to limit the study to a specific system type without having to look at much broader issues
which might be raised by the addition of mixed system types or a comparative study of
different school types. The British curriculum only schools can be categorised as one of
three types: primary, secondary and schools which combine the two. Each of these types
can be divided further into schools which offer pre-school education and post-16
education, giving a total of six types of school. The rationale behind the choice of target
population is explained in the Research Methods chapter.
From the school target population, four from a city in one of the Gulf States were chosen
as case study schools. Two of the schools were in the primary category, one in the
secondary category and the fourth in the all-age category from pre-school to Advanced
level. A third primary school was used to pilot the approaches. Therefore the responses
across the four case study schools and the pilot school cover a large proportion of pupils
who are currently being educated in the rapidly-expanding British-system only category
in the country. The schools are all subject to the same contextual criteria such as
recruitment and local regulations and the decision whether to employ local or overseas
contract staff, and therefore it is possible to make comparisons. Three of the schools are
of medium size with student populations of between 500-700. They contain many British
nationals, but up to 40 other different nationalities are also represented. The fourth all-age
range school has almost 1800 pupils and over 100 staff from a wide range of
nationalities, although it identifies itself as a British-system school. All the schools are
fee-paying and all are administered by means of a Board of Governors and are non-profit
making with the exception of the fourth school which is part of a privately-owned
consortium (see Figure 1.2). Given the culture in which the schools operate
9
Fig. 1.2 The case study schools.
“The British Secondary School” Secondary 11-18
“The City Primary School” Primary 4-11
A British style secondary school with about 700 pupils, an excellent reputation for academic success and other achievements. It has a stable staff, many of whom have been there for more than ten years.
A well established Primary school which now follows the National Curriculum. The school has about 700 pupils, and has been undergoing a period of change under the new headteacher who arrived in September 1997.
“Desert Village Primary School” Primary 4-11
“The London School” All Age 3-18
This is a long-established primary school which has expanded rapidly over the past few years (from about 50 to 500) and is now on a split site, It has undergone major structural changes since the arrival of a new headteacher in 1996.
A large school which offers a British curriculum to mainly Indian, Pakistani and sub-continental pupils, with many other nationalities (including 100 British nationals). It has almost 1800 pupils and over 100 staff.
The means by which the investigation has been conducted is summarised in Fig. 1.3:
Fig. 1.3 A flowchart to identify the connections between the various stages of the thesis
Analysis
Conclusions
Introduction
Case Studies
Literature Review
Survey Findings
Recommendations:Model
10
The flowchart shows the relationship between the stages of the thesis and how the
literature review aims to inform the two investigations, the large-scale survey and the
case studies, the influence of the survey findings on the case studies, and how the
literature review is integrated with the findings of the investigations in the analysis and
conclusions.
Summary.
It is difficult to generalise about international schools, and it has been shown that
defining the British curriculum overseas school may be equally difficult when taking into
account the many factors which contribute to its diversity and uniqueness. The decision
to restrict the sample to this target group has enabled the survey to at least retain one
important common focus, which is the British curriculum and it is here that the idea of
“touching base” is of significance. The research questions are very much connected to
this theme, with recruitment and the ability to keep up with curriculum initiatives seen as
important staff development issues. The hypotheses suggest a number of constraints for
staff development programmes, and many of these issues are identified in the Literature
Review.
l l
Chapter 2: Literature Review.
IntroductionThe overall aim of the literature review is to consider the importance of staff
development and present the main issues identified by a range of writers. The structure of
the chapter is as follows:
• Definitions of staff development
• An overview of changes in emphasis and government policy from the 1970’s to the
1990’s
• An overview of some of the main research in the field
• The planning, methodology and implementation of staff development
• The context of the British overseas school
The main themes are concerned with staff education (i.e. developmental work in a range
of areas) rather than staff training (i.e. reacting to a range of educational issues and
needs) and the importance of planning and collaboration. Throughout the review the
emphasis is on considering issues which might be of relevance to the context of the study
of the overseas British schools. It is clear that much of the information provided by the
writers is based on opinion and “common sense”, and there has only been a limited
amount of research into this topic.
The Context of Staff Development Defining Staff Development
The aim of this section is to consider the definitions of staff development provided by a
range of writers. This is of great importance to the study as a whole and the focal points
have great significance in the analysis of the survey and case study data. The main terms
in use are:
• In-service Education (INSET)
• Staff Development
• Professional Development
• Continuing Professional Development (CPD).
Writers are in conflict about the definitions of each of these terms and interchange them
frequently.“ no single and agreed definition exists. The rapidly changing nature of development practice
and process has undoubtedly influenced both the meaning and use of these terms”. (Glover and
Law, 1996, p.. 2)12
As a result Glover and Law agree with Fullan (1992) and use the terms interchangeably,
although as Figure 2.1 below shows, this leads to confusion and a lack of focus. Among
the writers mentioned there emerges a clear divide between the reactive training function
and the more proactive concept of development, and therefore a clarity of definition is
essential to avoid confusion. O’Sullivan et al (1990) highlight the blurring of the
definitions when they state that:“The terms “staff development”, “INSET’ and “professional development” are frequently used asif they mean the same thing” (O’Sullivan et al, 1990, p. 185).
O’Sullivan et al (1990) view staff development as professional development which they
argue is broader, more individualistic and personal, and this can be considered as
continuing professional education. Staff Development, on the other hand, is the
development of the individual teacher as a member of staff in a particular school, or the
development of the whole staff in some way. Tomlinson (1997, p.3) is more precise in his
definition. Professional Development is the development of individuals as professionals
with needs identified by them or within the school. Teachers see professionalism as
central to their role. Staff Development is seen as the training and development of staff to
meet the needs of the school, and Personal Development: may be related to individual
career development. Other interpretations are summarised in Fig.2.1and indicate a move
from a training to a developmental view of staff development:
13
Fig.2.1 Differing definitions of staff development
Writer Date ViewpointMatheson: 1981 Training Function: improve the capability of staff to fill
specified roles.Dillon-Peterson: 1981 Organisational Development and School
Improvement: school improvement leading to maximum personal growth.
Edmonds: 1982 Staff Development and Student Outcomes, the goal is the improvement of student test scores
Griffin: 1983 Cultural Shift: change the beliefs and attitudes
Vaughan: 1983 Teacher as Researcher the idea of research into teaching effectiveness to make a difference in schools.
Sparks: 1984 Training to Improve Teaching: improve teaching skills.
South worth: 1984 Adult Education: to enrich understanding which goes beyond simply improving performance.
Guskey: 1986 Staff Development and Student Outcomes: change classroom practices to influence student outcomes.
Tom: 1986 Cultural Shift: Staff developers become the support personnel who change teacher attitudes.
Bradley: 1987 Teacher Growth and Institutional Growth: one leads to the other.
Wideen: 1987 Teacher Centred: teachers at the centre of the improvement process.
O’Sullivan et ah 1990 Staff Development and Continuing Professional Development: development of the individual teacher or whole staff; against a broader, more individualistic and personal approach.
Heidemann: 1990 Teacher Growth for Improved Student Outcomes: aprocess for growth to improve student learning.
Hall and Oldroyd 1991 Self-development: this is at the heart of professional development
Fullan: 1992 Teacher Growth: any activity or process intended to improve skills, attitudes, understandings, or performance.
Green: 1994 Lifelong Learning: the sum total of formal and informal learning experiences.
Tomlinson 1997 School and Individual Needs: Staff development is for the school, Personal Development is about career
In-Service Training, Staff Development and Continuing Professional Development
Traditionally the most common form of staff development is in-service training.
Stevenson (1987) defines it as follows:“It is usually used as a broader term for all forms of formal, professionally oriented education for teachers who are assumed to have completed initial training and certification requirements” (Stevenson, 1987, p.234)
Heidemann identifies the difference between in-service training and staff development as
follows:“In-service training is not synonymous with staff development. In-service education is only one part of staff development, being almost exclusively informational in nature. In contrast, staff development goes beyond the informational stage; it involves adaptations to change with the purpose of modifying instructional activities, of changing teacher attitudes and improving student achievement. Staff development is concerned with personal as well as professional and organisational needs.” (Heidemann, 1990, p.4)
14
This differentiation is important as it highlights the more functional and reactive needs of
schools which are met by information-giving in-service training courses as opposed to the
less concrete and more long-term developmental approaches which require a greater level
of commitment to cultural change and professional, personal and organisational growth.
O’Sullivan et al (1990, p. 185) agree when they distinguish between staff development as
training (i.e.INSET) and as continuing professional education. They go on to argue that
“training” may not be appropriate for activities which try to change attitudes, and they
find staff development as continuing professional education less easy to define when they
say:“It is personal, individualistic and often unquantifiable. It fits into the concept of teaching as an art rather than teaching as a labour or as a craft” (O’Sullivan et al, 1990, p. 185).
They use the example of General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE) INSET as a
training need, which dealt with skills and techniques and the practicalities of the exam
based on a pre-determined philosophy. They give eight questions which need to be asked
to establish:
• What are the training needs which cover who is involved?
• What is the focus?
• How many are involved?
• What type of training is required?
• What is the method?
• When is its completion?
• What are the costs?
• What are the benefits?
The differentiation between staff development as training and as development is an
important theme which is considered in the survey and the case studies.
The Aims of Staff Development.
On programme design, O’Sullivan et al (1990, p. 185) suggest that staff development has
two important functions which are to improve present performance and prepare for future
opportunities. Within this concept is encapsulated the idea of reactive and proactive
needs identification. Bolam (1982, 1993) identifies four aims of staff development which
encompass these training and developmental needs:15
• to add to professional knowledge
• to improve professional skills
• to clarify professional values
• to enable students to be educated more effectively
Bolam goes on to identify three ways in which these continuing professional
development aims can be achieved. He summarises them as professional:
• training (short courses, conferences and workshops with an emphasis on practical
skills)
• education (longer courses and/or secondments focused on theory and research-based
knowledge)
• support (job-embedded arrangements or procedures).
This, according to Nicholls (1994, p. 140), should take place in a positive climate with
motivated staff where the importance of accessing information is recognised. None of
this can work, however, without the presence of appropriate structures. Williams (1991)
discusses the importance of having the necessary infrastructure for continuing
professional development.“A major message which emerges, therefore, is that a climate needs to be developed in the school in which learning is of fundamental importance, where the focus is on what staff can learn from the children, what we can learn from each other and what the school can do to develop as a "learning system’ (Schon 1971). The in-service education of teachers is the key to this learning.” (Williams, 1991, in Bradley et al, 1994, p.240)
Staff Development Policies.
Bradley argues that there should be a number of policies in place which contribute to
professional development. These include a policy for:
• staff appraisal
• INSET
• school improvement
• collaboration and teamwork
• involvement in management and decision-making
• school-based research
• the recognition of self-development as the mark of professionality
(Bradley, 1987, p.p. 192-3).
16
Bolam (1982, in Glover and Law, 1996, p.2) considers that this is an ongoing process
which should provide education, training and support through a range of activities from
initial teacher training onwards. This should be related to school improvement, as
Stevenson points out:“Both the staff development and the effective schools literature have advocated that staff development should be linked directly to school improvement.” (Stevenson, 1987, p.245)
Thus it is clear that staff development should go far beyond in-service provision and an
enlightened school needs to consider how to change. Bradley’s assessment of how to
bring about change (Bradley, 1987 p. 194) suggests the need for an awareness that there is
a problem, a willingness to do something about it, positive attitudes of the senior staff, an
understanding of the nature of external pressures and the availability of support and
resources. Bradley was not optimistic about what he considered to be the state of practice
at the time:“Set against this framework of elements, most current policies for staff development fall significantly short. In a number of systems, policies for staff development encompass only the minimum competency elements and in these cases school improvements is limited to the repair of deficits. These policies ignore the needs of the majority of teachers and equally ignore the most influential factors in school improvement.” (Bradley, 1987, p. 194)
Heidemann echoes this cautionary view and stresses the importance of the model which
looks towards long-term development rather than a “quick fix” approach.“None of our efforts, however visionary, however collegial, however well-planned, will be fruitful and effective if persistence, long-term implementation, i.e., continuity, are not woven into the fabric of school improvement through staff development. Implementation can never be finished. Staff development must be a dynamic occurrence, never a static one. It must continually adapt, continually evolve if it is to fulfil its highest potential” (Heidemann, 1990, p.8)
This can be achieved through what Heidemann refers to as collegial empowerment,
coherent vision and continuity. Bradley supports these views and defines two views of
staff development which come under the headings of “The Road to Damascus” model
and “The Great Leap Forward” model. The latter assumes that what we do becomes less
appropriate as the world outside the school changes. The decline becomes unacceptable
and a dramatic response provoked. Staff development is concentrated in periods of
dramatic change. (Bradley, 1991, p.3). The second model abhors the ‘great leap forward’
(i.e. echoing the sudden implementation of fundamental change which was disastrous in
communist China), and instead adopts a policy of continuous improvement. This relies
heavily on the monitoring process and makes substantial demands on teacher
professionalism.“For this model to be successful, staff development must enhance teachers’ competence in the tasks of monitoring and decision-making. It must also give them skills of data collection so that
17
they are aware of movements in the world outside and of the impact of their work upon those in their charge.” (Bradley, 1991, p.4)
Middlewood (1997) sees the staff development plan as crucial, and argues that priorities
should be connected to the development plan. Everard and Morris (1990, p.92) highlight
the following practical modes of staff development which could involve counselling,
coaching and consultancy, planned reading, self development, projects (e.g. organising a
school event), a change in responsibilities, sitting in on meetings or producing a research
report. This more far-reaching view of staff development is endorsed by Whitaker (1993)
who stresses the idea of reflective practice and provides a list of ten principles for adult
learning. These principles consist of:
• voluntary participation
• mutual respect
• collaboration
• action and reflection
• organizational setting
• choice and change
• social, economic and cultural factors
• motivation
• critical thinking
• self direction
Formulating a School Staff Development Policy
A practical means of formulation from Fife Region in Scotland is included as an example which could be of value to the British Overseas School.
“A school’s policy on staff development will provide a framework and organisational structures for the operation of an annual programme of staff development activity designed to meet the needs of the school and groups or individual members of staff’ (Welsh, 1995, p.92)
According to the Fife document, a policy statement should cover the three areas of
aims/purposes; roles, responsibilities and rights; and school organisation and
arrangements.
18
They suggest (Welsh, 1995, p. p..92-3) a number of questions which could be considered:
Fig.2.2 Practical considerations: the Fife policy document (Welsh 1995)
Aims and Purposes Roles, Responsibilities and RightsWhat is the general context for staff development?W hat purposes are met by the operation of the policy?How do the school act a s an institution, and individual staff benefit?
Which staff have specific management responsibilities related to the policy? What is the m anagem ent structure? What are these responsibilities?Is there to be a staff development committee or group?What is its membership and role?What are the rights and responsibilities of staff generally?What are the Governors’ responsibilities and how far are they related to school policy?
School Organisation and Arrangements
Matching Priorities to Opportunities
Identifying and Prioritising Needs What are the sources of information on staff development needs?How will priorities be determined? What are the criteria?
What resources are available for staff development?How will these be m anaged?How will priorities be matched to appropriate activities in an annual staff development programme?How will these be publicised?How can staff gain access to opportunities?How will participation of staff in activities be recorded?
Induction of New Staff Staff AppraisalWhat are the arrangements for the induction of new staff and probationary teachers into the arrangem ents?
What is the relationship of appraisal to staff development?What are the school’s arrangem ents for staff appraisal?How will the policy and arrangem ents be monitored and evaluated?How will the outcomes be reported and built into future targets?
The Fife document also provides advice to schools on how to manage the process. Their
advice is summarised in Fig.2.3 below:
19
Fig. 2.3 Getting policies off the ground: management checklist (Fife Region, 1995)
Policies, P rocedures and A rrangem ents.
Identifying and Prioritising Staff D evelopm ent N eeds
The SDC is identified A favourable climate for staff development is established A committee is established with clear objectivesClearly defined management arrangem ents exist and are understood by the staffA written policy is drafted, agreed withstaff and publishedThe staff development policy isintegrated with other school anddepartmental policiesThe policy is incorporated into thecurrent development plan
Procedures are in place for staff development to be identified through: development planning; departmental review; whole school review; external audits and reports; individual self review and appraisal.The range of information gathered reflects the needs of individuals, departments and the whole school. Procedures are established, described and understood by staff for deciding priorities among the needs identified
The Design of the Staff D evelopm ent Program m e
Monitoring, Evaluating and Reporting
This m eans an annual plan outlining staff development activities internally and externally to meet prioritised needs.The school has clearly communicated procedures for compiling, agreeing and publishing its annual staff development programmeThe published programme addresses all of the agreed priority needs, includes an appropriate variety of staff development activities and events, and draws on external opportunities It caters for the needs of special groups such a s new staff It draws on the expertise and experience of staff within the school and a range of external providers The resource implications of the programme have been costed and are realistic
After all activities, participants have the opportunity to provide feedback by completing an evaluation questionnaire, a written report and verballyRecords of all activities are maintained by the co-ordinatorIndividual members of staff maintain arecord of their own staff developmentactivities and needsCopies of individual records are heldcentrallyThe distribution of resources among individuals and groups of staff is monitoredMonitoring procedures include analysis of the relative benefits and cost of particular staff development activities An annual report is prepared and used to influence future planning
(Fife Region, Welsh, 1995, p.p. 98-100)
20
The Learning Organisation.
From the idea of staff development as adult education comes the idea of the learning
organisation. The term learning organisation is relatively new, although it can be traced
back well over twenty years. Organisational learning can be broken into:
• knowledge (ie learning about things, facts, complex ideas, theories)
• skills, abilities and competencies (learning to do things, mental and manual skills)
• personal development (learning to become ourselves and achieve our full potential)
• collaborative enquiry (learning to achieve things together).
“Collaborative enquiry challenges the view of learning as something which individuals do, on their own, happening, somehow, inside them. It is more than group work. It is about learning to achieve things together, co-operating in collective learning.” (Aspinwall, 1996, p.7)
Bennett (1997) also emphasises the importance of the learning organisation, and
discusses the role of “internal consultancy” which he defines as follows:“Internal consultancy presumes that the people who work in an organisation represent a huge potential resource of information and expertise which can be unlocked for others’ benefit” (Bennett, 1997, p.42)
He argues that this can be most effective when it is done on a formal, organised basis and
argues:“By acting as assistants and guides as much as experts, they can help colleagues to begin the double loop learning process of reflecting on practice and questioning assumptions” (Bennett,1997, p.42)
Bennett (1997 p.43) states the strengths to be.
• A cheaper option than external consultancy
• Encouragement for colleagues to acknowledge potential expertise
• Colleagues may experience less resistance
He does identify a number of weaknesses, however;
• Internal consultants may find it harder to stand back and see the “big picture”, or to
provide the reflection which may be necessary in the learning organisation
• It may be harder to offer critical comment or advice to colleagues or friends
They might also experience resentment and get dismissed as presumptuous“But if we are trying to bring about a culture of organisational learning, resistance to the idea of assistance must be converted into, ‘what can anyone say that could help me improve?’” (Bennett,1997, p.43)
Bennett draws upon evidence from projects on an Open University course (E828
Educational Management in Action) to show that having expertise did not appear to be
21
enough. His conclusion was that internal consultancy was more likely to be effective if
the internal consultant had a senior position and he reports that:“ no successful internal consultancies have yet been reported by consultants who were juniorto their client-colleagues” (Bennett, 1997, p.43)
Bennett sees internal consultancy as having a considerable amount of potential and he
makes the interesting point that:“ it provides a means of linking together long term professional development and long termeducational change - linking individual and organisational learning” (Bennett, 1997, p.45)
He goes on to argue that short term INSET is linked to immediate organisational and
individual need, but long term professional development is seen as the individual’s
responsibility.“By helping staff to acquire a stronger knowledge base from which to reflect upon practice, and enabling them to develop the skills of internal consultancy through practice as part of longer programmes of study, schools can address both more immediate and longer term issues at a more fundamental level through the professional development of colleagues and promote a culture of learning among the teachers as well as among the children” (Bennett, 1997, p.45)
From the definitions it is clear that the term staff development should be broad enough to
cover the “developmental” aspects of the term, and not just be a focus for staff training.
The aims are far broader, although at the heart of any policy in a school should be the
focus for developing staff to be more effective as educators. This puts staff development
firmly into the methodology of school improvement and school effectiveness. Mortimore
identifies eleven factors for effective schools, one of which is the idea of the learning
organization with school-based staff development (Sammons et al, 1994, p. 11).
22
The Changing Nature of Staff Development
“Professional development has been undergoing a quiet revolution. Over the past decade we have been witnessing what amounts to an overhaul of structures and relationships in the continuing professional development of teachers in England and Wales” (Glover and Law, 1996, p. 1)
Glover and Law illustrate this with the change from the “overall corporate paternalism”
(Glover and Law, 1996 p.l) of secondments and Local Education Authority (LEA)
support to more school-based and self-funded professional development. The overall
purpose of this section is to look at the context of staff development and the changes of
emphasis which have occurred from the late 1970’s to the late 1990’s. The overall
changes can be summarised as follows:
1. A move from LEA dominated INSET to more school focused staff development with
a wider range of choices of service providers
2. Changes in the structure of funding from LEAs to central government
3. Changes in the emphasis of INSET as an individual benefit to staff development
which benefits the institution
The main stages which were identified by the writers are identified in Fig. 2.4 below:
Fig.2.4 Important stages in staff development
1972 The James Report: commitment to teachers’ professional development1982 The Cockcroft Report: move towards school-based teacher development1983 Introduction of the Technical and Vocational Education Initiative (TVEI)1984 The critical review by the Advisory Committee on the Supply and Education of
Teachers (ACSET) began the move away from the pool system.1985 Publication of “Better Schools" by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate (HMI)1986 Department of Education and Science (DES) Circular 6/86: New funding scheme,
LEATGS. General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE) “cascading" training1987 School Teachers Pay and Conditions of Employment: changes to pay and conditions.
The Education Support Grant and the Training Grants Scheme (TGS) for national priority INSET replaced the pool.
1988 The Education Reform Act (ERA): the major catalyst for change. GRIST was introduced to replace the TGS., leading to a fall in numbers on full-time award bearing courses
1989 GRIST replaced by LEATGS, leading to more school-focused INSET.1990 School Management Task Force: report on in-service training (INSET) and
announcement of the Grant for Education Support and Training (GEST)1991 Introduction of GEST and central control of INSET, with no reference to professional
development.1992 Education Act. The “Three Wise Men Report”, “Curriculum Organization and Practice in
the Primary School” (Alexander et a/.)1993 National Commission on Education (NCE) Report1994 Introduction of the Teacher Training Agency (TTA)
23
Staff development in the 1960’s and 70’s was synonymous with INSET (Bradley 1987)
with possible individual rather than institutional benefits in an ad hoc framework, and the
emphasis has moved far more towards institutional and individual benefits:“Typically, no planning mechanism existed within the school which might have brought together the aims o f the school and individuals and it was unusual for the school to make an identifiable effort to make use of the information and skills gained by the individual from an INSET activity .” (Bradley, 1987, p. 186)
The James Report (1972) showed a commitment to teachers’ professional development
and this was an important starting point for the initiatives of the mid 1980’s (Glover and
Law, 1996, p. 15). The Cockcroft Report (1982), with a move towards school-based
teacher development (Roberts 1994 p.27), was also significant as Bolam (1982)
recognised. Hargreaves (1987) accepts the benefits of school-centred innovation,
although Nixon (1989) has reservations about its quality.
The funding structure before the 1980’s favoured the use of the long term award-bearing
course as the major form of professional development provision (Connor 1994, and
Harland, Kinder and Keys, 1993), although this has declined dramatically in the 1990’s
(Day, 1989, Triggs and Francis, 1990, Bradley and Howard, 1992) with an increasing
emphasis on self-funded courses. Secondment, release or evening attendance which led to
a further qualification was popular, although Conner (1994) considers this to be an
individualistic experience which rarely benefited the school, and he agrees with Dobbins
(1989) who questions how far the provision met teacher requirements.
The Government tried to increase its influence over the education system in the 1980’s,
attempting to make in-service training more relevant to school needs (Erhaut, 1972,
Conner, 1994), and this has become an increasingly important priority. The INSET
experience should be a collaborative, dynamic and school-centred one, rather than the
teacher as “passive recipient” which characterised the type of INSET experience of the
1960’s and 1970’s (Harland, Kinder and Keys, 1993). Most INSET and CPD was based
on top-down needs identification (Glover and Law, 1996).
The idea of “lifelong learning” can be traced back to documents such as “Better Schools”
(HMI, 1985) which suggested the notion of professional development throughout a
teacher’s career. The increasing recognition of teacher-based research as a form of in-
service training can be traced back to the 1980’s. Conner (1994, p.49) refers to writers24
who advocate the use of teacher action research and self-evaluation as a form of INSET
(Cooper and Ebbutt, 1974; Elliott, 1981 and Holly, 1986). By the end of the 1980’s new
terms in education which were to be developed in the 1990’s were beginning to be used
as schools moved towards self-management. Bradley (1987) mentions factors such as
quality, accountability and value for money as being responsible for changes in attitude in
Britain and elsewhere.
The changes in the 1990’s have brought consequences. As Harland et al (1993, p. 12)
found, LEAs were forced to contract and restructure with many advisory teachers
returning to schools. The consequences have been better working relationships, close
access to advisory staff, long-term planning, collaboration and the central vision of
LEAs.
Harland et al (1993, p.4) identify the following key elements in the changes to INSET
since the 1980’s which can be summarised as:
• Government centralization of power to define and control professional development
• The expansion of school-managed INSET
• Fluctuations in the levels of national and local investment in INSET
• Restructuring of its management within LEAs
• The erosion in the role of HE institutions as providers, particularly with long-term
courses.
Fig.2.5. Summary of changes in staff development, Gilroy and Day, (1993 p.150)
Pro 1990 Post 1990Voluntary INSET participation Mandatory INSET provisionLocally identified INSET needs Nationally identified INSET needsEmphasis on external provision Emphasis on internal provisionLocal authority controlled funding Central government, school-controlled
fundingAutonomous development (teacher a s professional)
Directed training (teacher a s technicist)
From the British overseas school perspective the history of staff development seems
confused and increasingly concerned with establishing governmental control, whilst
withdrawing funding from many areas of staff development including award-bearing
courses.
25
Staff Development Issues
The aim of this section is to consider the purposes and methodology of staff
development, which includes areas such as needs identification, efficiency, evaluation
and the importance of reflective practice. For the British overseas school, these are all
important issues to consider, particularly since the introduction of strategic planning in
this area may have considerable cost and resource implications.
The Purpose of Staff Development
Middlewood (1997) states that the identification of aims and purposes is one of the key
factors and he identifies one view which proposes staff development for organisational
improvement (identified in Woodward, 1991, p. 114), contrasted with a partnership
approach which harmonises the needs of individuals and the institution (in Middlewood
p. 187). Williams (1981) and Billing (1982) broaden out the partnership model. Another
obvious aim is to impact upon student learning, one of the propositions considered by
Hopkins, Ainscow, and West (1994, p.p.266-8), which relates to Joyce’s analysis of the
characteristics of effective large-scale improvement initiatives (Joyce et al, 1993), where
there is a need to target staff development by developing practice, monitoring and
evaluating rather than rely on what they term “post-hoc evaluation” (i.e. finding
justifications for planning and policy which might have developed by interpretation
rather than planned practice). McMullen (1991) agrees at the whole school level when
she states that:“ a staff development programme is a planned process which enhances the quality of pupillearning by identifying, clarifying and meeting the individual needs of the teaching staff within the context of the school as a whole.” (McMullen, 1991, p. 106)
Another purpose of staff development relates to the need to cope with recent major
changes and a recognition of the need for more structured planning, as Bradley (1991)
rightly states:“Now, at a time of substantial pressure upon schools when teachers are reacting to changes in curriculum, changes in financial management and changes in accountability, the need for a well thought out system for staff development is becoming recognised as of central importance” (Bradley, 1991, p.2)
In the light of this statement, Bradley (1991, p.2) identifies the fundamental purposes of
staff development to be to:
• make people feel valued
• enable them do the job well
26
• receive positive feedback help anticipate and prepare for changes
• encourage people to derive excitement and satisfaction from involvement in change
• make them feel willing and competent to contribute constructively to school
development
These, according to Bradley (1991, p.2) fall into four categories, the first two of which
address the teachers, the second the school. The teacher categories consist of activities
which improve teacher performance in the present job and activities which enhance
prospects of career development. The school categories consist of activities which help
the school to strengthen its performance (e.g. staff changes in an area of the curriculum)
and activities which help the school to meet future demands.
Heath agrees (1989, p.3) and suggests that the primary aims of staff development are:
• to enhance professional competence
• increase job satisfaction and develop potential
• improve institutional and individual ability to identify and meet student needs
• make more effective use of resources
To achieve this, according to Heath (1989), a range of developmental policies is required
which are likely to include in-service training which could be long, short, structured and
informal; the creation of appropriate structures, supportive management and appropriate
funding; carefully programmed and adequately resourced opportunities and schemes of
supervision and complementary performance appraisal (Heath, 1989, p.3). This strategic
planning was seen to be lacking in McMahon’s 1996 research The majority of schools
had a written CPD policy, but teachers in only half of them had a copy, only 40% used all
five non-contact days for CPD and the preference was for a mix of whole days and
twilight sessions.
Glover and Gleeson (1997) carried out a survey in 1996 with responses from 49 staff and
the main findings were that middle managers seek CPD (Continuing Professional
Development) for themselves which is related to more effective teaching and learning,
from expert providers with opportunities for reflection. Middle managers see future
provision as having effective needs analysis, effectiveness in developmental
opportunities, there should be a balance of individual, group and school needs which is
supported by time and human resources to enable effective change and it should provide
the necessary training for better in-school provision. This is contrasted by McMahon
27
(1996) who points out that for the government the purpose of CPD is to improve pupil
performance.“Whether it is realistic to expect measurable improvements in pupil performance to result from a particular activity is questionable given the number of intervening variables.” (McMahon, 1996, p5)
Harland et al (1993) also mention the findings of Morrison (1992), Brown and Earley
(1990) and Hewton and Jolley (1991) who identify lack of time as the critical issue which
can compromise the purpose. Day (1993) concludes that there is a danger that INSET
may be seen as exclusively representing the interests of school management and focuses
more on immediate practical concerns rather than longer-term and deeper levels of
professional development. Not only time, but timing is seen as a critical issue. O’Sullivan
et al (1990 p.p. 184-185) consider the timing of programmes and note the tension which
exists between the financial and academic year. They note the dangers of these time-
scales in the imposition of a rigidity in the structure and note that:“ each stage in the staff development cycle is a process in itself and, although it must beformally planned, will not necessarily occur at the same time each year” (O’Sullivan et al, 1990, p.p. 184-5).
For the British overseas school, purpose is closely related to the definitions of staff
development in the school, and constraints of time and resources may impact more on the
effectiveness of school policies than in U.K. schools.
The Planning of Staff Development
The strategic planning of staff development is vital according to Nicholls (1994). Within
the school development plan staff development priorities must be addressed:“To be effective, training and development opportunities should be set in the context of the development plan. This will assist with criteria for prioritising planning, selection and evaluation” (Nicholls, 1994, p. 142)
Questionnaires can be used to analyse perceptions of needs, priorities and capacities;
there must be a balance of needs between students and staff and a forum is required for
feedback and review. In order to avoid pitfalls which might lead to reduced morale,
Bradley (1991, p.p. 7-8) suggests the importance of a staff development policy, and one
which is owned by all concerned. A policy statement is needed which should link staff
and school development. Unfortunately much staff development appears to be relatively
unplanned, as McMullen (1991) identifies:“It is quite possible for a school to have an implicit staff development policy which has evolved over a period of time and has never been formally thought out, discussed or written down. Critics of a formal policy ..... may argue that a staff development policy (particularly if linked to
28
appraisal) may inhibit flexibility and prevent a rapid response to a new situation, particularly if resources are already committed and in-service needs identified.” (McMullen, 1991, p. 166)
This is clearly not good enough for O’Sullivan et al (1990, p.p. 183-184) who identify a
number of what they call first principles for school-focused staff development. It should
be:
• managed (coordinated, structured, planned and publicised)
• coherent
• relevant to practice
• involving staff in active learning processes
• using strategies which could be replicated with pupils
• able to recognise and utilise existing staff expertise
• varied in the activities and venues
Bradley et al (1994) agree, stating that a staff development policy is needed to motivate
staff and make them feel valued. A practical staff development plan is needed to put this
into practice which should include the commitment of resources, discussion of priorities
and needs identification (both school and individual).“If this infrastructure is built up in the school, teachers will have little difficulty in recognising howtheir own continuing professional development will contribute to the growth of the school. Equally the school and the individual will benefit from the consideration, not of isolated INSET experiences, but of a planned development for each individual.” (Bradley et al, 1994, p.241)
Burke (1990) stresses that the basic construct of staff development planning should
incorporate needs assessment, planning, implementation, evaluation and participant
empowerment. O’Sullivan et al (1990, p.p.184-185) identify the following cycle of staff
development in six stages:
• Staff needs identification
• The analysis of staff needs
• Creation and design of the programme
• Implementation
• Monitoring
• Evaluation
Bradley (1991) suggests that few schools have a clear staff development policy, but that
this would become a high priority in the future. He considers that a policy statement
should include a statement of shared values concerning the staff development principles,
29
a statement of specific objectives, an indication of how the school will work with the
individual teacher to assess objectives and a statement of entitlement outlining what the
teacher should expect (Bradley, 1991, p. 112).
With effective planning, staff development opportunities should therefore have the
potential to become more developmental rather than reactive to specific short term needs.
Appraisal and Staff Development
One method is through a more effective use of appraisal. The DES Circular 12/91 stated
that appraisal should be a part of the school development plan, and that this should be
linked to professional development targets arising from appraisal. The findings by Ofsted
in 1996 showed that links were undeveloped, with only one third of the schools in
compliance (Ofsted, 1996, p. 17). They found that there was a variable degree to which
appraisal targets informed INSET provision.“Appraisal was also seen as a form of staff development in its own right, and as the most intimate and personal of the forms that this might take” (Ofsted, 1996, p. 19)
One of the conclusions of the report was to stress the importance of appraisal in meeting
individuals' professional development needs (Ofsted, 1996 p.25). The inspectors found
the voluntary self-appraisal useful (Ofsted, 1996, p. 19). It has remained too isolated
from school development and INSET planning, and some schools saw it more about the
self-development of individual teachers rather than linking it sufficiently to wider
policies for school management.
Evaluation.
Bradley mentions the difficulty of integration, and he suggests that the school needs to do
an evaluation of all the processes (staff development, teacher appraisal, school
development) once a year (Bradley, 1991, p.p. 115-6). According to O’Sullivan et al
(1990), it should be evaluated by all involved (provider, participants, pupils), and
evaluation should address effectiveness in terms of pupil outcomes, cost effectiveness,
short and long term benefits, suitability and effectiveness of delivery. Evaluation results
should be fed back and evaluation feedback should form the basis of the next stage in the
process of staff development. McMahon’s (1996) research showed that much of the
evaluation of CPD was informal, mainly through evaluation forms on non-contact days.
Attendance at external courses was more likely to be evaluated formally. Overall
30
teaching and management quality were the main criteria, although it was not clear how
these were addressed. Oldroyd and Hall (1991) and Fidler and Cooper (1992) stress the
importance of monitoring. The latter also see evaluation as important, but it creates
problems because of its complexity, as Middlewood (1997) summarises:“Evaluation of staff development is complex precisely because it is about people. The temptation, therefore, is to concentrate on evaluating the actual process. This is valid since it involves vital issues of client satisfaction, staff motivation and efficient use of resources ” (Middlewood, 1997, p. 196)
Finance.
Another consideration is finance, and there is evidence to show that there is a wide
disparity in the funding of staff development. Glover and Law (1993) carried out a
research project called PDQUEST in 1993 to investigate the perceptions and
preoccupations of schools and the context of professional development. The findings
were based on 71 responses with a 31% response rate and showed a wide range of
resourcing (£18,000-85,000), although there was an overall decline in funding. There was
a move away from LEAs to Higher Education and private operators and consultants.
McMahon’s (1996) research showed that Grant Maintained schools had larger budgets
(with a mean SPG(D) grant of £32,000 while maintained schools with GEST budgets had
a mean of £12,000). Schools varied in their provision of additional funding from their
own budgets or other sources. Sweetman (1997) refers to a TTA Survey in 1995 (The
Continuing Professional Development of Teachers) which found that INSET funds were
haphazardly used and often diverted into other sectors of the budget, there was a negative
view of teachers for internal and external INSET and training, and teachers felt that they
were too busy to take themselves forwards. This has been challenged in recent years
according to Sweetman (1997) by factors such as:
• Devolved spending
• External accountability
• Increased political and public interest in teaching (Ofsted and the DfEE)
• The work of the TTA.
Schools are therefore under pressure to take account of professional development needs,
but with limited resources. This highlights a serious limitation of staff development
potential. Nicholls (1994) rightly suggests that value for money is essential to justify
expenditure, and recommends that sponsorship from industry or educational charities
could be a useful source of funds (Nicholls, 1994, p. 145). O’Sullivan et al (1990) agree,
31
and argue that programmes should fully utilise available resources (funding, time,
expertise) and they should be cost effective. McMahon (1996, p.6) suggests that CPD
resources should be more equitably distributed. The range of CPD support mechanisms
should be strengthened to take account of the specific needs of individuals and it is
necessary to clarify the purposes of particular CPD activities and select a suitable form of
provision.
It is clear, therefore, that the strategic planning of staff development is vital if it is to be
effective, and evidence from formal appraisal, monitoring and evaluation can be
extremely useful in the needs identification process, although is currently under-
exploited. Adequate funding is also essential, and writers have identified the inequalities
which exist between school types.
32
Types of Staff Development.The main types of staff development are considered in this section which range ffom
school-based INSET to the impact of award-bearing long-term courses and the idea of
lifelong learning. The main findings from research into these fields are also presented. It
was interesting to note that the field of staff development has not been extensively
researched in Britain, and the studies which have been carried out and outlined above
have generally been on a small-scale. Other than the Baker and Sikora project (1978-81)
with 1000 teachers, the numbers of staff or schools were often small, and response rates
were low when mentioned (Henderson, 1976, 29%; Glover and Law, 1993, 31%; Halpin
et aly 1990, 55%; Triggs and Francis, 1990, 52%), which makes generalisability of the
findings difficult, although they are of considerable interest in the context of this study.
School-Based Staff Development
In his review of school based INSET and staff development, Bolam (1994) refers to the
James Report (1972) which stressed the importance of a school having its own staff
development programme.“The external, course-based model was increasingly being criticised and school-focused INSET was seen as the way of meeting school needs while balancing them with individual needs.” (Bolam, 1994, p. 3 7)
Levine (1994) links the idea of effective staff development and effective schools. Stott
and Walker agree and see the “escape over the perimeter fence” as having little to do
with improvement. In their view development can be done within school by involvement
in decisions, observation, team teaching, curriculum meetings, developmental appraisal
schemes and in many other ways.“Development is about creativity, teamwork, problem solving and flexibility. Teachers who can
develop such skills become more self-reliant and self-directed” (Stott and Walker, 1996, p. 12)
Bradley et al (1994) express reservations when they state that schools’ own training is of
variable quality and there is a need for a change in practice:“Successful change needs more substantial INSET. It requires several people in the school who understand the issues involved in bringing about change and are capable of leading their colleagues in it.” (Bradley etal, 1994, p.245)
These reservations are echoed by Harland et al (1993).
Baker and Sikora (1982), funded by the DES between 1978-81, carried out research in
forty-nine schools with about 1000 teachers in 4 LEAs to evaluate the problems of
providing an in-service programme based on school-formulated needs, implementation,33
effectiveness, implications and generalisability. The research used a diverse range of
methods to elicit data. They concluded that schools should designate staff development
co-ordinators, formulate their own INSET policy and use school-based methods.
Oldroyd, Smith and Lee (1984) carried out a school based staff development project in
twelve Avon secondary schools with the aim of providing examples of successful
approaches to school initiated staff development.
McMahon, Bolam, Abbott and Holly (1984) published the “GRIDS: Primary and
Secondary School Handbooks” (York, Longman 1984). The “Guidelines for Review and
Internal Development in Schools Project” involved 30 schools in 5 LEAs. This took the
form of action research to develop and trial systematic self-review and the development
process in primary and secondary schools with a particular focus on staff development
policies and programmes.
Cowan and Wright (1990) carried out a survey of 110 Professional Development Days
and found that INSET was being managed in an arbitrary way with little heed paid to the
long term needs of individuals and schools or alternative ways of developing staff.
Cowan and Wrights’ findings were that school-focused INSET frequently fails to match
the needs of the school as a whole, schools fail to ensure that individual needs are met,
“Baker Days” are usually not evaluated by staff, the days often occur at inappropriate
times and schools have failed to prepare long-term plans for INSET, and themes often
occur in isolation (referred to in Harland et al, p. 10).
Harland et al (1993, p.p. 10-11) also refer to the findings of Kinder et al (1991) in case
studies of four schools found that PDD’s often focused on relatively lower order
information-giving rather than on higher-order areas such as fostering new knowledge
and skills. Campbell (1989) categorized the “Baker Days” as administration, acquisition
of skills, action research and deliberative reflection. The last was the most common in his
survey (information-giving, introduction to issues, school development planning, topic
planning and expressions of belief).
As Bradley (1991) points out, staff development days can be significant because they can
bring together the whole staff for much longer than is possible, they are intensive events
34
which build up a team spirit and sense of shared achievement, they allow a mixture of
learning styles and they can be devised as part of a longer developmental programme.
These days can be used for awareness raising, review and development, and
dissemination (Bradley, 1991 p.p. 117-20). Hargreaves and Hopkins (1991) argue that
training days need to become more focused and external course information should be
collated and checked for its relevance to school needs. School-based INSET and external
courses are used to complement one another and staff development should be included in
the school budget (Hargreaves and Hopkins, 1991, p.p. 138-9).
In school based INSET, a major difference between primary and secondary teachers was
noted (Harland et al, 1993 p.p.58-9). In primary schools, school-based INSET matched
needs and teachers felt ownership. Although in secondary schools department based
INSET was considered to be valuable, teachers generally viewed it with mixed feelings.
Criticisms were that:
• there was too much focus on curriculum planning and not on development
• too much emphasis was placed on pastoral over departmental issues
• a lot of inset was found to be inappropriate and did not help to deliver the subject
• it was interesting, but never came to a conclusion
The Teacher-as-Researcher.
One important area which has developed since the 1980’s, although recently challenged
by Hargreaves (1996), is the notion of teacher as researcher which is behind the
University of East Anglia’s Centre for Applied Research in Education (CARE), as
Walker (1985, quoted in Connor, 1994, p.53) states:“... research is an essential element in the teacher’s role. As teaching has become increasingly professionalised and the management of educational organisations more systematised, so ‘research’ has increasingly become something that teachers are expected to include in their repertoire of skills.”
Dadds’ (1991) study showed how in-service experiences can be incorporated into
classroom practice, and in time can begin to influence the thinking and practice of other
colleagues. This was also found in some evidence from studies at York University
(Lewis, 1988; Vulliamy and Webb, 1991). Vulliamy and Webb provided evidence that
the two-year part-time MA had a significant effect on thinking and practice:
35
“ ...our study points to the vital role that INSET can play in bolstering the confidence of a profession at a time when this seems most urgent” (Vulliamy and Webb, 1991, in Conner, 1994 p.53)
They found that teacher research on pupil perception challenged assumptions about
abilities, provided explanations for behaviour, gave teachers greater motivation and
increased confidence and provided teachers with skills to inform decision-making.
Bradley and Howard’s (1991) research on teachers and the impact of longer courses
explored the patterns of employment and development of teachers who have followed
long and medium length courses of INSET, particularly higher degrees and advanced
diplomas (at least one term). They found that long award-bearing INSET was valuable to
the profession in three main ways with an impact on:
• careers, with staff frequently promoted during or immediately afterwards
• leadership and management skills
• classroom practice
The value to the education system was reflected in an impact on their own teaching, the
management of their schools, school development and staff development, although they
did not consider that this had gone far enough.
Long-term Award Bearing Courses.
Triggs and Francis (1990) carried out a survey of the value of long award bearing courses
to assess the effects of the LEATGS on the take-up of university provided long award
bearing courses to assess their value by teachers, LEAs, heads and university INSET
providers. Questionnaires were sent to students and ex-students with an overall return
rate of 52% (University 74%, LEA 32%). A decline in the numbers of full-time
secondments was noted and an increase in part-time students, with the danger that
university-based INSET was in jeopardy.
Bradley and Howard (1992) were involved in DES funded research to explore patterns of
employment and the development of teachers who have followed long and medium
length courses of INSET. Eighteen HE institutions were approached and asked for
samples of students completing in 1980, 1985 and 1989. Every tenth on the list was
sampled, 530 questionnaires were sent out and twenty-one respondents were given an in-
depth interview. They found that courses had been of value to careers, leadership and
management in the classroom and award holders were likely to be promoted during the
course (22%) or within 18 months (44%).36
Vulliamy and Webb (1991, p.p. 219-236) conducted a University of York outstation
programme sponsored by LEAs and taught in local teachers centres. Their research
consisted of a questionnaire, interview and literature search which investigated teacher-
research INSET courses. It made comparisons between two sets of data concerning the
effects of part-time courses on teachers personally, but did not look at the effects of
INSET on teachers’ career development. They concluded that the two year part-time MA
course had a significant effect on thinking and practice.
Conner (1994) studied conversations and comments from a sample of twenty former
students at the Institute of Education into the perceived effectiveness of, and justification
for, Masters degrees in Education. The findings showed the positive benefits against the
short, sharp training experiences of INSET. Conner (1994, p.p.54-58) also refers to
research carried out at the Institute of Education in the same area which found the M. A.
to be an effective long-term in-service experience. He discusses the usefulness of
assignments and dissertations in terms of thinking and practice and mentions the study
by Halpin, Croll and Redman (1990) which comments on the lack of information about
the effects of in-service opportunities on teachers, schools or children. Dadds (1991)
followed up claims through observation and discussion, and the evidence suggested that
the process had a significant impact. This was also found by Triggs and Francis (1990).
One comment made to them was.“Each assignment made me think and then write in a serious, thoughtful way, gradually developing a style of my own, with increasing layers of complexity, increasingly less dogmatic, increasingly looking for alternative answers rather than just my own preconceptions. The writing process certainly clarified my own thinking on many issues.” (in Triggs and Francis, 1990, quoted in Conner p. 58)
Conner relates this to the “deep” approach (Entwistle, 1992 and Marton, 1988), rather
than a “surface” approach which relies on a re-presentation. Schon (1983) refers to this as
“reflecting upon action”. Many suggested effects were in the area of school organisation
and policy. The greatest impact was on teachers’ attitudes and knowledge levels, and this
had an impact in their work (Conner, 1994, p.p. 58-60). Although Conner points to the
decline of this kind of course and questions its survival because of funding, he argues that
it still has a place:“Supporting a teacher on an MA course is expensive, but the evidence presented here suggests that there are considerable benefits beyond the individual.” (Conner, 1994, p.62)
37
"Quick Fixes” or Long-Term Development.
There are arguments for both long and short courses. For the former, time and finance are
two of the biggest problems which makes the latter attractive for “quick fixes”. As
McMahon’s 1996 research showed, most CPD activities took place within school, and
courses outside school were rarely more than 1-2 days. Twenty per cent of the responses
indicated that staff on longer courses could not be supported, and others stated that they
would contribute to fees or provide a small amount of release time.
Learning must be a career-long activity according to Burke (1990), teacher education is a
career-long process (Burke and Heidemann, 1985), staff development is career long,
based on a long-range plan (Wood, Thompson and Russell, 1981) and Ward (1977) saw
staff development as lifetime education. With all the changes and threats in recent years
Aspinwall (1996) identifies three interesting questions which consider:
• the meaning of being a professional
• the kind of development professionals need
• the purpose of the development
Aspinwall (1996, p. 8) goes on to suggest four key characteristics with implications for
professional development programmes which involve a commitment to lifelong learning
for all in the school. This should be relevant to the needs of adult learners, however
(Bradley et al, 1994, p.236), and it is important to make the distinction between staff
development for education and for training. They argue that there is a strong case for in-
service education rather than training, and that there is a place for training activities to
seek improvements in specific skills and competencies, but relatively surface matters.
Training can create dependency and teachers may end up being told what to do instead of
finding their own solutions. Training is of limited value and can be severely limiting on
teachers’ development.
Information and communication are vital, equal support should be given to non-teaching
staff and participative planning and whole-school review and evaluation will help to
make this work (Nicholls, p. 145). This is vital not only for staff, but also for the
managers as Bullock, James and Jamieson (1995) argue.
38
Attitudes.
Henderson (1975, p.p. 113-116) investigated two courses with 30 and 24 teachers using a
Likert scale which was retested using the product-moment correlation. The main finding
showed that sustained attitude change came from part-time rather than full-time training.
He carried out further research (Henderson, 1976, p.p. 113-116) which involved two case
studies with a postal questionnaire to 317 teachers (29% response) six months after
course completion and interviews. The conclusions were that in-service training has an
important part to play in the innovation process, the collective attitude of the school was
important and that out-of-school training may be more effective than school-based
training.
A more recent piece of research into attitudes by Glover and Law (1993) took a sample
across ten LEAs with 71 school replies, a 31% response rate and no follow-up (to get a
“snapshot”). The school size varied from 270-2150 in northern, southern and midland
counties with both urban and rural locations. The size of staff varied from 28-127. The
survey identified a wide range of funding, a move away from LEA funding, links to the
school development plan and the value of local education authority provision.
Effectiveness.
Joyce and Showers (1980, p.p. 379-85) carried out an analysis of more than 200 studies
on the effectiveness of various kinds of training methods which showed that teachers
were wonderful learners who can fine-tune their competencies and learn a wide range of
new skills. They concluded that an effective means of training was through practising
new skills under simulated conditions, although they found that much of the training
merely involved presenting theory. They came to the conclusion that the most effective
method is a combination of both approaches. Dienye (1987, p.p. 48-51), in a survey of 99
science teachers in Nigeria to look at the effects of INSET using the 1977 Rubba model
(Nature of Scientific Knowledge Scale), demonstrated that training was effective in
improving scientific knowledge.
Halpin, Cross, and Redman (1990, p.p. 163-177) looked at teachers’ perceptions of the
effects of in-service education and used a questionnaire and a literature search. The target
population consisted of primary and secondary school teachers who had attended Higher
Education courses in Avon in the 1987-88 academic year. A postal questionnaire was
39
sent to 364 teachers (with 199 responses). They found that INSET had a great deal of
influence on the day-to-day work in classrooms, teacher attitudes and knowledge levels,
although less on school organisation and policy. They concluded that individually
planned in-service is weak in institution-wide effects.
Managing Staff Development: Roles and Responsibilities.Leadership of staff development is seen as crucial and requires involvement of a variety
of “leaders” from the headteacher downwards. The roles and responsibilities at various
levels of school management are considered in this section.
Leadership and Roles.
Harland, Kinder and Keys (1993) focused on different structures within schools for
managing INSET. They visited 44 schools (22 primary, 22 secondary), both rural and
urban. The secondary schools had between 500-1400 pupils (and 35-90 staff), and the
primary schools between 38-700 pupils (2-25 staff). Two LEAs were chosen for the case
studies and the data were collected by questionnaires, documentary evidence and
interviews. In secondary schools, INSET was generally managed by senior staff and LEA
advice to devolve responsibility to lower status staff was usually ignored. The role was
usually combined with many others and INSET was generally not determined by the
staff. In primary schools the head was usually responsible for deciding INSET in
consultation with other staff. Some schools had committees and there was a wide
variation in provision and emphasis. In the secondary schools, the direct management of
INSET by senior staff meant that advice on the involvement of lower status staff was not
always well received. Managers of INSET carried their responsibilities alongside other
commitments and the INSET experienced by staff was not determined by them in a top-
down structure. In the primary schools structures were less overt, although responsibility
lay with the head, or head and deputy. The INSET role ran alongside competing
responsibilities and time was seen to be a major issue. Most INSET managers referred to
the SDP in secondary schools as the means for identifying needs. In primary schools it
usually referred to the process of whole staff discussion. Information technology and
teaching and learning styles in the secondary school were the main areas focused upon. In
primary schools, specific subject needs, particularly in the core subjects, were mentioned.
40
Glover and Law (1996) reported on an ongoing research project which began in 1993. In
1995 the Keele Effective Educators’ Project (KEEP) consisted of action research in
partner schools using a “critical friend” approach with semi-structured interviews, staff
questionnaires and documentary evidence in twelve comprehensive schools across six
LEAs. In 1994-5 they carried out a survey of one hundred secondary school Ofsted
reports. From them, and from case studies of three schools, they reported a shift from ad
hoc approaches to planning, and from incoherent to coherent planning. Schools were
moving from a training culture to a professional development culture, and from isolated
and individualistic to more integrated and holistic development.
Adey and Jones (1995, p.p. 133-144) carried out an LEA Survey in Hereford and
Worcester of SDCs and their performance. This consisted of 37 middle and 41 high
schools with a 92% return. They found that there was a lack of status for the professional
development co-ordinator and this was a barrier to effective leadership. There was also a
lack of time, a lack of information about appraisal and inadequate knowledge and skills.
Glover and Gleeson (1997) carried out research into middle managers and their
perceptions about their role in a changing context and how well they were suited to the
role. They assessed staff perceptions of the skills of middle managers about their future
professional development. They found that middle managers seek CPD related to
effective teaching by high quality providers with opportunities for reflection for
themselves, enhancement for their departments and a needs analysis system for the
school.
The Role of the Headteacher.
Bradley (1991, p. 109) states that the role of the headteacher is crucial and identifies two
types. The first type consists of those who have provided ideas and decisions and who
often have to change their position radically to establish a climate for staff development
to prosper. The second type consists of heads who see themselves as facilitators to a staff
working as a team of equals. McMahon’s (1996) research revealed that all but one school
had a deputy or senior teacher in charge of CPD. Only one third were given time to
manage CPD and less than half the schools had a professional development group or
committee.
41
The Leadership Role.
Bradley (1991, p.p. 109-110) goes on to suggest that the leader should clarify
communication procedures; seek the approval and commitment of all concerned; work
from a basis of fact, not opinion or emotion; enhance the ways staff work as a group;
broaden the base of decision-making within the group; agree a plan for dealing with
problem-solving before problems arise and build in plans from the beginning for
evaluating progress. Bradley then talks about the process of co-ordination and states that
in small schools the head retains the responsibility, and the problem is to ensure that staff
share ownership of it, but in larger schools there may be a co-ordinator, professional tutor
or similar. Glover and Law’s research (1993) revealed that none of the respondents said
that decisions were made by one individual, and pointed to the importance and heavy
workload of the staff development co-ordinators (SDCs). The majority of schools linked
professional development and the development plan (94%)
Southworth (1997) argues that the role of the deputy head is important:“Monitoring teaching is not a matter of supervision but of professional development. If self- managing schools are to improve they will need to develop the capacity of the school to enhance the teacher’s pedagogy. Involving deputy heads in the monitoring of teaching could enable them to provide professional support and a constructive challenge to colleagues’ pedagogy” (Southworth, 1997, p.25).
Burke (1990) argues that administrative leadership is crucial for programme direction and
success. Administrative leadership should provide structure, continuity, evaluation and
feedback. The leadership should come from a staff development specialist who should
provide a long-range strategy to include academic, fiscal, physical, personnel,
organisational and evaluative concerns (White and Belt, 1980). O’Sullivan et al (1990)
argue that:
• it may be coordinated by one person or a staff development team
• it should address needs (LEA, school, individual teacher, pupil)
• it should be democratic, with ownership of the programme with all staff participating
in the identification and analysis processes
For providers of INSET (Bradley et al, 1994, p. 242) state that.
• INSET is something done with teachers, not to them
• successful INSET work is collaborative between school and provider
• it is interactive and builds on the teacher’s prior knowledge and experience
42
• it must be full of variety and activity, fulfilling the affective and cognitive needs of
teachers
Bradley (1991) suggests that managers need to take responsibility for three aspects:
• staff need to be motivated towards staff development.
• the quality of stafF development activities must be enhanced
• they need to ensure that staff development is an adequate resource for school
development
The importance of leadership is defined by the Teacher Training Agency (July 1997) in
the National Standards for Subject Leaders, Annex, Revised Draft - July 1997 where
subject leaders are expected to “achieve challenging goals, taking responsibility for their
own professional development” (Skills and Attributes, section d)iii, p,7). Subject leaders
are also expected to carry out appraisal, audit training needs, lead professional
development, provide high quality support during induction, and pass on information to
senior staff based on professional development plans.
Staff Development Co-ordinators.
Bolam discusses the successes of the schools and In-service Teacher Education (SITE)
Project (1978-81) and refers to a national evaluation report which recommended that
schools should designate staff development co-ordinators, formulate their own INSET
policy and use school-based methods. Many schools have appointed a specific person to
lead staff or professional development. With the title of staff development co-ordinator,
professional development co-ordinator or similar, it would appear that the person is most
likely to be a member of the senior management team. In this section the issues facing
this role are considered. Oldroyd and Hall refer to roles in the process (1991, p. 130), and
they acknowledge a variety of different methods but stress the importance of one person
officially designated to co-ordinate the process. They identify the challenges for the
person responsible:“The challenge for the person responsible for identifying needs in the school is to help individuals sort out where they are currently in relation to specified knowledge/skills areas and where theywould like to be To be effective, the process needs to be systematic, without losing itsresponsiveness to the context and the individual that it is designed to serve ” (Oldroyd and Hall, 1997, p 134)
Attwell (1994) sees the selection and training of development officers as being crucial,
and although this process slows down change, he sees this as a vital process which
involves support, workshops and mentoring. O’Sullivan et al (1997 p.p. 182-3) see
43
communication and dissemination as two important factors in the staff development
process. They stress the problems of good communication and see the SDC as having two
important tasks, obtaining information and disseminating it. Bradley (1991, p. 110)
defines the role of the co-ordinator which should involve:
• the facilitation and co-ordination of groups charged with needs identification
• planning and implementation of staff development
• liaison between senior management and staff
• the distribution of information about staff development opportunities arriving from
outside the school
• the transmission of the school’s own needs to external sources of support
Bradley also states how some schools have set up a staff development group or
committee. A clear definition of roles is of paramount importance. Adey and Jones
(1997) acknowledge the importance of the role, but stress that the responsibility for staff
development lies with the senior management and middle management. They carried out
a survey in Hereford and Worcester LEA in 1995 with all the middle and high schools
and found that the Professional Development Co-ordinators played a major part in the
staff and school development planning processes. Oldroyd and Hall (1991) identify eight
roles of the SDC as:
• counsellor
• motivator
• innovator
• mentor
• monitor
• evaluator
• administrator
• facilitator
Lack of time was another major issue. 96% of respondents were members of the senior
management team and cited lack of time as a major obstacle. The lack of information
from appraisal about individual staff needs was seen as a problem, as was the inadequate
knowledge and skills of SDC. The inadequate knowledge and skills of middle managers
was also identified and the development of budgeting and financial skills seen as crucial.
They concluded that the training needs for SDC’s and middle managers had been44
highlighted, the most pressing of which was in the area of budget and financial planning.
The appraisal processes have not provided links with development planning to realise
needs and time is a major issue.
O’Sullivan et al (1997, p. 181) mention Moreland and Withington who advise the
establishment of staff development committees to assist and work with the SDC in
organising and coordinating staff development. The SDC should be able to help staff to:
• learn and develop
• solve performance problems
• anticipate needs, problems
• formulate policies and action plans
The SDC needs support from the head and colleagues to succeed with a curriculum-led
staff development, a publicly agreed policy, procedures for deciding priorities and
institutional support for the role of staff developer. Bradley (1991) quotes the schools
involved in the Support for Innovation Project (1989) which suggested the following
arguments for involving a committee of staff in the process.“Whatever the structure used to manage staff development in a school, we should never lose sight of the fact that staff development is much more than simply enabling people to extend their knowledge. Changes in behaviour are involved and such changes often require modification of attitude or values. These are delicate and time-consuming processes.” (Bradley, 1991, p. 111)
It can be seen that the opportunities for leadership are considerable and go far beyond the
control of one or two individuals in the organisation. With time and motivation, the
greatest opportunities would appear to be with the combination of professional
development co-ordinator and the staff development committee, which would cover a
wide range of roles within the organisation and allow for more collaborative decision
making.
Some Practical Considerations: Developing the Role of the Staff Development Co-ordinator.
A major issue for the overseas school is to consider the appointment of a member of staff
to take on the role of staff development officer/co-ordinator or professional development
co-ordinator. As this is a major theme of the study it is considered appropriate to present
a range of practical and theoretical material.
45
The Staff Development Co-ordinator.
According to the Hereford and Worcester handbook, the staff development co-ordinator
(SDC) is a key post in every school which included responsibility for the introduction of
the school development plan. They argue that the SDC should either be a senior member
of staff, or have good access to them in a negotiated role where the qualities, skills and
experiences are varied. In Scotland, Fife Region (1995) suggested that the role of SDC
could be appropriate for the “depute”, or assistant headteacher, in larger schools, or the
headteacher in smaller schools, and they state that there should be a “Co-ordination
Group” with the co-ordinator providing the necessary links between staff, the group and
management. In Fig.2.6 the suggested role of the staff development co-ordinator is
outlined.
Fig. 2.6 Suggested roles of the SDC: approaches from two LEAs.
Hereford and Worcester, 1991, 2.1 Fife Region, Welsh, 1995, p.78• The brief to coordinate and write an agreed
staff development policy• Lead whole staff meetings related to
INSET and staff development• Lead a staff development committee, if
appropriate• Be responsible for, and/or assist with the
planning and organisation of the INSET programme and organise, coordinate and lead training days
• Encourage and support self-evaluation as a strategy for assessing the effectiveness of staff development on teaching and learning
• Liaise with other schools and groups to arrange activities where appropriate
• Be involved in the co-ordination of the school development plan
• Supply information to staff about internal, local and external courses and give advice to groups or individuals as required
• Ensure that new and supply staff are given appropriate support
• Provide details required for the management of the school budget
• Ensure that appropriate records and claims are maintained and processed
• Evaluate the process
• Responsibility for creating a structure for the provision of INSET
• Promote a positive approach towards INSET and encourage a climate in which it can take place
• Identify training needs of individual teachers, departments and the school as a whole, and assist in prioritising
• Facilitate the preparation of an annual staff development programme
• Initiate, plan, coordinate and provide appropriate in-house staff training (formal and informal)
• Advise teachers and managers or relevant local or external staff development activities
• Keep staff informed of INSET opportunities, and encourage them to make use of them
• Monitor in-house staff development activities, and monitor the progress of staff on external programmes
• Maintain records relating to resource allocation, expenditure, data necessary for monitoring outcomes of activities etc.
• Supply monitoring, evaluation and accounting information as and when required
• Assist in the setting up and running of a Staff Development centre or resource base
• Plan the use of professional development days
• Ensure appropriate support and supervision of all new staff
46
The Fife documentation goes on to consider the effectiveness of the staff development
programme which could be monitored and evaluated through the match between planned
activities and school priorities; the range of activities and providers; the provision of
space for additional activities and the meeting of individual and career needs. In addition
the quality of staff development activities, the impact of staff development activities on
the quality of teaching and learning and the staff time required to prepare for and
participate in the range of staff development activities need to be considered. Other
effectiveness indicators are the availability of appropriate supply cover; the allocation of
funds for travel expenses, course fees, staff development consumables and equipment;
the wide range of options available for meeting staff needs; the need to identify the
resources and support systems available (e.g. individual and departmental expertise,
flexible learning packages, software, mentoring roles); the importance of targeting
resources and support appropriately and the need to disseminate knowledge and ensure
ease of access to support (Welsh, 1995, p. 86).
Setting the Standards for the SDC
The TTA standards establish five areas for training and development:
• identify training and development needs
• plan and design training and development
• deliver training and development
• review progress and assess achievement
• continuously improve the effectiveness of training and development
Based on these standards, Baxter and Chambers (1998, p.81) have drawn up a job
description identifying key tasks across the five areas of competence.
Job Description: Staff Development Co-ordinator.Purpose
To manage the school’s staff development processes in accordance with the staff
development policy to ensure that these processes contribute to the school’s learning
culture and the performance of pupils.
Objectives
• To ensure that all staff have opportunities to gain the skills and attributes needed for
the school to achieve its development goals47
• To ensure that staff development benefits both individuals and the school
• To ensure that all training and development resources are used efficiently and
effectively
• To ensure that principles of effective adult learning are incorporated into all staff
development processes, systems and procedures
Fig.2.7 Proposed Job description for the staff development co-ordinator.
Major responsibility areas Key tasksIdentification of the school’s training needs
• To identify school training and development needs in the context of the school development plan
• To assure the identification of individual development needs in accordance with the staff development policy and procedures
Planning to meet those needs
• To compile the school’s training and development plan.
• To determine resource needs• Allocate resources in accordance with the staff
development policySecuring provision for staff learning
• To coordinate the provision of training in accordance with effective learning principles and to assist others in this task
• To support and advise other m anagers in their staff development plan
Reviewing progress and results
• To promote the monitoring and assessm ent of staff learning and performance, ensuring that such activities are used to steer development and enhance performance
• To collect information on performance and to assist other m anagers in this task, so a s to contribute to evaluation
Continually improving the effectiveness of the school’s training and development actions
• To evaluate and improve the school’s training and development programmes
• To evaluate and improve the school’s training and development processes
• To evaluate and seek to improve own practice a s a staff development m anager
Adapted from Baxter and Chaml ?ers (1998, p.81)
“Taking professional development seriously in schools through the use of national standards and qualifications gives reality to the concept of staff as models of lifelong learners and schools as the seed beds of a learning society” (Baxter and Chambers, 1998, p. 83)
Baxter and Chambers make the valid point that although professional development is
valid for its own sake, if it is to be seen as a means to raising pupil achievement:“ . . .the development of staff must be closely integrated with the development of the school: that is, staff development must be planned hand in hand with school development and evaluated in terms of its impact in the classroom and on pupil performance.” (1998, p. 82)
48
Culture, Collaboration and Reflective Practice.The Importance of a Collaborative Culture.
Having the culture which is genuinely conducive to collaboration and reflective practice
is considered to be important for effective staff development to take place. Middlewood
(1997, p. 187) refers to the importance of a culture of development which should be
inclusive rather than exclusive. He argues that staff have development needs which are
national, institutional, departmental or sectional and individual. Bradley et al (1994)
identify a number of conclusions in relation to schools, providers and policy-makers.
They consider that the lessons for schools are that (Bradley et al, 1994, p.p. 241-2) there
must be an encouraging climate; there will always be the need to work on developing the
organisation and it is better to see INSET embedded within the development, rather than
as a preliminary. This was identified by Oldroyd et al (1984) who talk of the importance
of creating a climate for staff development in which the senior staff play an active role:“Unless the more senior members of staff demonstrate their willingness to continue developing their professional skills there is little likelihood that the climate for others to do so will be propitious. Equally, if a headteacher is indifferent to staff development initiatives they will have less chance of taking root.” (Oldroyd et al, 1984, p. 16).
Quoting the work of Schon on reflective practice, Caldwell and Spinks (1992, p.pl36-7)
see that it is important for a culture to exist which allows for this. They conclude by
identifying ten guidelines for educational leadership, with the following identifiable as
being connected with staff development:
• There should be system-wide professional development
• There should be professional development programmes for teachers, parents, students
simultaneously if possible
• Professional development programmes which focus on knowledge and skills
acquisition are necessary
• Award-based programmes in universities are also desirable
Bradley et al (1994) go on to argue that the school needs to develop systematically a
cadre of reflective practitioners and evolve ways of using their skills for the further
development of the school.
Osterman and Kottkamp (1994, p.46) consider reflective practice as a professional
development process and refer to Schon (1983) who argues that reflective practice is
located within the older tradition of experiential learning.“Reflective practice assumes a holistic approach to learning. Beginning with individual behaviour, anything related to it becomes part of the process. At the very least, this includes the individual’s
49
background and cultural context In reflective practice, however, the intent is to enable theindividual to develop competence.” (Osterman and Kottkamp, 1994, p. 56)
Conner quotes Williams (1991) who sees in-service training as largely inadequate
because it is not reflective:“It is concerned more with a basic level of coping than with a more mature, reflective stance. As such it is episodic in character, lacking any sequential structure or provision for incremental growth.” (quoted in Conner, 1994, p.52)
Efficient and Effective Staff Development.
Bradley et al (1994, p.238) raise the distinction between efficient and effective INSET
and conclude that INSET may be efficient but not often effective. Effectiveness is clearly
the goal, although they do raise important considerations. Effectiveness takes time to
achieve, it is both emotional and cognitive, it relies on collaboration and support and
effective INSET is not about the delivery model, with teachers as passive recipients, but
should lead to teacher development and action in schools. Therefore designers of INSET
should be reflective practitioners. To achieve this, Bradley et al (1994, p.p.239-41) argue
that schools need to avoid being overly reactive, staff need to be encouraged to develop
and contribute constructively to change and reflective practice needs to be collaborative.
Hargreaves and Hopkins (1991, p.26) see collaboration as one of the most important
factors behind effective development planning, and consider that this means:“ devising a staff development policy that links individual professional development toinstitutional development”
Halsall (1998) mentions Moore’s (1988) suggested guidelines which involve a
collaborative approach, using teachers own experiences, encouraging and enabling staff
to define their own learning objectives, developing the skills of critical, reflective
thinking and integrating learning with action. Aspinwall (1996) places an emphasis on
collaborative learning and the creative and positive use of difference and conflict, an
holistic understanding of the school as an organisation and strong connections and
relationships with the community and world outside the school. This theme is echoed by
Burke (1990) who argues that schools and universities must collaborate to ensure
continued professional growth. Once a programme is devised, it is important that the staff
can consult. Sweetman (1997(6), p3) suggests that the development of a programme for
staff development is likely to identify the uninterested staff, and can create problems with
ambitious individuals or departments. Hargreaves and Hopkins (1991, p. 122) quote the
50
work of Joyce and Showers (1988) who show that collaborative staff development
strategies in the USA were a factor in classroom improvements.
Bradley et al (1994, p.p. 236-7) identify three factors which need to be recognised if
teacher development is to lead to school improvement:
• school improvement is a long journey
• there are no quick fixes
• the conditions of the school are vital. Staff need to work together and the culture of
the school must be conducive to collaborative growth and foster professional
learning: only then will the school be considered to be a learning organisation“One of our goals should be to create schools which are learning organisations, that is, they are communities in which adults and pupils alike are learners.” (Bradley et al, 1994, p.237)
Although he supports the importance of collaboration, on the other hand Hargreaves
(1995) identifies the following critiques because it can:
• be superficial
• lack purpose and direction
• avoid the more controversial issues
• be comfortable and complacent, rather than challenge existing practice.
• be conformist and suppress individuality, and
• be contrived and controlled to make it unproductive, especially if it is made into an
administrative device
• be used as a ruse for compliance to reforms decided by others (Hargreaves, 1995, p.p.
149-155).
However, as Nias et al (1989) found, collaborative cultures were most effective in
promoting genuine change, and Day et al (1985) make the point that effective staff
development occurs when the teacher develops (an active and developmental process)
and not the teacher who is developed (a passive process in which the teacher receives
training or information). Gray and Wilcox (1995) mention the literature on culture and
school improvement and refer to Fullan (1992), Hargreaves (1992) and Brighouse (1991)
who promote the idea of collaboration amongst staff to build greater staff commitment
and new approaches to staff development.
51
Constraints on Collaborative Cultures.
Middlewood identifies two major problems related to collaboration: (1997, p.p. 198-9).
• Balkanisation; where sub-units are committed to development as teams, but not as an
institution
• Contrived collegiality; where systems are in place, but there is no ownership by
individuals on training
He argues for the fully collaborative culture identified by Drucker (1988) where
development is explicit with clear and explicit organisational values, development is
informed by the integration of theory and practice and a belief in continuous
improvement, not only of the individual but also the organisation. The cultural shifts
cannot be forced, and the role of staff development managers should be as facilitators and
managers need to have a good understanding of how adults learn, reconceptualise and
implement.
Individual and Institutional DevelopmentOne of the biggest potential conflicts is that of individual against institutional needs, and
unless this can be resolved it is unlikely that the individual will be motivated to pursue
institutional improvement initiatives. Similarly it is unlikely in this self-managing climate
that the institution can afford to finance personal professional staff development unless it
has an institutional outcome.
O’Sullivan et al (1997, p. 179) make distinctions between personal professional
development and staff development by stressing the importance of the teacher adhering to
the corporate ethos while holding differing individual views.“The teacher, as a loyal member of staff, may hold different values to the teacher as an individual, that is not to say that the individual’s values and requirements are any less important than those prioritised by the staff at the school as a whole” (1997, p. 179).
As Kelly (1997) states, a school can only succeed when individuals within it succeed.
Nicholls (1994) argues that individual and organizational development should co-exist:“Although individual development may not necessarily have tangible outcomes for the organization, a developing individual is likely to make a richer contribution to it. Conversely, organizational development will only happen if individuals within it are developing. Professional development and organizational effectiveness are then inextricably linked” (Kydd et al, 1997, p.p. 1-2 )
Bradley (1991) takes the issue further and points to the importance of strategic planning
in staff development:
52
“If we are to progress beyond the present ad hoc arrangements for staff development, the benefits of which are also inevitably ad hoc, schools need to work out ways of helping individuals to identify accurately their own needs” (Bradley, 1991, p. 5)
Bradley emphasises the importance of establishing individual and school needs
accurately and considers the problem of reconciling the two:“There is a good chance that, as individuals become used to taking part in the development of school priorities, they will begin to formulate their own needs in ways that complement the needs of the school and grow out of them.” (Bradley, 1991, p. 7)
McMullen (1991) states that staff development should increase the quality of pupil
learning by the development of staff potential. She mentions Femstermacher and Berliner
(1985) who regard staff development as being not only about the individual, but also
about the school as a whole; and Drummond (1986) who argues that professional
development should embrace personal development and staff development. Waters
(1997) disagrees, considering that the individual should come first and argues that:“More than almost anything else, teachers need to be given the opportunity to develop themselves on a personal level. Everyone would benefit, from the teachers themselves to the schools and pupils” (Waters, 1997, p.27)
Waters makes the important distinction between personal and professional development.
By professional development he states that this is mainly about role development
(enhancing technical skills and knowledge to help teachers to work more effectively),
whereas personal development is more about the whole person. He claims that much of
what appears to be personal development is in reality professional development. Waters
illustrates the current vogue for personal development in industry, although it is easy to
see this cynically to mean individual development in line with the company’s own
agenda for development. He believes that professional development can be supported and
underpinned by personal development.“No two teachers have identical sets of development needs, but there is a sufficient amount of things in common to make personal development for teachers as part of a school’s in-service training programme both viable and valuable. A programme that reaches the parts that most education in-service training doesn’t reach is long overdue” (Waters, 1997, p.27)
Middlewood makes the connection between individual and institutional development:“In effect, individual development will lead to institutional development, whilst the improving conditions within a school or college will become the catalyst for further individual development.” (Middlewood, 1997, p. 188)
The connection between individual and institutional development is made strongly by
Hargreaves and Hopkins (1991, p.p. 138-9) and they criticise previous policy “that has
tended to focus on the professional development of individual teachers attending INSET
53
courses by choice”. They identify the following weaknesses of this approach where staff
receive inadequate advice on their professional development, INSET is decided by
individual choice, and is therefore inconsistent, school needs are not necessarily met,
most INSET takes place outside school and the outcomes are not necessarily shared. To
avoid this, Bradley et al identify two main features (1994, p.244):
• School development and teacher development are seen as shared activities, performed
in partnership and with jointly agreed goals
• There needs to be a belief that to bring about change we must work simultaneously on
the innovation and the school’s organisation, and the most effective way to help
schools develop is by helping teachers to develop
In terms of content, Nicholls considers that staff development falls into two main areas;
in-house needs (e.g. support, legislation, curriculum areas) and externally imposed factors
such as appraisal and professional review. Finance is a vital consideration:“Budgetary considerations have a vital part to play in ensuring that staff are satisfied with any proposals for professional development” (Nicholls, 1994, p. 144)
Hargreaves and Hopkins (1991) argue that development planning focuses on school
needs and related professional development requirements. Appraisal can link individual
and school needs and every teacher is seen to have a right to professional development,
and there is a more equitable distribution of INSET. The knowledge and skills acquired
through INSET on agreed topics are put to immediate use in the interest of the school and
staff should have a framework for disseminating their knowledge and skill.
Needs Identification.
Oldroyd and Hall (1991, p. 145) identify a range of sources for deciding needs which
should include a School staff development policy; the school curriculum development
plan; the school organisation development plan; the school equal opportunities policy and
funding. Middlewood refers to Bush (1995) who identifies four levels of need within
larger organisations. As well as individual and institutional needs, it is necessary to
identify the needs of ‘sub-units’ (faculties, departments, divisions) and groups in the
external environment (the National Curriculum, or national training of headteachers).
Oldroyd and Hall (1992) argue about the importance of needs identification:
54
“Needs identification and prioritisation are the foundation stones of an effective staff development programme. Needs identification is a process that should be handled sensitively, efficiently but not mechanically” (Oldroyd and Hall ,1991, p. 130).
They go on to identify the different interest groups, the providers and the beneficiaries
and this idea of a compromise between the two positions suggests the importance of
needs identification as a shared task which is neither “top down” or “bottom up”:“Identifying needs is a shared task between those responsible for managing staff development in the school and those who will benefit from the staff development programme that results” (Oldroyd and Hall ,1991 p. 130).
O’Sullivan et al (1990) argue that needs should be school-focused, related directly to
pupils through curriculum development or indirectly through staff or management
effectiveness, and conflicts between individual and school needs should be avoided.
Clarification of procedures is important from the outset.
Thus there is a potential conflict of interests between the individual on a personal and
professional level, and the needs of the institution, and a compromise needs to be found
in which the interests of both individual and institution are served.
Other Staff Development Issues: Effective Schools, Change, School Development Planning and Quality.A range of other issues are considered in this section which focus on change in staff
development theory and practice. Hargreaves (1995) is clear about the changing
orientation of staff development and how it has encompassed a new purpose which
recognises the importance of teachers:“From being at the periphery of change efforts, professional development is increasingly viewed as vital to restructuring and reform.” (Hargreaves, 1995, p. 149).
In this section, other issues relating to staff development are considered. Hargreaves cites
the division over the form professional development should take:“Generally, professional development literature derides short ‘one-shot deal’ in-service workshops that simply raise teachers’ awareness about new initiatives or expose them to new programmes or skills, on the grounds that absence of follow-up, further training or support minimizes the chances of initial or sustained impact, 1 et alone o f integrating newly learned skills into teachers’ existing repertoires” (Hargreaves, 1995, p. 149)
Effective Schools.
Effective schools and effective staff development are a primary goal. One method which
is mentioned by Southworth (1998, p. 29) concerns the work of the Improving the Quality
55
of Education for All Project (IQEA) at the University of Cambridge which identifies six
conditions that schools have to create to achieve their goals:
• enquiry
• reflection
• collaborative planning
• involvement of staff, pupils and governors, staff development
• co-ordination
• leadership
Stevenson (1987, p.246) found two main principles of effective staff development:
• Staff development activities should be collaboratively planned and organized by a
critical mass of a school’s staff
• Technical and psychological support, on an ongoing basis, is necessary for all types
of programmes
Another example of criteria for school effectiveness is provided by Glover and Law
(1996), adapted from the NCE, 1993. This should consist of:
• strong, positive leadership
• a good atmosphere and ethos
• shared aims
• a good environment
• high and consistent expectations
• a clear focus on teaching and learning
• well-developed procedures for assessing and monitoring
• pupils share in the responsibility for learning
• participation by students in the life of the institution
• rewards and incentives which encourage students to succeed
• wider parental and community involvement
(summarised in Glover and Law, 1996, p.22).
Joyce et al (1993) consider that there is a need to target staff development:“ . ..since it is unlikely that developments in student learning will occur without developments in teachers’ practice; and monitor the impact of policy on practice early and regularly, rather than rely on ‘post-hoc’ evaluation.” (Hopkins et al, 1994, p.268)
56
School Development Planning and Staff Development
Hargreaves and Hopkins (1991, p. 7) consider that there is an important link between
development planning and staff development:“In-service training and appraisal help the school to work more effectively and help teachers to acquire new knowledge and skills as part of their professional development.”
On the same theme, McGilchrist et al (1997) found that:“A programme of professional development directly linked to the implementation of the plan was found to be characteristic of the most effective types of plans. The inservice training programme needs to serve at least two purposes and to take a variety of forms. The development of knowledge and skills in relation to the priorities for improvement is important and will require attendance at school-based off-site workshops and courses.” (McGilchrist etal, 1997, p.241)
McMahon’s (1996) research highlighted the connection between staff development and
the school development plan when they found that two-thirds of the respondents used the
SDP to identify needs and one third used information from individual appraisals. The
main criterion for establishing needs and priorities for CPD was the need to improve the
overall quality of teaching, not teachers’ specific needs.
Caldwell and Spinks (1992) argue for the importance of the system-based approach to
staff development and consider that system-initiated professional development is an
important part of school management.“We see a place for system-wide initiatives in professional development programs, despite the trend to self management.” (Caldwell and Spinks, 1992, p. 121)
Part of this system-wide approach can be seen with the introduction of different external
agencies. From 1993-1996 Glover and Law carried out ongoing research with schools in
Britain to examine CPD policies and practice. Their findings show changes in the
provision of professional development. They point out the significance of OFSTED, the
consultancy market and the more central position of schools to the management of
professional development. Part of their research involved an analysis of OFSTED
inspection reports and their findings are interesting:“We have identified a general pattern of support within OFSTED reports for those schools whose professional development planning and implementation strategies grow out of school development planning, and of less favourable comment where this link is not maintained or where appraisal is inadequate or not used as a starting point for planning individual development opportunities. OFSTED reports also stress the importance of the evaluation of CPD and the need for a continuing assessment of the impact which CPD has on the quality of teaching and learning within institutions” (Glover and Law, 1996, p. 3)
Blenkin, Edwards and Kelly (1997) introduce another consideration when they point out
the importance of the link between successful change and professional development:
57
“It is now widely recognized that the success of curriculum innovation, whether internally or externally initiated, is contingent upon the professional development of teachers. (Blenkin et al, 1997, p.223)
They do point out that this has been understood more on an institutional than on an
individual level.“ change is contingent upon the professional development of individual practitioners carriedout within the context of their wider psychological needs; their hopes, fears, aspirations, etc. The success of an innovation is dependent upon the material and psychological support that individuals and groups are given in constructing new sets of meaning. Innovation is synonymous with learning, and learning is often a painful process.” (Blenkin et al, 1997, p.225)
On the subject of INSET and change, Bradley, Conner and Southworth (1994) make the
point that INSET does not necessarily change teachers. They found that if teachers play a
part in establishing priorities it can make an impact;“We know now that INSET does not necessarily change teachers; that individual teachers, or even groups of teachers, find it hard to bring about change in their teachers. There is in this situation the potential for a 'Bermuda triangle’ in which INSET effort repeatedly disappears without trace.(Bradley et al, 1994, p.234)
They identify a number of contextual factors. If teachers play a significant part in setting
priorities, the chance of INSET bringing about change is increased; the amount of control
the staff feel about the change process is significant, as is the support of staff for the
change since organisational conditions must be considered, and past experience of change
should also be considered (Bradley et al., 1994, p.p.234-5).
In terms of methodology, Bradley et al (1994) argue that INSET activities should be
learner-centred, where the learner sees the activities as appropriate; successful INSET
activities are almost always social and collaborative, they work well when focused on a
school need, preparation is important, they need the commitment of senior staff and
follow-up. The outcome expectation is of a change in school practice which should be
embedded in a widely-embracing strategy for development which includes researching
and learning from the teacher’s everyday experience (Bradley et al, 1994, p.235).
Quality and Staff Development
Quality and staff development is a well-documented topic, particularly with the human
resources focus of the Investors in People accreditation. West (1994) reports on the
“Improving the Quality of Education for AH” (IQEA) project which was carried at
Thurston Upper School in 1992. He presents features of effective staff development
(1994, p. 151) which should start where the teacher is (building rather than a deficit
approach) with a recognition that teachers recognise they can do and learn on the job;
feedback should be available; individual learning in practical settings should be related58
to concepts and ideas which facilitate generalisation, and the best staff development
opportunities relate to activities which teachers find meaningful and satisfying.
In the process of TQM, Murgatroyd and Morgan identify professional development
activities as Phase 5: Invest and Recognise (1994, p. 199). They see professional
development activities as opportunities to enhance skills and focus energies within the
organization. Staff development could involve the following; talking and working as a
staff within the school; visits to other locations which operate TQM and the school
should have a staff development programme developed by teams and the top team
working in collaboration. The plan should focus on staff needs in terms of skills and ideas
to aid the school achieve its vision over a 3-5 year period.“The key to success is commitment, communication and the development of a culture dedicated to making vision a reality through actively pursuing a focused strategy dedicated to meeting and exceeding customer needs.” (Murgatroyd and Morgan, 1994, p.201)
Knight (1997) revisits Deming’s 14 Points, (p. 104) and suggest that a number are still
relevant to staff development; 6. Institute training on the job and 13. Institute a vigorous
programme of education and self-improvement. He argues that:“. . .it should be an explicit part of the school’s development to draw up a coherent approach to staff training and development which balances the institutional needs with the aspirations and needs of individuals, eg for refreshment, new skills or career enhancement.” (Knight, 1997, p. 109)
Button reports on the rationale behind adopting the IIP model for staff development. As
she states:“We were seduced .... by their horticultural model for encouraging growth” (Button, 1996, p. 10).
This model which shows the growing benefits from staff development shows the earth as
a learning culture, the bulb as the training and development activities and its growth the
result of enhanced knowledge and skills. The watering can represents ongoing support
and nurturing and the leaves evaluation and application on the job. Enhanced pupil
performance is manifested in the blooms.
Boyle (1997) stresses the rigour required in working towards the IIP accreditation,
although is clear about the benefits:“Eighteen months on we believe that IIP has given us an invaluable structure which supports our planning and review and ensures that all our training and development activity is firmly linked to the school’s SDP” (Boyle, 1997, p.32)
59
She notes the following additional benefits have been an improved educational
environment for pupils; improved communication; the breaking down of traditional
barriers; a greater sense of being valued; improved value for money and excellent Ofsted
preparation.
Whether it is through a quality based approach, or any other, the writers are unanimous
in their emphasis on development rather than on training. Many of their solutions and
suggestions are simple and obvious and involve more of an investment of time than
funding, as well as informed and inspirational leadership. The assumption that the means
to effective staff development involves expensive “quick fix” solutions, or the allocation
of funding to staff on long-term courses is clearly no longer relevant.
Practical Considerations: Examples from Two British schools.
It is useful to consider some examples of staff development from two schools in southern
England. The information on staff development was collected through the author’s
research (Lewis 1996) into school development planning (MBA Dissertation, Leicester
University). The two schools in London and Bedfordshire which were identified from a
sample drawn from the School Improvement Network (SIN) based at the Institute of
Education, University of London supplied documentation in support of a questionnaire
response, and the relevant sections on staff development have been condensed to provide
a practical framework as a point of reference.
School A, a rural community comprehensive school, provided a copy of the school
development plan (1996-8) and strategic five year plan, and the school is part of the
Improving the Quality of Education (IQEA) school improvement project based at the
University of Cambridge Institute of Education. The SDP aimed to make a close
connection with staff development and stated its collaborative nature and collective
responsibility. One of the stated shared values was “to maintain continuous professional
development”, and this was established as a priority in the strategic plan of the governing
body. In addition to the stated pupil aims, the school exists “to provide a stimulating and
motivational environment ... where all staff, teaching and non-teaching, can find
enrichment, maximising their individual potential and development expertise”. In the
SDP they aimed over a five year period to establish a “lifelong teacher learning” culture
through research, appraisal, SCITT (School Centred Initial Teacher Training) and other
forms of ITT (Initial Teacher Training) and to make the school a centre for adult learning60
“analagous to a teaching hospital, or to the concept quoted in the IQEA section: ‘a school
for students and a university for staff”.
School B, an inner city 11-16 girls school in a low income, multi-cultural part of London,
provided a copy of the 1996-2001 Strategic Plan. The school recognised the value of staff
as reflective practitioners. “By investing time and resources into a coherent staff
development programme, we will encourage individuals and teams to plan their personal
and professional development ...... Learning is a life-long activity and we wish to
celebrate staff achievement both inside and outside the classroom. Our belief in a love of
learning for all drives our commitment to continued development for staff.” (p. 11) The
elements of staff development were:
• the creation of a clear line management structure
• annually reviewed job descriptions with salary assessments
• a comprehensive staff handbook
• a staff development and training policy, with the school supplementing the GEST
budget to ensure that needs are met
• INSET planning is an integral part of action planning
• a programme to support NQTs (newly qualified teachers)
• the development of the school as a training institution with higher education links
• action research for staff and school learning
• national and international teacher exchanges
• teams and support
• record keeping and profiling of staffing needs annually
• staff training and development, celebrating external achievements and training staff
for the 21st century
The Overseas DimensionMany of the initiatives in Britain have been influenced by writing and practice in other
countries, particularly in Australia, the USA and Canada. All systems have their own
solutions which will be reflected by the level of funding, expertise and concern about this
area. It has already been seen that even within a sample of school types in England there
is a wide disparity of funding (Glover and Law, 1993). When considering a sample of
61
overseas schools world-wide, it would be impossible to consider the specific contexts and
influences of individual schools.
In general terms, Glover and Law (1996, p.25) identify the international concerns over
the last decade about educational standards and teacher quality and see them expressed as
concerns about student achievement, how far the system and teachers meet individual
needs and how far the system delivers results to match economic imperatives. As they
point out:“Education is, more than ever, increasingly viewed by governments as central to economic successin a highly competitive, international environment” (Glover and Law, 1996, p.25)
They identify the following areas of concern; the management of education, the nature of
teacher training and the impact of professional development on classroom success. Led
by the USA from the 1960’s, educational reform took place with more broadly based
compulsory education systems in a number of Western countries; post-compulsory
provision was expanded; there was a higher school leaving age and a greater focus on
equality of opportunity. Neave (1992, in Glover and Law, 1996, p.26) identifies the
relationship between industrial decline, economic constraints and educational reform.
This has had an impact on in-service provision as noted by Pepin (1995, in Glover and
Law 1996, p.26), with a revised concept of the role of INSET with an emphasis on
lifelong learning and continuing development.
In the USA and Canada, there has been a focus by conservatives on accountability as in
England and Wales. In Australia, there was an emphasis in the 1980’s to link education
more closely with business and vocational needs, identifying the “clever country” in an
“education industry” (Knight et al, 1991). Government initiatives such as “Teachers
Learning: Improving Australian schools through in-service teacher training and
development” (DEET 1988) illustrate the changing commitment. In European Union
(EU) and European Free Trade Area (EFTA) countries, Pepin’s (1995) study stresses a
growing consensus over the objectives of in-service training to meet teacher’s personal
and professional development, to improve the quality of education through a focus on
teaching, curriculum and organisation and to enhance teacher knowledge and
understanding of the “social and environmental milieu” (Glover and Law, 1996, p.26).
62
The British overseas school faces many different challenges to schools in Britain. Some
of these are identified by Findley (1997) who gives advice to prospective parents of
pupils at international schools and suggests the following factors for consideration for
judging the quality of a school in relation to the teaching staff; the qualifications and
training of teachers; stability of the teaching staff and staff turnover; the question of
overseas or local contract staff which is a major financial issue, school has problems with
local staff (available pool may not be suitable, partner may leave suddenly); teacher
appraisal systems and school inspection and accreditation. He states that in-service
training is vital for teachers not to lose touch with developments, although it can be
expensive:“However, what is more important than the cost of the programmes is the fact that the school has addressed the issue of in-service education and does have programmes for professional development in place.” (Findlay, 1997, p.l 1)
Findlay identifies the following categories of INSET (1997, p.l 1);
• school-based using professional skills from within
• school-based using professional skills brought in from overseas
• locally-based with professional skills from other schools/colleges
• locally-based with professional skills brought in from overseas
• overseas-based with generic opportunities for training in the home country or in a
third country
• overseas-based, tailoring courses in the home country to fit needs of school
The means by which the schools are in a position to address these issues will depend to a
large extent on the factors behind successful and effective staff development which have
been identified by the many writers. The most important conclusion for the British
overseas school must be to first create the culture in which a collaborative, strategically
planned and implemented staff development programme can exist. This has more to do
with attitude than funding, and this may require a certain level of awareness and
commitment, and perhaps retraining, by senior managers in the schools if they are going
to attract and retain staff in their schools, as well as improve the quality of teaching and
learning.
63
Summary: The Main Points Arising from the Literature Review.
There are many issues to be considered for schools in Britain in relation to staff
development, many of which are influenced by government policy. The British overseas
school is in the position of being able to make choices about the degree to which British
practice is adopted.
The writers referred to the changes in emphasis in staff development during the 1980’s
and 1990’s which can be summarised as a move ffom a training culture to one with a
sharper developmental focus. This has been characterised by more institutionally based
staff development with an emphasis on institutional rather than individual development,
as well as increased governmental intervention and control.
A problematic area is the one of definition, and the terms in-service training, staff
development, professional and continuing professional development have often been used
interchangeably. There are two identifiable emphases which can be summarised as staff
development which has a reactive training function, and the more proactive concept of
staff development which encompasses broader and more long-term issues.
The importance of the creation of a culture which is conducive to genuine collaboration
with shared aims is stressed, and that such a culture should be manifested in staff
development policies and strategic planning which is linked to school development
planning. Planning is vital and should follow a coherent series of stages, although it was
found that many schools did not do this. Linked to the strategic planning should be the
provision of adequate funding, although this was found to be variable. Staff development
planning could also be linked to appraisal, and should involve proper evaluation and
monitoring.
Instead of “quick fixes”, a school should be looking to long-term development and should
see itself as a learning organization which recognises teacher education as a life-long
process. This might involve the use of staff as internal consultants, or teachers as
researchers. It might also involve the use of award-bearing courses by schools. In this
way individual and institutional needs can be met simultaneously.
64
The purposes of staff development should be clearly stated, relate to organisational
improvement and respond to changes, as well as enhance professional competence and
staff motivation. In order to achieve its aims, strong and visionary leadership is essential,
and the crucial role of the headteacher was stressed. Also mentioned were the problems
of staff development leadership being combined with a conflicting series of
responsibilities at senior management level which made it difficult for staff development
co-ordinators to give sufficient time to the role, although this role was seen as an
important one.
Changes in Britain in staff development reflect the major system-wide changes in Britain
and in other countries where self-management, accountability and strategic planning have
forced schools to approach all aspects of their operation in a far more structured manner.
65
Chapter 3: Research Methods Introduction.
Having presented the main issues relating to staff development from the literature it is
now necessary to consider the research methods used to collect the empirical data. In
order to do this it is first necessary to consider the range of educational research
approaches and tools which are available. This involves the presentation of an overview
of research methods in education, and the specific research approaches and tools
available to the researcher. The second section considers the most appropriate research
methods for the study in the light of this review. In the third section, the specific issues
raised in the design of the research instrument are identified in the context of the
research questions and hypotheses which are restated below:
Fig.3.1 Research questions and hypothesesResearch Questions Hypotheses
• What importance is placed on staff development by British-style overseas schools?
• How is staff development managed in British-style overseas schools?
• How effective is the staff development programme in the school?
• What could be done to improve the staff development programme in the school?
• Staff development programmes are likely to be “bolted on”.
• A wide range of interpretations and systems are likely.
• Staff development is likely to be led by the headmaster or senior management team.
• There are serious financial constraints for schools of this type unless they can share costs and resources.
An Overview of Educational Research Methods.The Nature of Research and Empiricism.Cohen and Manion (1994, p.4) argue that research is one of three ways in which people
search for “truth”. Research is empirical and the scientist turns to experience for
validation. They argue that research is self-correcting:“Not only does the scientific method have built in mechanisms to protect scientists from error as far as is humanly possible, but also the procedures and results are open to public scrutiny by fellow professionals” (Cohen and Manion, 1994, p.4)
They define empiricism by stating that knowledge is the result of experience in relation to
theory which is supported by evidence (i.e. empirical evidence) and they state that:“ the tenability of a theory or hypothesis depends on the nature of empirical evidence for its support” (Cohen and Manion 1994 , p. 13)
Mouly (1978) identifies five steps in the process of empirical science which begins with
experience, followed by classification, quantification, the discovery of relationships and
an approximation of the truth. Empirical research is mainly concerned with the testing of
an hypothesis, or seeking answers to research questions. Cohen and Manion (1994, p. 19)66
go on to refer to an “empirical warrant” which ensures that the method is scientific
enough to ensure replication, and they identify five major stages; definition, observation,
correlational research, manipulation of variables, the establishment of a body of theory
and the formulation of further hypotheses.
The Quantitative and Qualitative Paradigms.
The above terms have come to reflect the two general approaches to research in this area.
A major consideration is to consider whether the overall research design should reflect
the quantitative (positivist or normative) or qualitative (relativist or interpretive)
paradigm, each of which can be subdivided into a wide range of interpretations. As
Johnson (1994, p.6-7) points out, the quantitative research involves the testing of
hypotheses (or, as stated above, seeking answers to research questions) and qualitative
research examines human behaviour:“Quantitative research is interested in aggregating data, most of which are assigned numerical values. It relies on certain accepted categorisations, which enable the making of generalisedstatements Qualitative research, on the other hand, is interested in the complexities ofhuman decision-making and behaviour.”
Cohen and Manion (1994 p.36) identify two major features of the normative paradigm.
The first is that human behaviour is essentially rule-governed, and second that the
positivist approach should be adopted by using the methods of natural science. The
interpretive paradigm on the other hand seeks more of an understanding of the world of
human experience and efforts are made to understand from within by resisting the form
and structure of quantitative approaches. Tesch (1990, p.p.43-51) identifies a range of
approaches such as naturalistic enquiry (Willems and Raush, 1969; Denzin, 1970; Guba,
1978), illuminative evaluation (Parlett and Hamilton, 1972), transcendental realism
(Miles and Huberman, 1984); ethnography (Bogdan and Biklen, 1982), phenomenology,
and phenomenonography (Marton, 1981) and action research.
In relation to behaviour, the normative approach is based on the causes of behaviour
which is rooted in the past, and external environmental stimuli have an effect, whereas
the interpretive approach has a focus on action and shared experience. The normative
approach relies on general theories of human behaviour, whilst the interpretive sees
theory as emergent and must arise from particular situations which is “grounded”
(“grounded theory”, Glaser and Strauss, 1967, p. 1) in the data. Theory should not precede
research, but follow it. Good examples of the normative and interpretive approaches in
67
education are to be seen in the normative research of Croll and Moses (1985) with highly
structured observation, coding and tabulation, and Woods and Hammersley (1993) who
carried out interpretive research on gender and ethnicity. Writers such as Glaser and
Strauss (1967, p. 17) suggest a balance between the two approaches:“There is no fundamental clash between the purposes and capacities of qualitative and quantitative methods or data. What clash there is concerns the primacy of emphasis on verification or generation of theory”.
Johnson (1994) agrees when she states that:
“While these two approaches do have different philosophical bases, a growing body of social research takes a stand somewhere between the schools of thought” (Johnson, 1994, p. 7)
The choice of research approach, emphasis and degree of compromise between the two
paradigms will not only reflect this philosophical starting point, but also the interests and
skills of the researcher. In the next section the various approaches to educational research
are considered.
Research Approaches.Johnson (1994) identifies six possible approaches to research in educational management:
• Surveys
• Case studies
• Documentary research
• Experimental research
• Non-reactive research
• Action research
Although other writers such as Bell (1993) and Cohen and Manion (1994) may identify
research approaches in a slightly different manner, the Johnson approach provides a
useful classification. In this section definitions and the main features of each approach are
considered. Fig.3.2 below provides a summary of the approaches and their strengths and
limitations:
68
Fig.3.2 A Summary of the strengths and limitations of research approaches in educational management
Type Strengths Limitations1. Surveys Breadth of coverage
Generalisability Comparability Descriptive power Lengthy time-scale
Shallow coverage Unsuitable for sensitive issues Scope for sample bias Reliance on respondent for veracity and accuracy
2. Case Studies
Copes with complex phenomena Intelligible, non-technical findings Can provide interpretations of other similar cases
Lack of scientific rigour Uniqueness of the material, not generalisablePossible uneven access to all aspects of the phenomenon Relies on time, ready access and familiarity with a range of research skills
3.Documentaryresearch
Low costAccess to past events and issues UnobtrusiveCan be a useful supplement to other sources of data
Documents may not be compatible with the objectives of the research Debatable authenticity and credibility of documentsMay depend on insider knowledge Documents may not be value neutral
4.Experimentalresearch
Enables establishment of secure causal relationships Identifies readily understood and replicable connections between variables
Ethical issues limit the use Possibility of multiple causality makes conclusions problematic The effects of variables on the investigationNarrow scope of “experiment”
5. Non-reactiveresearch
Research is useful if it leads to change and improvement Gives priority to minimising disturbance
Questionable value of the “fly on the wall” approach
6. Action research
Flexible and adaptable, and suited to work in the classroom Useful in promoting change Empirical base, relying on systematic use of research methods Appropriate when specific knowledge is required
Lacks scientific rigourSamples are restricted andunrepresentativeLittle control over independentvariablesFindings are not generalisable
Adapted from Johnson (1994) and 0 'Neill et al (1995)
SurveysThe survey method is one of two main research approaches adopted in the research, and
its treatment is therefore more detailed. Johnson (1994, p. 13) defines the survey approach
as “eliciting equivalent information from an identified population” and the information
gathered may be facts, attitudes or opinions. Hoinville and Jowell (1978 p. 184) argue that
surveys should:. be regarded as essentially a means by which we can document, analyse and interpret past and
present attitudes and behaviour patterns. By exposing trends they will certainly provide clues about the future, but they are only clues”.
They go on to urge caution about the dangers of demanding too much from surveys, and
stress the greater difficulty of analysing attitudinal data. They warn of the problems of
69
error in interpretation and the importance of question wording and how subtle changes
can lead to dramatically different distributions of answers which can make the findings
suspect.
Cohen and Manion (1994) highlight the “snapshot” nature of the survey approach when
they state:“Typically, surveys gather data at a particular point in time with the intention of describing the
nature of existing conditions, or identifying standards against which existing conditions can be compared, or determining the relationships that exist between existing events” (Cohen and Manion, 1994, p.83).
Cohen and Manion point out that the survey is likely to involve data-gathering through
research tools such as interviews, questionnaires, tests of attainment or attitudinal scales.
They go on to identify a number of the important preliminary stages (1994, p.p.85-6) of
identification of purpose, population and the resources required.
Case Studies
The chosen approaches for the author’s study are the survey and the case study, which, as
Johnson (1994 p.20) points out, is a good complementary combination. A case study can
be defined as:“ an enquiry which uses multiple sources of evidence. It investigates a contemporary phenomenonwithin its real life context, when the boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly evident” (Johnson, 1994 p.20)
O’Neill, Coleman and Fogelman (1995, p. 18) identify a number of advantages and
disadvantages of the case study method. They summarise the advantages to be the ability
to cope with complex phenomena, provide intelligible, non-technical findings and to
provide interpretations of other similar cases. As Bell (1993, p. 8) points out:“The great strength of the case-study method is that it allows the researcher to concentrate on a specific instance or situation and to identify, or attempt to identify, the various interactive processes at work. These processes may remain hidden in a large-scale survey but may be crucial to the success or failure of systems or organisations.”
A number of limitations are also identified by O’Neill, Coleman and Fogelman (1995
p. 18) who consider that the case study lacks scientific rigour, the material is unique and
not generalisable, and that there is a possible unevenness about the access to the
phenomenon, and that it relies on time, access and familiarity with a range of research
skills. One of the tools used in this case study is documentary research to establish the
extent to which official or recorded statements reflect the staff development policy and
practice. As Bell (1993, p.25) points out, this is likely to be one of a range of research
70
tools used such as questionnaires, interviews, observation and use of records. An example
of this approach is documented by Kogan et al (1994) in a three year, full-time project
with a small team of researchers. The case study began with a study of the documentary
evidence, followed by the observation of meetings and study of minutes and a range of
interviews. This extended beyond the schools, and cross-checking was possible through
the range of research techniques.
Other well known examples of the case study approach which are mentioned by Cohen
and Manion are Wolcott, “The Man in the Principal’s Office” (1973) which is based
around participant observation; Lambert et al. (1975), “The Chance of a Lifetime” and
their study of boarding schools; King (1979) which involved a range of sampling
techniques, Adams and Biddle (1970) which used video recordings; Shields (1962) which
used unstructured observation and Weinreich (1979) who used structured observation.
The purpose of the case study in research is discussed by Johnson (1994, p.23) who refers
to the creation of grounded theory, or to relate the findings to an existing body or bodies
of knowledge. Nisbett and Watt (1984 p.77) argue that the survey and the case study
complement each other, with either preceding the other. Cohen and Manion (1994) point
out that the data can be collected using normative or interpretive methods.
Documentary Research
The documentary approach is often used as part of, for example, a case study, although
the wealth of evidence provided in documents such as Ofsted inspection reports makes
this a rich area for research. The definition of this approach, as Johnson outlines, is a
simple one:“Documentary research relies primarily on the use of available printed data as a source ofevidence is likely to be only one of a range of research methods” (Johnson, 1994, p.25)
Scott’s (1990) classification of documents is useful, and he draws attention to the
importance of authorship and availability. His classification looks at authorship as
personal or official (private or state), and access is defined as closed, restricted, open-
archival or open-published. Within a school a range of open and closed documents may
be available, and one of the ethical considerations of the researcher has to be to decide on
what evidence can be used. Johnson (1994,p. 26) sees documentary research in
association with other research approaches, unless it is an issue which is remote in time.
71
Robson (1993, p.274) lists a wide range of primary and secondary documents including
meeting minutes, letters, memoranda, diaries, speeches, newspaper and magazine articles,
written curricula, course outlines, timetables, notices and letters and other
communications to parents, and inspection reports. The evidence could be “witting” and
“unwitting” (Duffy 1987, Robson 1993), the latter coming from underlying assumptions
unintentionally revealed by the author.
Cohen and Manion also refer to historical research which they identify as being mainly
qualitative in approach, although content analysis and frequency analysis can provide
quantitative data. They define historical research as:“The systematic and objective location, evaluation and synthesis of evidence in order to establish facts and draw conclusions about past events” (Cohen and Manion, 1992, p.45)
Experimental and Non-Reactive Approaches.
Johnson (1994, p.28) argues that the experimental approach is not well adapted to
research in educational management practice. It puts forward a hypothesis of causal
relationships between variables and requires control over the experiment. Johnson
considers that this approach is not suitable for institution-based education research.
Cohen and Manion (1980, p. 188) argue that most empirical studies are quasi-
experimental because of the intact nature of the groups, and argue that it is difficult to
plan experience in advance.
The non-reactive approach is the opposite, and is often referred to as the “fly on the wall”
method. Unobtrusive measures (Webb et al, 1966) and covert research (Bulmer 1982) are
good examples. The former uses an early form of “bugging”, and the latter involves
concealing the presence of the researcher through disguise, and both types have serious
ethical issues. Less ethically challenging are non-reactive approaches which are
mentioned by Johnson (1994, p. 34) and involve care in, for example, an interview
schedule to avoid “leading” questions, although she does argue that the “fly-on-the-wall”
approach is problematic since the presence of observers cannot be ignored (particularly if
it is a film crew, or similar).
72
Action Research“Action research has the aim of bringing immediate improvement to an ongoing programme rather than making an assessment of a situation as it stands (as other forms of research tend to do), then providing recommendations for future change” (Johnson, 1994, p. 3 5)
According to Cohen and Manion (1994, p. 150), action research has the following
characteristics; it is situational and context specific, it is usually collaborative,
participatory and self-evaluative with modifications which are continuously evaluated to
improve practice.“It is the antitheses of a non-reactive approach. Although in purist social science research terms, its pedigree is contentious, the potential of action research as a tool for enhancing management capability is considerable. The approach gains credibility as a research method only if it is subject to the same constraints as other approaches” (O’Neill et al, 1995, p.22)
Cohen and Manion (1994, p. 186) differentiate between applied and action research by
contrasting the more normative approach of the former, and the more contextual
approach required for the latter. Action research extends the “teacher as researcher”
(Elliott, 1987) idea, and Cohen and Manion (1994, p. 189) see it as appropriate for
changing teaching methods, learning and evaluative strategies, INSET, improving
administration and management and changing attitudes and values. Johnson (1994, p.35)
does not agree, and considers the approach to be “interventionist tinkering”.
Research Tools.Once the research approach has been chosen, it is then necessary to choose the
appropriate research tools.“The distinction between research approach or method on the one hand and tools or instruments on the other is an important one. Choice of preferred research method provides a general orientation or outline of how you intend to proceed with your research and what sort of data might prove useful to you” (O’Neill e ta l, 1995, p.27)
Johnson identifies a number of issues in connection with the selection of research tools
(1984, p.p. 5-18). They can be summarised as the level of expertise of the researcher in,
for example, interviewing; front or end-loading (preparation work for questionnaires on
the one hand, or transcriptions and recording on the other). Johnson (1984) identifies the
questionnaire, interview, observation, records and commissioned diaries as examples of
tools, and as O’Neill et al (1995, p.28) point out, the tools must be seen in the context of
time, expertise, preparation, follow-up and access. Marsh (1992) includes checklists,
portfolios, individual files, anecdotal records, logs, audio and video tapes, slides/prints,
time-on-task analysis and external consultants as examples of research tools.
73
The Questionnaire.
Questionnaires can be used within an institution where access to the researcher is
possible, or, in the case of the research instrument in the study, sent as a postal
questionnaire. In this section issues connected with sampling are also identified.
Lavan (1985, p.87) points out that it is cheaper to conduct a postal questionnaire than
hiring interviewers to carry out the work. Johnson (1994, p.42) considers that postal
questionnaires are suitable for surveying “scattered specialist populations”, where there
may be only one per institution, and this can be much more cost-effective than
interviews.“The specialist role of questionnaire recipients means that they will recognise why they as individuals have been contacted. Their educational level also makes a self-completion questionnaire an appropriate form of approach” (Johnson, 1994, p.43)
Johnson argues that it is unlikely to be effective as a research tool if a great deal of
information is required from each respondent. For most postal enquiries, questionnaires
need to be short as response falls off with lengthy questionnaires. This is disputed by
Hoinville and Jowell (1977, p. 127) who argue that a specialist population may not react
favourably to a short questionnaire which appears to trivialise the subject. They argue
that appearance is more important than length.
Non-response can be a problem, particularly with a postal questionnaire. Moser and
Kalton (1971, in Bell, 1993, p.86) point out that “non-response is a problem because of
the likelihood - repeatedly confirmed in practice - that people who do not return
questionnaires differ from those who do.” In a postal questionnaire it is important to
report on the response rate and identify patterns in non-response and take these into
account. It is unlikely that the questionnaire will be the only research tool. Interviews
may compensate for non-response and fill out the slender data from questionnaires.
Lavan also points out that response rates can vary considerably. Lavan quotes Bailey
(1978) who believes that a 50-60% return can be expected, which rises to 75% and higher
with proper follow-up.
Anderson (1990, p. 195) suggests that the survey is a method for obtaining information
which is not available from any other source. He differentiates between the survey and
census which attempts to collect data from all members of the group. The idea of the
74
sample is a feature of the survey method which “is intended to study a population by
selecting and studying a sample of people who belong to it.” (Anderson, 1990, p. 195).
Anderson outlines the first challenge as defining the target population, and this raises
problems of reliability and external validity. As he points out, “a fundamental principle in
sampling is that one cannot generalize from the sample to anything other than the
population from which the sample was drawn” (Anderson, 1990, p. 196).
Having defined the population and target population, it is necessary to consider the
sample. Anderson points out the importance of a comprehensive sample in which each
person has a known probability of selection. The range of sampling techniques identified
by writers are summarised in Fig.3.3 below, with attached comments on their
applicability to the target population.
Fig.3.3 Sampling methods used in educational research.PROBABILITY SAMPLES NON-PROBABILITY SAMPLES
Simple Random Sample.The most common type in which each person has an equal chance of being selected.
Convenience Sampling.This is also known as accidental sampling where the nearest people are chosen.
Systematic SamplingA modified version of simple random sampling which involves selecting subjects in a systematic way (e.g. every 20th person)
Quota SamplingThe equivalent of stratified sampling where a quota is set.
Stratified Random SamplingThe population is sub-divided into groups and a number of respondents is chosen from each group in proportion to the total.
Purposive SamplingCases are hand-picked on the basis of their typicality.
Cluster SamplingThis involves dividing the population into groups and then choosing some of the groups to collect data
Dimensional SamplingA refinement of quota sampling which identifies various factors of interest in a population
Stage SamplingThis is an extension of cluster sampling which involves selecting the sample in stages (taking samples from samples)
Snowball Sampling.A small number are identified and are then used as informants to identify others who qualify for inclusion, and they identify yet others.
Based on Anderson (1990, p. 198), Blalock (in Johnson 1994p.p. 99-101 and Cohen and Manion (1994 p.p. 88-89).
As Anderson (op.cit p. 199) states, “The most perplexing question to both novice and
experienced researchers is the question of sample size.” He points out that the sample
must be representative of the target population for statistical estimates to be valid. He
goes on to identify a number of issues (op.cit p.p.200-201):
■ Variability of characteristics: the greater the variability, the larger the sample
75
■ Confidence level: sample characteristics will not differ from the population
characteristics more than 5% or 1% of the time
■ Tolerance: the need to establish how precise the estimate should be
■ Sample size versus proportion: the absolute size of the sample is the major
determinant of precision rather than the proportion
■ Sub-divisions or cells: the number of sub-divisions is critical, and the aim should be
to have at least 30 in each cell
Cohen and Manion (1994, p.89) agree with the minimum figure of 30. Anderson (op.cit
p.201) summarises by stating; “The major concern in choosing a sample is that it be large
enough to be representative of the population from which it comes.” The sample should
reflect the overall population, and the sample size is one possible source of error.
Johnson (1994, p.37) identifies a fundamental difference between the interview and the
questionnaire with the empowerment of the respondent in the latter. She argues that it
needs to be clear and comprehensible, methods for administering the questionnaire
should be in place and the respondent needs to be motivated. Oppenheim (1966)
identifies a number of key areas where care is advised. They are identified as question
type, question writing, design, piloting and distribution and return. Thought must also be
given as to how the responses will be analysed. Johnson (1994, p.38) agrees with this,
although makes the valid point of stressing the importance of motivation.
Youngman (1986, in Bell, 1993 p.p. 75-6) identifies seven question types and they are
summarised as follows.
VERBAL/OPEN Expected response a word, phrase or extended comment. Some content analysis may be needed
LIST A list is offered. Any may be selectedCATEGORY Response is one o f a set o f categories (e.g. age 20-39). Respondent can only f it
into one category.RANKING Could be used fo r the respondent to place qualities or categories in order.SCALE Various scaling devices may be used (nominal, ordinal, ratio, interval). These
need careful handling.QUANTITY Response is a number.GRID A table or grid is provided to record answers to 2 or more questions at the same
time.
Bell (1993), Lavan (1985) and Johnson (1994) all give important advice which can be
summarised as follows:
• ambiguity, imprecision and assumption should be avoided
76
• simple language should be used
• double, hypothetical, sensitive and leading questions should be avoided
• a pilot study is essential
• bias in the design should be avoided
• there should be a good layout with adequate spacing
• analysis should be considered
• it should start with “warm up” questions
• there should be clear instructions for distribution and return
Interviews.
Johnson (1994, p.p. .44-47) summarises the types of interview as follows: Fig. 3.4 Interview types. ________________________ ____________
Structured Semi-Structured Specialised• social interaction is kept
to a minimum• used in large-scale
surveys with closed questions.
• more flexible• adapted to the
interviewee• the aim is to encourage
the respondent without ‘leading’ them
• individually tailored for particular rofe-holders or individuals.
• aim to acquire complementary information
Interviews seem to be a useful method of collecting data according to Johnson;“There would seem to be few aspects of social research where interviews are an entirely unsuitable research tool” (Johnson, 1994, p. 50)
Structured interviews have been very successful for gathering quantities of information;
semi-structured interviews are most likely to be used in small-scale research and
specialised interviews are of greatest value in exploratory work.
Observation.
Observation is an everyday activity, but needs a form of structure to be effective as a
research method for consistency and comparability. Structured observation, as Fig.3.5
below shows, involves the systematic recording of observations, although there are
limitations identified by Johnson (1994) such as a lack of confidence, wrong perceptions
of observers and inadequate definitions. Unstructured observation is still systematic, and
has the advantages of recording behaviour as it occurs when it may not be easily
verbalised, although it may not be economical in time and does not take into
consideration irregular and unpredictable situations. Fig.3.5 below summarises the
strengths and problems of structured and unstructured observation.
77
Fig. 3.5 Observation as a research tool: types, strengths and problems.Structured Observation Unstructured Observation
■ Researcher sets out to observe presence, absence or intensity of clearly specified types of behaviour.
■ Individual piloted research instrument needed which categorises, defines behaviour and specifies time units.
■ Systematic and planned, but has a “wider net” and used to record behaviour of a group, or a “way of life".
■ Sharpen up on what to observe as the work proceeds
Strengths Strengths■ Potential to collect comparable information■ Everyone knows the system, shared
understanding■ Criteria used are the same and it is more
likely that events will be recorded in the same way. Different people can use the system with accuracy..
■ The nature of evidence makes quantitative analysis possible and easier with computers which can lead to more efficient analysis.
■ Record behaviour as it occurs■ Pick up issues no mentioned in interviews■ Record behaviour of people who do no or
can not articulate it verbally■ A less demanding method for the observee■ Richness of the data
Problems Problems■ Inadequate definitions of behaviour to
concept■ Lack of confidence of observers,
overloading of categories and observer fatigue
■ Observer bias
■ Not suitable for crises: observer may miss something
■ Time consuming for the researcher■ Much data may be collected and then not
used■ Some events and behaviour are not
accessible to direct observation■ Limited by the duration of events and
stamina of the observer■ Observer expected to do a great deal:
correctness and accuracy needed, although consistency is difficult in practice.
Adapted from Johnson (1994, p.p. 53-56) and Anderson and Bums (1989, p.p.140-144)
Participant and Non-Participant ObservationThere are two main types of observation, participant and non-participant. The issues can
be summarised as follows:
Fig. 3.6 Participant and non-participant observation.Participant Observation: Active. Minimal. Non-Participant Observation: External.
Covert“The transfer of the whole person ... to live in and understand the new world” (Lacey, 1976). The researcher becomes immersed in a community for months or even years: more intimate and informal relationships Studies are largely unstructured.Observations are written up after events. Depends on interpretation.Useful to generate hypothesesCan be subjective, biased, impressionistic andlacking in quantifiable measurements
The best example is the researcher at the back of the classroom.Observation of meetings in management research.Video and tape recording of lessons or meetings.Covert and unseen research.Covert research as part of a group.Inspection.
(Cohen & Manion, 1992 p.p. 110-13, and Johnson 1994, p.p.52-6)
78
Documents.“It must always be remembered that what documents record is not a direct transcription of social reality, but a refraction of that reality through the various processes involved in the collection and recording of data” (Johnson, 1994, p. 59, referring to Wiles, 1971)
Johnson refers to Scott’s (1990) four points to consider, which are the issues of
authenticity, credibility, representativeness and meaning.
Commissioned Diaries.“Commissioned diaries are records which an investigator asks an informant to compile and produce to assist in the research enquiry” (Johnson, 1994, p.64).
Zimmerman and Wieder (1977) used this method, as did Hilsum and Kane (1971) who
asked informants to keep diaries after being interviewed or observed. The main
advantages identified by Johnson are that the researcher is not involved and may
generate fine details and generate further questions, although there can be a large amount
of information generated and language is not standardised. It is also important to motivate
the diarist, and Zimmerman and Wieder used a financial incentive.
Analysis of Data Qualitative Data.
Qualitative analysis of data is problematic, according to O’Neill et al (1995, p.39) and
this should involve the organisation of data into patterns and categories, and
interpretation of those data. Robson (1993, p.401) mentions frequency, patterning,
clustering, factoring, relating variables, building of causal networks and relating findings
to general theoretical frameworks as possible tactics, and mentions that it is about “ the
discovery of regularities”. Robson, however, also identifies a number of deficiencies of
the human as analyst. O’Neill et al (1995), citing Easterby-Smith (1994), argue that the
interpretation of data might follow the processes of familiarization, reflection,
conceptualization, cataloguing or coding, recoding, linking variables and re-evaluation.
Quantitative Data.
O’Neill et al (1995, p.43) consider data analysis as falling into the stages of descriptive or
exploratory analysis (basic summary statistics), or inferential analysis (statistical tests).
Descriptive or exploratory analysis could involve measures of central tendency (mode,
mean, median), measures of dispersion (range, standard deviation). As O’Neill et al
(1995, p.44) suggest, this allows the researcher to become familiar with the data, check
79
for errors in the sample and the data, checking the instrument has worked, looking for
surprising results and establishing the next stages. Inferential statistics consider the
relationship between variables and consider differences. This could involve multivariate
analysis, establishing probabilities, identifying the correlation coefficient (e.g. the
Pearson Product-Moment Correlation), testing for differences (e.g. the t-test or the chi-
square test).
There are therefore many issues to be considered in the choice of an appropriate means to
conduct the research, and in work of this type the survey and case study methods would
appear to be effective and complementary since they allow for a degree of triangulation
using a variety of research tools in a way which is more manageable for the lone
researcher.
The Research InstrumentsHaving considered broad and general issues in educational research, the aim of this
section is to present and justify the research instruments, and to make preliminary
statements about the data from the sample before the analysis of the responses. The aim
of the research investigation was to use a balance of methods to achieve as broad a
coverage of the research question areas and hypotheses as possible. The development of
the research instrument therefore attempted to cover the issues in breadth and in depth
and is summarised in Fig.3.7 below:
Fig.3.7 Research Approaches and Tools.Range Research Approach Research ToolsBreadth Survey Postal questionnaireDepth Case study Documentary analysis and semi-structured interviews
The Survey.In the case of 178 schools world-wide (later reduced to 173 when the Zimbabwe schools
in the sample responded that they were no longer British-curriculum schools), the survey
method was considered to be the most effective and the decision was therefore made to
send a postal questionnaire since there was no other feasible means to access the schools.
This was very much a scattered population, and this was illustrated in Table 1.1 in the
Introduction which shows the small number of schools in each country. An
acknowledged limitation of this approach was the lack of internal triangulation possible
and the results therefore depended on the motivation, understanding and accuracy of the
respondents.
80
Much of the preliminary quantitative data was already available through the ECIS
Handbooks, and this helped considerably by providing basic information. Many of the
questions were worded in such a manner to acquire information rather than
interpretations, and therefore, other than the questions which targeted perceived attitudes
and evaluation, much of the information taken over the breadth of the sample should have
provided a fairly accurate overview.
One consideration to improve the quality of internal triangulation on the attitudinal
questions was to send one or two shortened questionnaires to be completed by a sample
of staff in the school, but this was rejected on the grounds that it was complex, costly and
suspect because the additional recipient(s) were impossible to monitor. This was a factor
behind the research design for the case studies which sought to identify a more targeted
cross-section by means of purposive sampling.
The survey method was therefore considered to be the only practical means of collecting
the quantity of data inexpensively, quickly and effectively given the size of the sample
and its geographical diversity. The research questions and hypotheses could be tested
using this method, and the accumulated attitudinal responses could provide patterns of
perceptions (the acknowledged limitation being the rhetoric/reality divide). The structure
of the questionnaire aimed to generate a range of quantitative and qualitative responses.
The Development of the Questionnaire.
The creation of the questionnaire was begun in the summer of 1997 as part of a previous
doctoral assignment. The conceptual framework for the questionnaire was provided by
three case studies of schools in England which looked at professional development
culture (Glover and Law, 1996), and question areas were derived from their outcomes and
expanded to take into account the overseas perspective.
The preliminary questionnaire underwent considerable revisions and was piloted with six
schools in the Gulf; three secondary and three primary. A supplementary sheet on the
questionnaire design was included, and this produced some valuable suggestions for
refining the research instrument. The questionnaire was subject to revisions and became
the focus for a doctoral assignment on the use of surveys in 1997, and it was possible to
81
examine possible ways in which revisions to the survey could result in the analysis of the
data. As a result it became more simplified and more quantitative in its structure and it
became clear from the subsequent responses that many of the previous ambiguities had
been clarified.
The schools were identified from the European Council of International Schools
Handbooks (1996-7 and 1997-8), and they were entered either as members of the ECIS in
the main section of the handbooks, or in the last section which identified affiliated non-
members as well as members. The handbooks identify the curriculum type in the schools,
and the sample was drawn by the specification of either a British only curriculum, or a
mixed system with a British name (e.g. “The British School o f ....”). A database of all
418 members of the European Council of International Schools (ECIS) was first created
which formed the basis of another doctoral assignment on quantitative research methods
(1997). From this database categories of school size, location etc. were created, and the
most significant category was the school type. An analysis of the stated curriculum type
produced a combination of 17 different categories which often contained elements of 3
curriculum types. These broadly fitted into the category of US system and related, UK
and related and IB and related, which were quite evenly distributed across the three
overall categories.
The number of UK curriculum only schools was relatively small, and by examining the
entries of the many affiliated schools in the second part of the ECIS handbook it was
possible to create the current sample. It was felt appropriate to restrict the target
population to these types to narrow the study down to areas which would be most
relevant to comparisons with UK practice and methodology. Many of the schools were
identified as mixed system schools (UK/US, or UK/IB, or 15 other combinations of
system). Although it would have been interesting to have considered the issues of staff
development in these schools, the problem of validating the outcomes of the surveys
against any methodological or practitioner benchmarks were important considerations
since the schools are by definition hybrids and could incorporate manifestations of
methodology and practice from a variety of systems which would be difficult to
differentiate between. The scale would therefore have been much too large, and there
would have been problems of generalisability. One further consideration was to restrict
the sample to schools which could be contacted by E-mail in the British types categories,
82
but that produced a sample which was less homogenous and would have led to the
problems of interpretation as outlined above. The survey therefore covers the population
of British curriculum schools.
The database of the 178 schools enabled the preliminary analysis of the school locations,
age groups, size and school type from the stated information in the handbook, it was used
for generating labels for mailing, and was expanded to enable later analysis of the results
by collating the results to the quantitative questions with specific formulae for the
multiple response questions and the collation of the results to each question numerically
and proportionally.
The Target Population: A Summary of the Basic Data.
Figures 3.8 and 3.9 below show the distribution of schools in the target population across
the fields of school type (Fig.3.8) and school size (Fig.3.9). The percentages are
calculated where there are three figures as follows:
1. Proportion of the whole sample (173)
2. Proportion of the category
3. Proportion of the total number of schools in the region
83
Fig.3.8. Distribution of schoo ls by school type.
C /ST o ta l A fric a A s ia A m em c a tUIro p e M.E'a s t
N % N % No % No I % N % No %o o 0
Countries 64 100 14 21.9 16 25 5 7.8 20 31.2 9 14.1No. o f Schools 17
3100 34 19.7 40 23.1 6 3.5 60 34.7 33 19.1
SCHOOL TYPEPI: KG to 11 46 26.6 3 12 1 20 101 Whole sample 1.7 6.9 0.6 11.6 5.82 Category 6.5 26.1 2.2 43.5 21.7
3. Region 8.8 30 16.7 33.3 33.3P2: Primary 37 21.4 11 15 0 5 61 Whole sample 6.4 8.7 0 2.9 3.52 Category 29.7 40.5 0 13.5 16.23. Region 32.4 37.5 0 8.3 18.2
S1: Sec.11-16 3 1.7 2 0 0 1 01 Whole sample 1.2 0 0 0.6 0
2. Category 66.7 0 0 33.3 0
3. Region 5.9 0 0 1.7 0
S2: Sec 11-18+ 23 13.3 7 6 2 5 31 Whole sample 4 3.5 1.2 2.9 1.7
2. Category 30.4 26.1 8.7 21.7 13
3. Region 20.6 15 33.3 8.3 9.1
A1: KG to16 16 9.2 6 2 2 3 3
1. Whole sample 3.5 1.2 12 1.7 1.7
2. Category 32.5 12.5 12.5 18.8 18.8
3. Region 17.6 5 33.3 5 9.1
A2: 5-18+ 48 27.7 5 5 1 26 111 Whole sample 2.9 2.9 0.6 15 6.4
2 Category 10.4 10.4 2.1 54.2 22.9
3. Region 14.7 12.5 16.7 43.3 33.3
84
Fig.3.9 Distribution of schoo ls by size (num ber of pupils).
Total Africa »iac
A me“ i 1IS
Europ e M. EastNo % N
o% N % No % N
0% No %
Countries 64 100 14 21.9 16 25 5 7.8 20 31.2 9 14.1No.of Schools 173 100 34 19.7 40 23.1 6 3.5 60 34.7 33 19.1SCHOOL SIZEA: 100 or less 15 8.7 4 5 0 4 21 . Whole sample 2.3 2.9 0 2.3 1.22 Category 26.7 33.3 0 26.7 13.33. Region 28.6 12.5 0 6.7 6.1B: 101-400 85 49.1 18 15 2 40 101 . Whole sample 10.4 8.7 1.2 23.1 5.82. Category 21.2 17.6 2.4 47.1 11.8
3. Region 52.9 37.5 33.3 66.7 30.3C; 401-700 35 20.2 8 6 1 8 121. Whole sample 4.6 3.5 0.6 4.6 6.9
2. Category 22.9 17.1 2.9 22.9 34.3
3. Region 23.5 15 16.7 13.3 36.4
D: 701-1000 18 10.4 1 10 3 4 0
1. Whole sample 0.6 5.8 1.7 2.3 0
2. Category 5.6 55.6 16.7 22.2 0
3. Region 2.9 25 50 6.7 0
E: 1001-1500 13 7.5 1 4 0 3 5
1. Whole sample 0.6 2.3 0 1.7 2.9
2. Category 7.7 30.8 0 23.1 38.5
3. Region 2.9 10 0 5 15.2
F: 1501-2000 2 1.2 0 0 0 1 1
1 Whole sample 0 0 0 0.6 0.6
2. Category 0 0 0 50 50
3. Region 0 0 0 1.7 3
G: 2001+ 2 1.2 0 0 0 0 2
1. Whole sample 0 0 0 0 1.2
2. Category 0 0 0 0 100
3. Region 0 0 0 0 6.1
N: No entry 3 1.7 2 0 0 0 1
1. Whole sample 1.2 0 0 0 0.6
2. Category 66.7 0 0 0 33.3
3. Region 5.9 0 0 0 3
ECIS m em b e r 1
E-mailFigures collated from the ECIS Handbook, 1996-7 and 1997-8.
The target population consisted o f 173 mixed schools in 64 countries across five defined
regions or continents. Originally 178 schools were identified and surveyed, but responses
from Zimbabwe indicated that they were no longer UK curriculum, and they were
therefore withdrawn from the target population.
Geographical Distribution of the Schools.
• The largest number o f schools was in Europe (35% in 20 countries), followed by Asia
(23% in 16 countries), Africa (20% in 14 countries), the Middle East (19% in 985
countries) and in Central/South America (3.5% in 5 countries). The schools were
therefore fairly widely dispersed, although Central and South America are less well
represented due to the strong influence of the US curriculum on the school type
(according to the ECIS data).
• Almost half of the countries in the target population provided only one school, one-
fifth two schools and one-tenth three schools.
• With the exception of Hong Kong (16 schools), Kenya (13), the UAE (12) and Spain
and the UK (10 each), the number of schools per country was small.
• The mean number of schools per country was evenly divided with a range of 2.5
schools per country (Africa and Asia) to 3.4 in the Middle East.
• The justification to include UK schools was that although they were in Britain, they
were classified by their “overseas” status as members of ECIS, and therefore draw
upon the same kind of pupils as the other schools.
Distribution of the Schools by Age Range and Location.
Although there were several individual variations, it was possible to identify six broad
categories of school by age range, as identified above.
• The majority of schools contained a primary element, with only 16% of the schools in
the two secondary-only categories.
• Primary only, including pre-school in the two categories accounted for 44% of the
total, and cross-phase schools 36% in total, with 28% covering the entire age range up
to Advanced Level.
• The large number of schools which offer teaching up to A Level standard (42% in
total) reflects the opportunities which exist for pupils at all levels in British
curriculum schools abroad.
• Geographically there were some variations, with Europe providing 50% of the
secondary 11-18 range alone, as well as 50% of the total for Pre-school/Primary
category.
• The Primary schools were equally divided between Asia (27 schools) and Europe
(25), with one-third each. The African and Middle East schools shared the remaining
third almost equally (14 and 16 schools respectively). European Primary schools were
far more likely to fit into the pre-school to age 11 category (almost half of the total in
this category), although the African and Asian schools tended to be in the 5-11 age
group.86
• Primary schools accounted for 48% of the total number of schools in the target
population (83 schools).
• There were fewer secondary schools (26) and they accounted for only 15% of the
total. Of this number, only three fitted into the 11-16 age group.
• In the 11-18 category, the schools were fairly evenly distributed with about a quarter
each in Africa, Asia and Europe.
• The remaining schools (64, or 37%) fitted into one of the all-age range categories, of
which the 5-18 range was the larger. In the Al and A2 categories, the largest number
of schools were in Europe (45%), followed by Africa, Asia and the Middle East with
just under 20% each.
• In terms of school size, the Middle East had the smallest proportion of the smallest
schools, although few schools were generally in Category A (100 pupils or less).
This category accounted for only 9% of the sample.
• The largest proportion of the target population were in the Category B schools (101-
400 pupils), with over half of these in Europe and almost a quarter in Africa.
• The category C schools (401-700) accounted for almost one-fifth of the sample, with
the proportion fairly evenly distributed across the regions.
• There were few schools with over 700 pupils, and they tended to be in Asia or the
Middle East, which also had some of the largest schools (two with over 2000 pupils).
Regional Distribution.
Taking the target population by region, it is clear that the number of schools in Central
and South America was too small to make valid comparisons, particularly since there was
no apparent pattern of school type or size.
• In the two primary categories the number of schools was fairly evenly spread, ranging
from 17% of the schools in Africa to 35% of the schools in Asia in the two categories.
• There was a greater variation in the two secondary categories, with a larger
proportion in Africa (35%) overall, although the numbers of schools which teach up
to age 15/16 was uniformly small (with two out of the three schools in Africa).
• The two sections of cross-phase (Types Al and A2) schools showed a wide range of
results with Europe (48%) and the Middle East (42%) having the largest proportion of
schools in their respective regions.
• In Africa the Primary types accounted for the largest proportion of African schools
(41%), followed by the all-age schools (32%) and the Secondary (26%).87
Approximately half of the schools have between 101-400 pupils, and only two of the
schools had over 700 pupils.
• In Asia the pattern of Primary schools continues, although they account for almost
two-thirds of the schools in the region. There were few schools in the other
categories, although the school size varied considerably with a wide distribution
which included a high proportion of larger schools (35% had over 701 pupils).
• In Europe, secondary-only schools were rare, and the all-age categories were more
common (48%), with a large number of Primary schools (41%). The majority of
schools (over two-thirds) were in the 101-400 range of pupils, and, as would be
expected, the largest ECIS proportional membership was in Europe (some 60%).
• The pattern of all-age schools was repeated in the Middle East (45%), with just over
one third in the Primary categories. There were again relatively few secondary
schools (9% of the total). The majority of the schools (69%) fitted into the medium
sized categories (B and C, with between 101-700 pupils), and there were a small
number in each of the other categories.
Survey Arrangements
The possibilities of using an E-mail survey for the 65 schools who have the facility was
considered for cost and speed, but this would have been inconsistent with the
conventional postal method and would not necessarily have reached the right person in
the organisation. It was only used in the third non-response follow-up, and yielded
several additional returns at the end of September 1998.
Cost was a major factor, and one of the key decisions was to provide the cheapest
possible method for schools to reply, which would perhaps motivate them sufficiently to
respond. Respondents were given the choice of responding on the questionnaire itself or
on a separate answer sheet, both of which could be posted or sent by fax, or by E-mail.
An International Reply Coupon was included which appeared to cover the return costs of
both the full questionnaire and the answer sheet, although some late responses indicated
that this was not the case. Respondents were also given the options of sending replies by
fax or E-mail, and the simple format allowed for a transfer of answers into that layout.
These considerations are reflected in the very simple and flexible-response format of the
questionnaire. The cost of distribution was high (approximately £1.70 per school),
88
although the two-thirds response rate was eventually most encouraging given the diverse
geographical locations of the schools.
Respondents were asked to respond by the end of May 1998 by letter, fax or E-mail, and
were given a separate return address in case of delays in the UK. There was a break in
July and August during the summer vacation period, and all the non-response schools
were followed up on September 1st, with subsequent non-response targeted at the end of
September by fax and E-mail. The negotiated deadline and cut-off point was the end of
October. Results were entered into a spreadsheet which kept running totals of responses
through pre-arranged formulae, and the qualitative responses were transcribed verbatim
directly into Word where they were later categorised by codes generated by response
areas.
The aim of the questionnaire was to provide quick and simple questions to answer, but
also to provide opportunities for the identification of specific types if not covered by the
descriptors provided. Unlike a British-based survey, it is not appropriate to make
assumptions about how well-informed schools are. Many of the schools were in remote
locations, and although they are identified by their “UK curriculum” designation, they
may not be particularly well resourced or have staff or management with recent UK
experience. The questions therefore had to be framed in such a way as to avoid too much
educational management terminology which may have been unfamiliar and alienate a
potential respondent. Apart from the three final open-ended questions, all the questions
sought single responses or a choice from a list, with space in some questions on the
answer sheet to provide alternatives. It was therefore hoped that the sheet would not take
longer than about 15 minutes to complete, which was the average time indicated in the
pilot study findings in October 1997 (please see Appendix 3).
The letters were addressed to the headteachers of the schools and they were invited to
complete the questionnaire, or pass it on to the member of staff in charge of staff
development. From some of the survey returns it was clear that respondents were both
headteachers and deputy headteachers, although no specific request for role or status in
the school was requested.
89
The Survey Questions.
According to the Youngman classification (1986, in Bell 1993 p.77), the majority of
questions 1-24 are of the list type which made analysis relatively straight-forward and
allowed for quantitative analysis. There were also a number of Likert scale type
questions (questions 25-34) and three open-ended attitudinal qualitative questions.
Respondents throughout the survey were given opportunities to provide their own
categories, and this provided a richer variety of answers.
From the responses it was intended that the main research questions and hypotheses
would be tackled, and that in the light of the overall results it would be possible to target
more specific areas in the case studies. The aims were therefore to build up a profile of
the policies, practices and attitudes towards staff development in each individual school
and come to conclusions about the kind of professional development culture which exists;
amalgamate responses by school type, size and region and see whether there are
significant differences and to generate sufficient evidence to link to the analysis of the
data.
Case Studies.Following the survey of the schools, the results provided a starting point for the case
studies. It was felt that the case study method was the most effective means:
• to tackle issues arising ffom the questionnaire by asking the respondent to consider a
transcribed version of the original questionnaire (statements generated from the ticked
responses, additional information supplied and the replies to the open-ended
questions). The purpose was twofold and sought the relevance of the responses in this
form and the focus and effectiveness of the questionnaire in obtaining data.
• to ask questions which covered a broader range of staff in the schools
• to triangulate results from the data in the surveys which were answered by a single
respondent who was most likely to be the headteacher.
The Stages of the Case Study.
The case studies were planned for the period December 1998-March 1999, and consisted
of visits during the spring term to the chosen schools. Additional contact with staff was
arranged by mutual agreement out of school hours to enable the completion of the
interviews in the projected time-scale, and the greater time available and relative
informality engendered frank and rich responses. The collection of documentation, the90
provision of feedback and general enquiries extended the process which involved contact
by telephone and facsimile.
The overall aim was to find out more specific responses by a range of staff in different
roles in the school to the main research questions which formed the basis for the semi
structured interviews. Respondents were given the questions in advance as part of a letter
of introduction and they covered the following areas:
1. The Philosophy: What importance is placed on staff development by the school?
2. The Reality: How is staff development managed in the school?
3. The Response: How effective is the staff development programme in the school?
4. The Involvement of Staff: What opportunities are there for staff to contribute to the
staff development programme in the school?
5. The Way Forward: What could be done to improve the staff development programme
in the school?
Purpose of the Case Studies.
The information was intended to enable comparisons and cross-referencing with the
schools in the large-scale survey. The approach allowed for comparisons between the
four schools and between primary and secondary and the generation of a considerable
amount of potentially useful data for the school if requested, as well as for the research.
Two of the schools requested feedback which was provided in the form of a written
report based on the data presentation.
It was hoped that the results would reflect many of the points raised in the literature
review and provide evidence for analysis. The purpose of the four case studies was to go
into greater depth to examine the nature of, and opportunities for, staff development in
the four chosen schools. The four schools chosen are all in the same Gulf city and are
British in their approach to the curriculum, and the majority of the staff are British
nationals in three of the schools, although in the fourth they were more likely to be ffom
the Indian sub-continent.
The schools fall into the following categories, although they are all fee-paying day
schools:
1. “The British Secondary School”, an established secondary school, type S2 (Code 153)
91
2. “Desert Village Primary School”, an expanding primary school, type P2 (Code 155)
3. “The City Primary School”, an established primary school undergoing change, type P2
(Code 160)
4. “The London School”, an all-age range school, type A2 (Code 152)
Selecting the Case Study Schools.
The four schools selected were chosen because of their geographical proximity, and
therefore the feasibility of access. Three of them had participated willingly in previous
research for assignments, and it was felt that another approach would be considered
favourably. The schools were willing to participate and saw the study as an opportunity
to work on this area, and therefore the potential feedback provided them with the
motivation to participate. The fourth school had not been approached previously, but
responded positively although was reluctant to allow interview access as had been
envisaged. The choice of the four schools was dictated by the following factors:
• Inclusion in the ECIS handbook
• Participation in the survey carried out between May-October 1998
• Inclusion in one of three school-type categories to provide evidence from each type
As a result, two of the schools fitted into the larger primary category (P), one into the
secondary only category (S) and the fourth school into the cross-phase category (A). The
fourth school was also of interest because it was one of only seven schools which
identified a specific staff development officer or professional development co-ordinator,
and it was felt that it would be valuable to identify the specific issues involved in the role.
Stages of the Case Study Investigation.Data Collection Stage.
1. Letter to the headteacher requesting the school to be included as a case study school
2. On acceptance, interview with the headteacher which focused on:
• The study in general
• Requests for documentary evidence
• The presentation of the questionnaire findings (ffom the 1998 survey, with the
answers converted into statements) for consideration and amendment if necessary
• The identification of staff in the categories of deputy, bursar, head of English, Maths
or Science, head of another subject or pastoral co-ordinator, class teachers (2), a part
92
time teacher, a local contract teacher and a new teacher and the distribution of letters
of invitation through the headteacher
• A discussion of the issues of ethics and confidentiality of the interviewees and
arrangements for feedback if requested
• The interview schedule with the five questions and “other” category
3. Interviews with the staff
4. Collection of documentary evidence
Rationale Behind the Selection of Roles.
In order to select as broad a cross-section of staff as possible, it was considered important
to identify specific roles within the school. This would provide opportunities not only to
see whether perceptions within a school were different, but also to provide direct
comparisons with similar roles in the other case study schools. An attempt was also made
to interview a balance of male and female staff, although in the primary schools this was
more difficult as the majority of teachers were female. An attempt was also made to
cover as broad a cross-section of the school as possible in terms of subject areas
(secondary) or Key Stage (primary).
Ten staff in each school were interviewed, including the head and one of the deputy
heads to gauge the views of members of the senior management team. In “The London
School”, however, it was only possible to interview two because the headteacher did not
agree to the full range of interviews, although in a joint interview provided much
valuable data. This raised the interesting issue of access in work of this type, and the
importance for the researcher to respect not only ethical considerations of confidentiality,
but also that of access. In total thirty-two staff were interviewed out of an anticipated
forty (80% of the total).
In addition the subject co-ordinator of one of the three core subjects (English,
Mathematics or Science) was selected as an example of an important school curriculum
area, and another subject or pastoral co-ordinator was selected to provide a balanced and
more varied middle management profile. The aim was to provide a strong sample of
senior and middle management. In addition a range of other staff were identified with
two class teachers, a part time teacher, a local contract teacher and a new member of
staff. The choice of two class teachers was to elicit a range of views and to recognise the
93
larger number of teachers in this category. The part time teacher was identifiable in the
ECIS handbook breakdowns of staff, and this was considered to be an important category
because of the potential difficulties of access and continuity which they might
experience. Teachers could fit in some cases into more than one category (for example,
due to local employment laws the part time teacher would by definition be on a local
contract and, like the local contract teacher, almost certain to be female), and therefore
there was a strong representation of views from non-promoted staff, including the views
of new staff who could shed light on areas such as the induction process.
Interview Method Drawing the Staff Sample.
The sample was selected in conjunction with the headteacher who was asked to identify
teachers who fitted into one of the categories. The chosen staff were then issued with
letters which explained the research and their potential involvement in it, as well as
defining the parameters and providing the five interview questions to enable them to
think about the issues in advance. In some cases interviewees had prepared written notes.
The targeted staff were invited to participate in the research and were provided with
guarantees of confidentiality (i.e. their responses would not be specifically identifiable,
particularly to the headteacher), although it was made clear that the overall results for
their school would be made available to the headteacher who in each case requested
them. The letter also stipulated that the semi-structured interviews would take between
15-20 minutes, and it was generally possible to achieve this, although several interviews
were as long as an hour.
The Headteacher, Documentary Evidence and the Survey.
In addition to identifying the sample with the cooperation of the headteacher, the
interview with him/her began with a presentation of the data collected from the
questionnaire. The sample can therefore be considered a purposive stratified sample of
the staff population, which in the case of schools 1-3 covered approximately 15% of the
total teaching staff in each school. The aim was to test the validity of the questionnaire as
a data collection tool, as well as to give the headteacher the opportunity to change, amend
or refine responses. The method of presentation was to convert all the responses to the
tick-box questions into statements using the questions as the starting point, and this
provided for an interesting series of direct statements for consideration. The headteacher
94
was also requested to provide any documentary evidence of staff development policies
and practice, and the available data supported the other evidence from the interviews. In
the case of “The London School” there was access only to the headteacher and one other
member of staff. It was felt that this was still appropriate as a data collection exercise,
however, since the school represented the all-age category, had a professional
development co-ordinator and the issues which arose were so different ffom the other
schools. The data collected and the veiy different context of the school highlighted the
diversity of the schools of this type and may have helped to identify issues in some of the
other schools in the population.
Recording the Interview Data.
The aim of the data collection in the interviews was to represent the views of the
respondents as accurately as possible, and to ensure that the five questions were focused
upon. It was necessary on occasions to ask sub-questions to clarify or point the
respondent in the right direction as they often went off at tangents. The points made by
the respondents were noted down and checked during the interview to ensure that the data
collected were an accurate representation of the views of the interviewee. At the
beginning of the interview the procedures to be followed and guarantees of
confidentiality were provided. A form was created which made collection of the data
simple, and showed the interviewees a degree of structure which enabled the interviews
to proceed quickly and in a highly focused manner, and enabled recording across more
than one question area on occasions. The interviewee had a blank copy of the form, and
this was found to be an extremely useful means of focusing the responses since they
could see how much data had been entered into the boxes.
Collation of the Data.
When each series of interviews was completed, the results were entered into a matrix
which consisted of the roles and responses to each question. The responses were filtered
from the notes and reduced to bullet-points on the matrix. This facilitated the analysis of
responses within the school and comparisons between the schools.
The first stage involved collating the accumulated responses to each question onto the
matrix by question area. This enabled collation of the data by a variety of means:
• The overall school response in terms of category and frequency
95
• Responses in relation to roles within the school
• Responses across the schools
When the data were entered from each case study school, points and issues arising from
each question were identified and coded. The code numbers served to guarantee the
confidentiality of respondents, and three digit numbers were used to simplify the process
of identification. Code 108, therefore, is the Part Time teacher in case study school
number 1, and the responses could be easily compared with counterparts in 208, 308 and
408). Another aspect of the three-digit code was that with thirty-two interviews, it would
be difficult for anyone to directly identify members of staff. This level of confidentiality
was considered to be extremely important in a region where the culture dictates that staff
need to be cautious about expressing their views openly.
Presentation of the Results.
This involved taking the data as entered for the school and analysing the content to look
for patterns in the statements. These were recorded and filtered with the interviewee
codes. Where the same statement was made by another interviewee, this was noted and
then the process of further filtering the responses consisted of matching similar themes
and linking them together in continuous prose. This process allowed for an effective and
objective synthesis of the evidence which formed the basis of the continuous prose which
was organised under each question heading.
The next stage of the data presentation was to note the main issues arising ffom the staff
in three identifiable groups:
1. Senior management team: the headteacher, deputy and bursar (3)
2. Middle managers: head of a core subject and other subject/pastoral leader (2)
3. Other staff: class teachers, local contract, part-time and new teachers (5)
The rationale behind these groupings was to identify similarities and differences between
policy-makers, middle managers and other staff to see the extent to which there was
agreement or disagreement in relation to position in the school.
The documentary evidence was generally very limited, although it did in the case of one
school include an inspection report. The main points in relation to staff development were
noted, and included in a summary which also considered the issues arising ffom the
96
questionnaire. It was felt that a useful starting point with the headteacher would be a
reconsideration of the questionnaire completed last year.
Summary.
In this chapter the nature of research in educational management has been considered in
general, followed by a presentation of the research methods used in the study. In both the
survey and the case studies, much thought has been given to the collation of the data
using computer software. The rationale behind the choice of research methods has been
considered, together with the limitations of the study in relation to a single respondent in
the questionnaire and the single country approach of the case studies. The scale of the
research, and the decision to survey the whole target population, allows for
generalisability and the cross-section of staff interviewed provide an important overview
of attitudes across the role groups to complement the single respondent questions of the
survey.
97
Chapter 4: Survey Findings
Nature and Level of Responses.
The results are based on the questionnaires returned by the end of October 1998 (the cut
off date). By that stage the number of returns was 115 out of 173, or 67% of the total
sample. The results were entered onto a spreadsheet as they were returned which
provided continuously updated results. Respondents were given a range of ways to return
the questionnaire, and the returns were made as follows:
Table 4.1: Method of responseResponse Type No. %
1 Full questionnaire by post 79 692 Answer sheet only by post 14 12.23 Full questionnaire by fax 4 3.54 Answer sheet only by fax 10 8.75 Response by E-mail 2 1.76 Nil response by
letter/fax/E-mail6 5.2
The nil response returns are included in the returns because they supplied reasons why the questionnaire either did not apply to the schools (i.e. a change in curriculum away from the British system) or they could not answer it.
With a variety of return methods it was hoped that respondents would find it easy to
complete the questionnaire. The full questionnaire consisted of the questions and answers
and the answer sheet was a simple double-sided sheet. The enclosed International Reply
Coupon was sufficient to pay the postage for an Airmail return. By far the most popular
method was the traditional full questionnaire and only two schools responded by E-mail,
and one of these was a local (UAE) response to explain a nil response. This would
indicate that the traditional full questionnaire by letter is still the most effective means to
receive responses despite technological innovations (35% of the total sample were
accessible by E-mail). Postal returns accounted for 80% of the total.
The questionnaires were sent out in May 1998. From the end of June until the end of
August 1998 there was a break in the survey collation because of summer vacations
(indicated below as weeks 9-17). All the non-response schools were sent the complete
survey again in September 1998, and non-response schools at the end of October were
contacted again by fax or E-mail (if they had either facility), and the dates of the returns
were logged. As a result all the schools had at least two, and possibly three opportunities
to answer the questionnaire. It did become evident with several responses that post had
been a problem in both directions, some of the schools replying the second time that they
98
had already returned the questionnaire. The responses came back by the dates stated as
follows:Table 4.2: Timing of the responses and their orijgins by regionWeek Date No. % 1.
Africa2.
Asia3.C/S
America4.
Europe5.
M.East1 8/5 3 2.6 0 0 0 1 22 15/5 11 9.6 0 2 0 4 53 22/5 27 23.5 5 7 0 10 54 29/5 15 13 1 8 1 4 15 5/6 5 4.3 0 0 1 4 06 12/6 5 4.3 0 0 0 4 17 19/6 4 3.5 0 1 1 0 28 26/6 2 1.7 0 2 0 0 09-17 Jui/Aug 10 8.7 4 0 1 2 118 4/9 1 0.9 1 0 0 0 019 11/9 2 1.7 0 0 0 1 120 18/9 7 6.1 2 3 0 1 121 25/9 7 6.1 0 2 0 3 222 2/10 0 0 0 0 0 0 023 9/10 10 8.8 1 1 1 6 124 16/10 1 0.9 1 0 0 0 025 23/10 2 1.7 1 1 0 0 026 30/10 3 2.6 1 0 0 1 1
In this case the returns were less predictable than they would have been in a UK survey
as they were dependent on the postal service in both directions. Occasional replies
continued to arrive until the end of March 1999 (by sea with incorrect postage; delays in
receipt were noted), but they were not included because they arrived after the cut-off
point when collation of the responses had begun. This was a difficult decision to make,
but the survey period of May 1st to October 31st was considered to be long enough for the
responses to arrive (six months) and the few additional responses would have made only
a marginal difference to the overall results.
Table 4.3. RESPONSES: School types and proportional responses to t
1(0Ooz
Surv
eyTo
tal
%R
espo
nsA
1. A
frica
2. Asi
a
3. C/
S A
mer
ica
4.Eu
rope
5. M
.Eas
t
A1 Pre-school to 16 8 18 44.4 2 1 2 2 1A2 Pre-school to 18 34 49 69.4 4 6 1 16 7P1 Pre-school to
11/12/1335 42 83.3 1 9 1 16 8
P2 Primary 5 to 11/12/13
23 33 69.7 7 7 0 4 5
S1 Secondary 11-16 2 3 66.7 1 0 0 1 0S2 Secondary 11-
18+13 23 56.5 3 5 0 2 2
Totals 115 173 66.5 18 28 4 41 23
ie survey
99
The responses relating to school type shows that there is a fairly equitable distribution
across the types, although the numbers of responses in the A1 category were lower than
in the others.
Table 4.4. RESPONSES: School size by code and type
Cod
e
Size
Res
pons
e
Tota
lSu
rvey
ed
%of
Sam
ple
< 3 a.CMQ.
▼-CO
CMCO
A 0-100 6 15 40 0 1 4 1 0 0B 101-400 60 85 70.6 4 13 25 12 1 5C 401-700 20 35 57.1 2 5 4 6 0 3D 701-
100014 18 77.8 2 7 1 2 0 2
E 1001-1500
11 13 84.6 0 7 1 1 0 2
F 1501-2000
1 2 50 0 1 0 0 0 0
G 2000+ 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0N No entry 3 3 0 0 0 1 1 1
Totals 115 173 66.5 8 34 35 23 4 13
The response rate according to school size by the predetermined size codes shows that the
majority of schools were in categories B to D, from 101-1000 (94 schools, or 82%),
although almost half of them were smaller schools in the range 101-400 (60 schools, or
52%). In this category 25 of the schools were of the PI Primary type (42%) and P2
Primary (20%), with 62% in PI and P2 combined. Non responses were fairly evenly
distributed across the school types, although the proportion of small schools (Code A,
less than 100 pupils) was highest (53% non-response).
Table 4.5. RESPONS ES: School size by region and regional responses
Cod
e
Size
Tota
l
Surv
eyTo
tal
%Re
spon
sA 1.
Afri
ca 2. Asi
a
3. C/
S A
mer
ica
4.Eu
rope
5. M
.Eas
t
A 0-100 6 15 40 0 4 0 1 1B 101-400 60 85 70.6 11 10 2 30 7C 401-700 20 35 57.1 3 4 1 4 8D 701-1000 14 18 77.8 1 7 3 3 0E 1001-1500 11 13 84.6 1 3 0 2 5F 1501-2000 1 2 50 0 0 0 1 0G 2000+ 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0N No entry 3 3 2 0 0 0 1
Total 115 173 66.5 18 28 5 41 23No.surveyed
173 35 40 6 61 31
% Response 66 51.4 70 83.3 67.2 74.2
100
The table indicates that the smallest level of response was from schools in Africa, with an
equitable distribution among the other identified regions. This could be explained ffom
some of the responses by problems of postage in either direction, and was particularly
highlighted by one of the schools which replied by E-mail because of this. The size of the
sample in Central and South America was relatively small which made regional
conclusions unreliable compared to the other regions, and such generalisations were
avoided. The tendency in size shows that most schools were in Categories B and C,
between 100 and 700 pupils, although there was a higher proportion of larger schools
(1001-over 2000) in the Middle East (42% of the total responses in Categories E to G).
101
Responses From the Questionnaire.
The individual question responses for questions 1-34 (see Appendix 2) were collated and
subdivided into categories which cover the following areas:
• Staffing
• The Management o f Staff Development
• Types o f Staff Development
• Attitudes to Staff Development
• Perceived Strengths, Limitations and Future Goals
The method of data presentation is as follows:
1. In each section, the overall results have been reported in identified sub-categories
which merge some of the question responses together.
2. Each set of results is preceded by a number which indicates the question number.
3. The overall results of the respondents are presented, as well as the proportional
responses within other categories.
4. The school types were merged ffom six types to three to consider Category A schools
(all age ranges, from 3/5 to 16/18), Category P (all Primary school types) and Category S
(all Secondary school types). In the school types results, the percentages are the
proportional responses within the category rather than across the three categories.
5. The results of the qualitative data are treated separately.
Staffing.This section contains evidence on the composition of the staff from questions 1, 2 and 3
and looks at numbers of staff, whether they are on local or overseas contract and the
number of British nationals on the staff.
Question 1. How many full and part-time staff do you have in your school?
The schools showed a wide range of staff numbers according to the size categories
although the tendency was for relatively small staffs with 57% of the schools recording a
staff of less than 40, and 75% less than 60. The tendency was for the smallest numbers of
staff to be found in the primary schools (71% of them had less than 40 staff), while
almost one in four of the all age (A2) schools had over 100 staff (see Tables 4.6 and 4.7).
102
Table 4.6 Numbers of full and part time teaching staff in the school (question 1)Number of Responses: 109(95%) ______Category Numbers of Full and
Part-time Teaching Staff
No %
A 1-20 26 23.9B 21-40 36 33C 41-60 20 18.3D 61-80 10 9.2E 81-100 6 5.5F 100+ 11 10.1
Table 4.7 Responses according to school type (question 1)Category A B C D E F NRA1 0 6 0 0 1 0 1A2 1 7 8 2 2 10 4Total A 1 13 8 2 3 10 5% 2.4 31 19 4.8 7.1 23.8 11.9P1 14 13 4 3 0 1 0P2 9 8 4 1 1 0 0Total P 23 21 8 4 1 1 0% 37.1 33.9 12.9 6.5 1.6 1.6 0S1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1S2 1 2 4 4 2 0 0Total S 2 2 4 4 2 0 1% 13.3 13.3 26.7 26.7 13.3 0 6.7
Question 2. Approximately what proportion were recruited from the U.K. on overseas
contracts?
From the responses it was clear that there was quite a heavy dependence on local contract
hire, with 18% of the schools completely dependent on it and almost half of the schools
with up to 50% overseas recruitment. At the other end of the scale 28% of the schools
recruited over 75% of their staff on overseas contracts which indicates a heavy financial
commitment. Schools with all overseas contract staff were rare, and there was little to
differentiate between the school types, although the primary schools had the highest
proportion of local contract staff (57% had less than half on overseas contracts, see
Tables 4.8 and 4.9).
Table 4.8 Approximate proportion of staff recruited from the U.K. on overseas contracts (question 2)
Category Proportion of Staff on Overseas Contracts
No %
A None 20 18.3B Up to 50% 38 34.9C 50-75% 20 18.3D Over 75% 29 26.6E All 2 1.8
103
Table 4.9 Responses according to school type (question 2)Category
A B C D E NR
A1 2 1 1 3 0 1A2 4 12 6 7 1 4Total A 6 13 7 10 1 5% 14.3 31 16.7 23.8 2.4 11.9P1 6 9 8 11 1 0P2 4 14 2 3 0 0Total P 10 23 10 14 1 0% 17.2 40 17.2 24.1 1.7 0S1 0 0 0 1 0 1S2 4 2 3 4 0 0Total S 4 2 3 5 0 1% 26.7 13.3 20 33.3 0 6.7
Question 3. Approximately what proportion are British Nationals?
There was a high proportion of British nationals on the staff in the schools with over 70%
of the schools reporting 50% or more. This high proportion is significant as it suggests
that there might be a significant British influence on the schools as the majority of staff
are likely to have been educated and trained themselves in the British system, although
they may have spent some considerable time overseas. Very few schools had all British
nationals. The highest proportion of British nationals were to be found in the secondary
11-18 sector (60%), but there was little to differentiate between the other school-type
responses (see Tables 4.10 and 4.11).
Table 4.10 Approximate proportion of British Nationals on the staff (question 3)Number of Responses: 109 (95%)________________ ______ ______Category Proportion of Staff With British
NationalityNo %
A None 1 0.9B Up to 50% 31 28.4C 50-75% 21 19.3D Over 75% 48 44E All 8 7.3
Table 4.11 Responses according to school type (question 3)Category A B C D E NRA1 0 3 0 4 0 1A2 0 12 6 11 1 4Total A 0 15 6 15 1 5% 0 35.7 14.3 35.7 2.4 11.9P1 0 6 9 15 5 0P2 1 8 5 10 0 0Total P 1 14 14 25 5 0% 1.7 23.7 23.7 42.4 8.5 0S1 0 0 0 1 0 1S2 0 2 1 8 2 0Total S 0 2 1 9 2 1% 0 13.3 6.7 60 13.3 6.7
104
The Management of Staff DevelopmentThis section considers who has responsibility, how needs are decided and how staff
development is funded (questions 4-8).
Question 4. Who is in charge of staff development in your school?
Most staff development was organised by the Head or Deputy and Senior Management
Team, or the Deputy alone (in 87% of cases, and in 83% of the Primary schools). There
were specifically appointed co-ordinators of staff development in only seven of the
schools, although a Director of Studies and Academic Adviser were also identified. There
was no pattern of school type, and other responses indicated variations of the
Head/Deputy and Senior Management leadership role (see Tables 4.12 and 4.13).Table 4.12 Person(s) in charge of staff development in the school (question 4)Number of Responses: 119 including more than 1 responseNumber of schools responding: 111 (97%)_____________________ ___________Cat Responsibility for Staff Development in the Schools No %A Head 44 37B Head and Deputy/SMT 48 40.3C Deputy 11 9.2D Staff Development Officer, Professional Development Co
ordinator or similar7 5.9
E Individual heads of department or similar 7 5.9F None of the above: Please specify 2 1.7
Table 4.13 Responses according to school type (question 4)Category A B C D E F NRA1 5 1 0 1 0 0 1A2 9 15 1 3 1 2 4Total A 14 16 1 4 1 2 5% 29.8 34 2.1 8.5 2.1 4.3 10.6P1 14 20 1 2 2 0 0P2 12 8 2 2 2 0 0Total P 26 28 3 4 4 0 0% 40 43.1 4.6 6.2 6.2 0 0S1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1S2 3 4 6 0 0 0 0Total S 4 4 6 0 0 0 1% 26.7 26.7 40 0 0 0 6.7
5, 6 Needs identification.Question 5. How are school staff development needs decided in your school?
The responsibility for staff development lies heavily with the head and senior
management team, and this is reflected in the needs identification process which was
carried out by the same group in almost half of the schools, with no discernible pattern
between school types, although they were more likely to be found in the Primary sectors.105
Only ten schools (13%) worked at this through staff collaborative planning, although
almost one third of the schools indicated that needs were identified through a variety of
methods. Some of the other responses mentioned the use of the School Development
Plan, links with appraisal and accountability to external bodies (in this case in Hong
Kong with the English Schools Foundation, or ESF; see Tables 4.14 and 4.15).
Table 4.14 Means by which school staff development needs are decided (question 5)Number of Responses: 116 (6 schools chose 2 or more)Number of schools: 109 (95%)
Cat School Needs Identification No %A By the head 12 10.3B By the head and senior management team 45 35.8C By the designated staff or professional development
co-ordinator1 0.9
D By the staff as a whole through meetings and collaborative planning
21 18.1
E By a combination of the above three methods 30 25.9F Other: please specify 7 6
Table 4.15 Responses according to school type (question 5Category A B C D E F NRA1 3 3 0 0 0 1 1A2 3 14 0 2 10 3 4Total A a 17 0 2 10 4 5% 13.6 38.6 0 4.5 22.7 9.1 11.4P1 A 14 0 9 10 1 0P2 1 8 0 8 6 1 0Total P 5 22 0 17 16 2 0% 8.1 35.5 0 27.4 25.8 3.2 0S1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1S2 1 6 1 1 A 1 0TotalS 1 6 1 2 4 1 1% 6.3 40 6.3 12.5 25 6.3 6.3
Question 6. How are individual staff development needs decided?
Although it is possible that some respondents may have missed the focus of the question,
there is still a significant number of responses which indicate considerable control over
staff development by the head and senior management team (one third). Despite this,
25% identified needs through appraisal and target setting (although this may in itself be
seen as a form of control), and 30% by individual identification, and these results were
evenly distributed across the school types (see Tables 4.16 and 4.17).
106
Table 4.16 Means by which individual staff development needs are decided (question 6)Number of Responses: 151 (30 schools, 2 or more)Number of schools: 108 (94%)__________ _____________Cat. Individual Needs Identification No %A By the head 20 13.3B By the head and senior
management team37 24.7
C By individual staff identification 44 29.3D Through appraisal and target
setting38 25.3
E Other: please specify 12 8
Table 4.17 Responses according to school type (questCategory A B C D E NRA1 3 2 2 1 0 1A2 4 10 13 11 3 4Total A 7 12 15 12 3 5% 13 22.2 27.8 22.2 5.6 9.3P1 8 9 14 12 3 0P2 5 8 9 8 3 1Total P 13 17 23 20 6 1% 16.3 21.3 28.9 25 7.5 1.3S1 0 1 0 0 0 1S2 0 7 5 6 2 0Tot»IS 0 8 5 6 2 1% 0 36.7 22.7 27.8 9.1 4.6
7, 8 Method and Level of Funding.Question 7. How is INSET and staff development funded?
60% of the responses indicated that there was some form of formal staff development
budget, which in 25% of responses was linked to the school development plan. This
suggests an encouraging level of strategic planning in this area, although one quarter of
the responses indicated that staff development was carried out on an ad hoc, negotiated
basis. Several schools mentioned the central funding of the ESF (see Tables 4.18 and
4.19).
Table 4.18 How INSET and staff development is funded (question 7)Number of Responses: 135 (22 schools, 2 or more)Number of schools: 108 (94%)__________________________Cat Funding of INSET and Staff Development No %A By a separate INSET/staff development budget 49 36.3B As above, linked to the school development plan 33 24.4C On an ad hoc basis: funds are provided if required
by negotiation35 25.9
D By individual teachers who pay directly 9 6.7E By external sponsorship 4 3F Other: please specify 5 3.7
107
Table 4.19 Responses according to school type (question 7)Category A B C D E F NRA1 2 2 2 2 0 0 1A2 14 8 12 1 1 0 4Total A 16 10 14 3 1 0 5% 32.7 20.4 28.6 6.1 2 0 10.2P1 16 12 10 2 2 2 0P2 11 9 5 2 1 1 1Total P 27 21 15 4 3 3 1% 36.5 28.4 20.3 5.4 4.1 4.1 1.4S1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1S2 6 2 5 2 0 2 0Total S 6 2 6 2 0 2 1% 31.6 10.5 31.6 10.5 0 10.5 5.3
Question 8. Is the funding adequate?
The majority of respondents (66%) were happy with their level of funding, particularly in
the Primary schools, with only 15% suggesting that a review of funding is desirable. A
relatively small number (21%) indicated that there is insufficient funding, although the
question does not challenge what the current level of funding is and what additional
funding might be used for (see Tables 4.20 and 4.21).
Table 4.20 Views on the level of funding (question 8)Number of Responses: 105 (91 %)
Cat Perceived Adequacy of Funding No %A Current funding is sufficient to meet present staff
development/INSET needs66 62.9
B A review of funding is desirable to provide new opportunities
16 15.2
C There is insufficient funding to meet present needs 21 20D The funding is not fully used within the present framework 0 0E Other: please specify 2 1.9
Table 4.21 Responses accordingCategory A B C D E NRA1 4 1 2 0 0 1A2 18 6 6 0 0 4Total A 22 7 8 0 0 5% 52.4 16.7 19 0 0 11.9P1 23 3 3 0 2 2P2 13 2 2 0 0 2Total P 36 5 5 0 2 4% 69.2 9.6 9.6 0 3.8 7.7S1 1 0 0 0 0 1S2 7 4 4 0 0 0Total S 8 4 4 0 0 1% 47 23.5 23.5 0 0 5.9
to school type (question 8)
108
Types of S taff Developm ent.
This section considers the types of internal and external staff development which exist,
school and individual funding of courses and appraisal (questions 9-21,23,24 and 32).
Questions 9-13: INSET and its Frequency.Question 9. Does your school have in-house in-service training on whole-school based
themes?
In nearly all the schools (90.7%) there is in-house INSET on whole-school based issues.
The schools least likely to have INSET of this type were in the all age categories (27% of
the total; see Table 4.22).Table 4.22 In-house INSET on whole- school based issues (question 9)Number of Responses: 107 (93%)________________ _ ______Cat In-House INSET on Whole-School Based
IssuesNo %
A There is in-house INSET on whole-school based issues
97 90.7
B There is no in-house INSET on whole-school based issues
10 9.3
Question 10. If your school does have in-house INSET on whole-school based issues, how
often does It occur?
The frequency of this INSET was variable, but it would appear that the tendency is for
scheduled planned staff development work (in 65% of cases across categories A, B and
D) with no significant differences between the school types (see Tables 4.23 and 4.24).
Table 4.23 Frequency of in-house INSET on whole-school based issues (question 10)Number of Responses: 96 (81 %)________________________ ___________Cat Frequency of In-house INSET on Whole-School
Based IssuesNo %
A Annually 21 21.9B On a regular, scheduled basis 23 24C As and when needed 31 32.3D Other, please specify 21 21.9
Table 4.24 Responses according to school type (question 10)TYPE A B C D NRA1 1 2 2 1 3A2 6 7 11 4 6Total A 7 9 13 5 9% 16.3 21 30.2 11.6 21P1 10 8 9 7 3P2 3 3 6 7 3Total P 13 11 15 14 6% 22 18.6 25.4 23.7 10.2S1 0 0 0 0 2S2 3 3 4 3 0Total S 3 3 4 3 2% 20 20 26.7 20 13.3
109
Question 11. Do you have specific staff training days?
In addition to any other staff development work, most schools have specific training days
(69.8%). This was specifically the case with Primary schools where 72% in the two
categories had these days, although the Secondary category was not as likely to have
them (60%), and the total was lower still in the all age-range schools (54%; see Table
4.25).Table 4.25 Schools with specific staff training days (question 11)Number of Responses: 106 (92%) _______Cat Specific Staff Training
DaysNo %
A There are specific staff training days
74 69.8
B There no specific staff training days
32 30.2
Question 12. if there are specific training days, how often do they occur?
In the schools where there were specific training days, a significant number had five or
more days per year (35%), and several identified two to three days per annum. A
surprisingly small number had them at the start or end of each term (25%). Within this
framework, there was a variation of timings which were mentioned by 17% of the
schools which put the majority of the schools into the category of having planned training
days (77% overall). Primary schools were most likely to operate with the 5 training days
(41%), although the non-response in the question was high which might indicate that this
was not a practice in those schools (see Tables 4.26 and 4.27).
Table 4.26 Frequency of specific staff training days in schools where they occur (question 12)
Cat Frequency of Specific Staff Training Days
No %
A 5 or more days per year 35 41.7B At the start/end of each term 21 25C As and when needed 14 16.7D Other, please specify 14 16.7
110
Table 4.27 Responses according to school type (cCategory A B C D NRA1 3 1 0 0 4A2 8 7 4 5 10Total A 11 8 4 5 14% 26.2 19 9.5 11.9 33.3P1 15 7 1 7 5P2 9 1 5 2 6Total P 24 8 6 9 11% 41.4 13.8 10.3 15.5 19S1 0 0 1 0 1S2 0 5 3 0 5Total S 0 5 4 0 6% 0 33.3 26.7 0 40
Question 13. Is there subject-based INSET?
Almost all the schools stated that there was subject-based INSET, although the tendency
was for it to take place on a fairly reactive basis. Only 38% of the responses indicated
that it was done regularly as part of school policy. Several responses identified liaison
opportunities with other schools to share costs and resources. The Primary schools were
the most likely to have regular subject-based INSET (45% of the responses), and a
surprising number indicated variable INSET (30% of the all age schools and 25% of the
secondary; see Table 4.28).
Table 4.28 Frequency of subject-based inset (question 13)Number of Responses: 103 (90%)Cat Frequency of Subject-Based INSET No %A On a regular basis, coordinated and organised as part of whole
school policy38 36.9
B As and when required, coordinated and organised as part of whole school policy
22 21.4
C Occasionally, coordinated and organised as part of whole school policy
15 14.6
D No 6 5.8E Variable, according to individual departmental needs and
arranged by departments21 20.4
F Other: please specify 1 1
Questions 14-17: External Advice, Liaison and Use of Meetings.Question 14. Are external advisers brought in?
The cost of external advice is high for the overseas school, particularly when it is
necessary to import advice from abroad. Therefore it was not surprising that only 30% of
the schools had this on a regular basis. The Hong Kong schools indicated regular INSET,
and this was also mentioned in several neighbouring Gulf countries in the Middle East
region. Responses across the school types revealed no school-type patterns (see Tables
4.29,4.30 and 4.31).
i l l
Table 4.29 The use of external advisors (question 14)Number of Responses: 105 (91 %)Cat. Use of External
AdvisorsNo %
A On a regular basis 30 28.6B As and when
required25 23.8
C Occasionally 37 35.2D No 9 8.6E Other 4 3.8
Table 4.30 Replies indicating INSET on a regular bas s (question 14)1. Africa: 0 2. Asia: 8 3. C/S America:
24. Europe: 10 5. M.East: 9
Hong Kong P1 Hong Kong P2 Hong Kong S2 Hong Kong S2 Indonesia A2 Pakistan P1 Singapore P1 Thailand P1
Brazil A1 Falkland Is. S2
Cyprus P1 Greece A2 Netherlands P1 Norway P1 Portugal A2 Spain A2 Sweden P1 Switzerland P2 UKP1 UKS2
Egypt P1 Kuwait A1 Oman A2 Qatar P2 Saudi Arabia P1 Saudi Arabia P2 UAE P1 UAE P2 UAE P2
Table 4.31 Responses according to school type (question 14)Category A B C D E NRA1 2 1 2 2 0 1A2 5 9 12 2 2 4Total A 7 10 14 4 2 5% 16.7 23.8 33.3 9.5 4.8 11.9P1 13 6 11 4 0 1P2 7 6 8 1 1 1Total P 20 12 19 5 1 2% 33.9 20.3 32.2 8.5 1.7 3.4S1 0 1 0 0 0 1S2 4 1 5 0 2 0Total S 4 2 5 0 2 1% 28.6 14.3 35.7 0 14.3 7.1
Question 15. If external advisers are brought in, what kind are they?
The types of advisors used varied widely. IT advice, both locally and externally obtained,
accounted for 21% of the total. A relatively large number of Ofsted inspectors (19%)
indicated the importance of bringing in experts ffom the British system, and the presence
of UK exam board subject advisors (11%) highlighted the importance of information in
this area. Other local advice was identified on an individual and organisational basis (e.g.
the English Schools Foundation in Hong Kong), as were educational consultancies. Two
respondents also identified UK university links. Overall, however, the responses are few
in number and generally indicate a shortage of external advice. One quarter of the
Primary schools had visiting Ofsted inspectors, which was the largest proportion, and
112
across the other school types the results were evenly spread with the exception of
examination board subject advisers. The largest number of responses on a regional basis
came ffom the schools in Asia and Europe, which both had a fairly even distribution of
advisers of all types. There were fewer responses from the schools in the Middle East,
and the African schools had the lowest number of responses which indicated that advice
was most likely to be acquired locally (see Tables 4.32,4.33 and 4.34).
Table 4.32 The types of advisors used (question 15)Number of Responses: 186 (52 schools, 2 or more) Number of schools: 97 (84%)_____________________Cat Types of Advisors Used No %A Information Technology related, locally 21 11.3B Information Technology related from abroad 19 10.2C OfSTED inspectors from the UK 36 19.4D Local education advisers and organisations (eg
British Council)28 15.1
E Advisers from international organisations (ECIS, WWF, UN etc.)
26 14
F UK exam board subject advisers 21 11.3G Other 35 18.8
Table 4.33 Responses according to school tyCategory A B C D E F G NRA1 0 0 4 3 0 0 0 2A2 6 7 3 8 8 14 9 7Total A 6 7 7 11 8 14 9 9% 8.5 9.9 9.9 15.5 11.3 19.7 12.7 12.7P1 5 4 15 8 11 0 10 5P2 4 6 10 6 3 1 10 3Total P 9 10 25 14 14 1 20 8% 8.9 9.9 24.8 13.9 13.9 1 19.8 7.9S1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1S2 6 2 4 3 3 6 4 0TotalS 6 2 4 3 3 5 5 1% 20 6.7 13.3 10 10 20 16.7 3.3
>e (question 15)
Table 4.34 Geographical distribution (question 5)1. Africa 2. Asia 3. C/S
America4. Europe 5. M.East
A 21 4 19% 6 29% 0 9 43% 2 10%B 20 2 10% 6 30% 0 8 40% 4 20%C 36 1 3% 13 36% 2 6% 10 28% 10 28%D 29 5 17% 7 24% 1 3% 10 36% 6 21%E 25 1 4% 8 32% 0 11 44% 5 20%F 20 3 15% 5 25% 0 9 45% 3 15%G 34 5 15% 12 35% 1 3% 12 35% 4 12%185 21 57 4 69 34NR 18 11% 31% 2% 37% 18%
113
Question 16. Is there inter-school liaison on subject or whole school based issues?
Inter-school liaison seemed to be fairly common with almost one-third of the schools
involved on a regular basis, and in almost half of the other schools there was some form
of liaison. Only 18 schools (almost 17%) reported no liaison. Several responses indicated
liaison through area/regional organisations such as the BSME (British Schools in the
Middle East in the UAE), the Latin American Heads Conference and between IB
(International Baccalaureate) Schools. The Primary and Secondary categories indicated
that it was fairly common (34 and 33% respectively). Although the European schools had
the highest number of responses to this question, they were most likely to work in
isolation with the highest proportion of responses indicating no liaison. Asian schools
were the most likely, and the responses accounted for almost half of the total across the
survey in the regular basis category (see Tables 4.35,4.36 and 4.37).
Table 4.35 Frequency of inter-school liaison on subject or whole-school issues (question 16)Number of Responses: 108 (94%) ______Cat. Frequency of Inter-School
Liaison on Subject or Whole- School Issues
No %
A On a regular basis 31 28.7B As and when required 20 18.5C Occasionally 36 33.3D None 18 16.7E Other: please specify 3 2.8
Table 4.36 Responses accordingCategory A B C D E NRA1 0 2 3 2 0 1A2 6 6 12 5 0 4Total A 6 8 15 7 0 5% 14.6 19.5 36.6 17.1 0 12.2P1 13 2 10 7 3 0P2 7 5 7 4 0 0Total P 20 7 17 11 3 0% 34.5 12.1 29.3 19 5.2 0S1 0 1 0 0 0 1S2 5 4 4 0 0 0Total S 5 5 4 0 0 1% 33.3 33.3 26.7 0 0 6.7
to school type (question 16)
Table 4.37 Geographical distribution (question 16)1. Africa 2. Asia 3. CIS
America4. Europe 5 M.East
A 31 3 10% 15 48% 0 0% 10 32% 3 10%B 20 5 25% 3 15% 2 10% 7 35% 3 15%C 35 8 23% 6 23% 1 3% 10 29% 10 29%D 18 1 6% 2 11% 1 6% 10 56% 4 22%E 4 1 25% 1 25% 1 25% 1 25% 0 0%108 18 17% 27 25% 5 5% 38 35% 20 19%NR 6
114
Question 17. Is there a regular cycle of whole staff and other specific role related meetings?
The majority of schools (80%) have in place a regular, planned cycle of meetings of all
types, with a smaller number (18%) holding them as and when required. Responses were
spread evenly across the school types (see Tables 4.38 and 4.39).
Table 4.38 The frequency of whole staff and specific role-related meetings (question 17)Number of Responses: 108 (94%)____________i______Cat Frequency of Whole Staff and
Specific Role-Related Meetings
No %
A On a regular basis, time-tabled in advance
80 74.1
B As and when required 18 16.7C Occasionally 7 6.5D None 2 1.9E Other: please specify 1 0.9
Table 4.39 Responses according to school type (question 17)Category A B C D E NRA1 4 2 1 0 0 1A2 24 5 1 0 0 4Total A 28 7 2 0 0 5% 88.7 18.7 4.8 0 0 11.9P1 27 4 3 1 0 0P2 14 6 1 0 1 1Total P 41 10 4 1 1 1% 70.1 17.2 8.9 1.7 1.7 1.7S1 1 0 0 0 0 1S2 10 1 1 1 0 0Totals 11 1 1 1 0 1% 73.8 8.7 8.7 8.7 0 8.7
Questions 18-21: School and Staff Funding.Question 18. Does the school fund individual staff on courses?
Although the amounts and numbers are not specified, nearly all the schools stated that
they funded (74%) or partially funded (22%) staff on courses which showed
overwhelming support across all the school types (see Tables 4.40 and 4.41).
Table 4.40 School funding of staff on courses (question 18)
Cat. School Funding of Staff on Courses
No %
A The school funds staff on courses
80 74.1
B The school does not fund staff on courses
4 3.7
C The school partially funds staff on courses
24 22.2
115
Table 4.41 Responses according to school type (question 18)Category A B c NRA1 5 0 1 1A2 21 0 9 4Total A 26 0 10 5% 63.4 0 24.4 12.2P1 25 3 7 0P2 19 0 3 1Total P 44 3 10 1% 75.9 5.2 17.2 1.7S1 1 0 0 1S2 9 0 4 0Totals 10 0 4 1% 66.7 0 26.7 6.7
Question 19. if the school does fund staff on courses, what typefs) do, or have, received
funding?
There was a broad spread of course types undertaken, although the tendency was more
for short courses either locally (37%) or in the U.K. and elsewhere (37%). Full-time
funding for long-term courses was rare (5%), although a significant number of staff were
being supported on long-term distance learning Masters degree courses (17%). One
school mentioned the use of an educational consultancy as a short course provider. There
was an even spread across all school types, with a roughly equal divide between courses
in the UK and locally (see Tables 4.42 and 4.43).
Table 4.42 Types of courses funded by schools (question 19)Number of Responses: 178 (2 or more, 46 schools)Number of schools: 104 (90%)___________________Cat Types of Courses Funded by Schools No %A Short courses available locally arranged by
local providers66 37.1
B Short courses in the UK or elsewhere 67 37.6C Long term distance learning courses (MA,
M.Ed, MBA etc)31 17.4
D Long term full-time funding (eg 1 year Masters course
9 5.1
E Other courses (please specify) 5 2.8
Table 4.43 Responses according to school type (question 19)Category A B C D E NRA1 3 4 1 2 1 1A2 21 16 9 2 3 4Total A 24 20 10 4 4 5% 35.8 29.9 14.9 6 6 7.5P1 17 27 7 2 0 3P2 16 12 9 3 1 1Total P 33 98 16 5 1 4% 33.7 39.8 16.3 5.1 1 4.1S1 0 1 0 0 0 1S2 8 8 4 0 0 1Totals 8 9 4 0 0 2% 34.8 39.1 17.4 0 0 8.7
116
Question 20. Are there staff currently involved in self-financing distance learning courses, or who have completed courses in the last two years?
Staff development course funding by the school is therefore common. In addition in 72%
of the schools there are staff who are doing self-financing distance learning courses, or
who have recently completed them. The distribution across the school types was even,
although the Primary schools were least likely to have staff on self-financed courses
(31%; see Tables 4.44 and 4.45).Table 4.44 Schools with staff currently involved In self-financing distance learning courses, or who have completed courses in the last two years. (MA, MBA etc.) (Question 20)Number of Responses: 106 (92%)___________________ _____________Cat. Numbers of Schools With Staff on Self-
Financed CoursesNo %
A Schools with staff in this category 76 71.7B Schools with no staff in this category 30 28.3
Table 4.45 Responses according to school type (question 20)Category A B NRA1 6 1 1A2 23 7 4Total A 29 8 5% 69 19 11.9P1 24 10 1P2 13 8 2Total P 37 18 3% 63.8 31 5.2S1 0 1 1S2 10 3 0TotalS 10 4 1% 66.7 26.7 6.7
Question 21. if there are staff involved in self-financing courses, how many are there in
each course area?
• The overall results indicate a significant number of staff involved in courses, with
69% of the schools responding that there were staff in this category, providing a mean
of almost four staff per school (or 2.5 across all the respondent schools, including the
non-responses to the question).
• The types of courses tended to be at Masters Degree level (66%) and out of this total
86% were related to education with the majority being MA and M.Ed. degrees in
education.
• MBA’s in Educational Management were less common, although accounted for more
than subject related Masters degrees.
• There was no mention made of other Educational Management Masters Degree
courses.117
• A small number were at Doctoral level (5%), and a larger number at postgraduate
level (14%) in addition to the other identified courses.
• A number of respondents mentioned courses in Special Needs and Dyslexia.
• The category A, all-age range, schools had the highest proportion of Masters degree
“students” (70%).
• Although Primary schools had a large number of staff doing Masters degrees in
Education, a larger proportion were involved in other types of courses such as the
types mentioned above.
• The regional responses indicated that by far the largest number of staff following
courses of all types were to be found in Asia (43% of the total responses), and of
these almost half were Masters Degrees in Education.
• Europe and the Middle East accounted for a similar, smaller proportion (20% and
18% respectively), and Masters Degrees in Education were again the largest
proportion.
• Diploma courses were most popular in Africa, and a smaller number of other courses
were fairly evenly distributed across the regions.
• Three of the countries which contained the largest numbers of schools, Kenya, Asia
and the UAE, which also represented three of the regions, provided an interesting
comparison. Hong Kong averaged over 6 members of staff per school on courses of
all types (73 in 12 schools) against 2.5 and 1.2 in the UAE (25 in 10 schools) and
Kenya (11 in 9 schools, with six in one school) respectively. In all three cases the
largest proportion was in the Masters Degree in Education (see Tables 4.46. 4.47,
4.48 and 4.49).
Table 4.46 Courses undertaken by staff in schools (Question 21)Schools Responding: 79Number of Responses: 293MeanMean
3er school with identified staff: 3.7 or all schools: 2.5
Cat. Staff Involved in Self-Financing Long-Term Courses
No %
A MA/MSc. etc. subject related. 27 9.2B MA/MEd in Education 134 45.7C MBA In Educational Management 32 10.9D PhD, EdD in Education 15 5.1E Advanced Diplomas, Postgraduate
Certificates41 14
F Other school-related courses (Please specify)
44 14
118
Table 4.47 Responses according to school type (question 21)Category A B C D E F NRA1 0 9 1 2 2 0 2A2 11 52 13 3 16 7 10Total A 11 61 14 5 18 7 12% 8.6 47.7 10.9 3.9 14.1 5.5 9.4P1 5 32 5 4 5 8 11P2 6 31 4 1 7 18 9Total P 11 63 9 5 12 26 20% 7.5 43.2 6.2 3.4 8.2 17.8 13.7S1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2S2 5 12 5 12 12 0 2TotalS 5 12 5 12 12 0 4% 10 24 10 24 24 0 8
Table 4.48 Geographical location: responses by region (question 21)1. Africa 2. Asia 3. CIS
America4. Europe 5. M.East
A 27 2 8 0 13 45% 7% 0% 23% 7%7% 26% 0% 48% 15%
B 133 12 58 11 24 2830% 48% 79% 43% 54%9% 44% 8% 18% 22%
C 28 8 9 2 3 620% 7% 14% 5% 12%29% 32% 7% 11% 21%
D 15 2 7 1 1 45% 6% 7% 2% 7%13% 47% 7% 7% 27%
E 43 15 15 0 9 438% 12% 0% 16% 7%35% 35% 0% 21% 9%
F 43 1 28 0 6 83% 23% 0% 11% 15%2% 65% 0% 14% 19%
283 40 121 14 56 5214% 43% 5% 20% 18%
NR 7Results expressed as follows:Column 1: Numbers in each categoryOther columns: number of responses, percentage of regional responses, proportional percentage of responses in each answer
Table 4.49 Geographical location: examples of well represented countries (question 21)1. Kenya 2. Hong Kong 5. UAE
A 2 18% 6 8% 2 8%B 4 36% 29 40% 12 48%C 0 0% 4 6% 4 16%D 1 9% 1 1% 2 8%E 4 36% 11 15% 3 12%F 0 0 22 30% 2 8%TOT 109 11 10%
(6 in one school)
73 67% 25 23%
SCHOOLS 9 12 10MEAN PER SCHOOL
1.2 6.1 2.5
Percentages of the total country response.119
Questions 23, 24 and 32: Appraisal.Question 23. Does your school have an appraisal system?
Although the focus is not on appraisal, the presence of an appraisal system is likely to be
of significance to the consideration of staff development programmes, particularly since
appraisal is statutory in U.K schools. Almost two-thirds of the schools (61%) already had
appraisal systems in place, and another 30% were in the process of developing one,
indicating a commitment to appraisal by the vast majority of the schools (89%). The
largest proportion without an appraisal system was the secondary sector (20% of the
sample), and one third of the Primary schools were in the process of developing a system
of appraisal (see Tables 4.50 and 4.51).Table 4.50 Presence of an appraisal system (question 23)Number of Responses: 107 (93%)_____i _____ ______Cat. Presence of an Appraisal System No %A There is an appraisal system at the
school65 60.7
B There is not an appraisal system at the school
12 11.2
C A system is under development/consideration
30 28
Table 4.51 Responses according to school type (question 23)Category A B C NRA1 4 1 2 1A2 23 1 6 4Total A 27 2 8 5% 64.3 4.8 19 11.9P1 21 6 8 0P2 10 1 11 1Total P 31 7 19 1% 53.4 12.1 32.8 1.7S1 0 0 1 1S2 8 3 2 0Total S 8 3 3 1% 53.3 20 20 6.7
Question 24. If there is an appraisal system in place, what type is it?
Half of the appraisal systems in place (48%) were line management systems with
accountability to the next level. Peer appraisal systems were rare (7%), although a further
31% stated that they combined both methods. One school (50) identified support through
the ESF appraisal scheme (English Schools Foundation, Hong Kong). In only one school
(116) was there a response that indicated that the system had been developed by the staff
themselves, and a number of variations were mentioned by respondents. The secondaiy
sector was far more likely to have appraisal systems which combined line management
120
and peer appraisal (47%), although there was a high level of non-response to this
question (see Tables 4.52 and 4.53).Table 4.52 The type of appraisal system in place (Question 24)Number of Responses: 98 (85%)_____________________Cat. Type of Appraisal System in Place No %A A line management system with accountability to
the next level47 48
B A peer appraisal system with staff appraising fellow colleagues
7 7.1
C A combination of A and B 30 30.6D Other (please specify) 14 14.3
Table 4.53 Responses according to school type (question 24)Category A B c D NRA1 3 0 1 2 2A2 17 5 4 3 6Total A 20 5 5 5 7% 47.6 11.9 11.9 11.9 16.7P1 14 1 11 4 5P2 10 1 8 5 0Total P 24 2 19 9 5% 40.7 3.4 32.2 15.3 8.5S1 0 0 0 0 2S2 3 0 7 1 2TotalS 3 0 7 1 4% 20 0 46.7 6.7 26.7
Question 32. There is a positive attitude towards appraisal.
This question was included in this section because of its links with the previous questions
on appraisal. Despite the identified presence of appraisal systems, attitudes towards
appraisal appeared to be more mixed. Only 11% of respondents strongly agreed with
appraisal, and more than one quarter indicated that staff in their schools were not
generally positive about it. Responses were distributed equally across the school types
(see Tables 4.54 and 4.55).
Table 4.54 There is a positive attitude towards appraisal (Question 32)Number of Responses: 104 (90%) ______
Response No %1 Strongly agree 11 10.62 Agree 65 62.53 Disagree 24 23.14 Strongly disagree 4 3.8
121
Table 4.55 Responses according to school type (question 32)Category 1 2 3 4 NRA1 1 4 2 0 1A2 2 20 8 0 2Total A 3 24 10 0 3% 7.5 60 25 0 7.5P1 4 20 6 3 1P2 3 12 5 0 3Total P 7 32 11 3 4% 12.3 56.1 19.3 5.3 7S1 0 1 0 0 1S2 1 8 3 1 0Total S 1 9 3 1 1% 6.7 60 20 6.7 6.7
Attitudes to Staff DevelopmentThis section considers attitudes of respondents towards staff development issues,
including quality initiatives, the attitudes of staff and the importance of following British
practice (questions 22, 25-31 and 33-34).
Question 22 Perceived Impact of Staff Development.Question 22. Has any of the professional staff development made an impact on the school (as identified in questions 19-21)
It is clear that with school and individually financed long and short courses there appears
to be considerable influence in the surveyed schools in keeping in touch with
developments. The perceived impact of these initiatives is difficult to quantify, and the
responses were mixed. Only 24% of the schools considered that professional staff
development had made a significant impact on the school. The tendency would appear
that the individuals have benefited from the work they have done, and this has had some
impact on the school. Few staff appear to have gained promotions within the school as a
result (8%), and in a few cases it appears to have been possible for the individual to use
the course(s) as a stepping stone for a promotion in another school. One respondent (156)
considered that distance learning courses had made no impact. Proportionally the
distribution of responses across the school types was equitable, with the greatest
perceived impact in the primary sector (28%; see Tables 4.56 and 4.57).
122
Table 4.56 Perceived impact of professional staff development on the school (question 22)Number of Responses: 141 (2 or more, 28 schools)Number of schools: 103 (90%)_______________________________________ ____________Cat. Perceived Impact of Professional Staff Development on the
SchoolNo %
A It has made a significant impact, with staff contributing to whole school developments and their contributions welcomed by the management
34 24.1
B It has made an impact, but more in individual areas of the school than at whole school level
40 28.4
C It has made some impact in all areas of the school, but not all information has been passed on
18 12.8
D The impact has been fairly limited on the school as a whole, but appears to have made significant differences to the individuals concerned
26 18.4
E Staff involved in such courses have been able to get promotion within the school as a result
12 8.5
F Staff involved in such courses have left for promotion elsewhere 9 12
G Other: please specify 2 9
Table 4.57 Responses according to school type (question 22)Category A B C D E F G NRA1 3 0 3 2 0 0 0 1A2 5 16 5 10 5 2 0 4Total A 8 16 8 12 5 2 0 5% 14.3 28.6 14.3 21.4 8.9 3.6 0 8.9P1 14 12 4 5 3 3 1 3P2 8 6 4 7 2 2 1 3Total P 22 18 8 12 5 5 2 6% 28.2 23.1 10.3 15.4 6.4 6.4 2.6 7.7S1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1S2 3 6 1 3 2 1 0 0TotalS 4 6 2 3 2 1 0 1% 21.1 31.6 10.5 15.8 10.5 5.3 0 5.3
Question 25 Staff Attitudes.Question 25. Staff at the school are keen to participate in staff development opportunities
and keep in touch with developments in education.
The response to this question was extremely positive, particularly in the primary sector,
and indicated that the respondents considered their staffs to be very committed to staff
development initiatives, although the perception and the reality may be different. There
was only one case of disagreement (see Tables 4.58 and 4.59).Table 4.58 Staff at the school are keen to participate in staff development opportunities and keep in touch with developments in education (Question 25)
Response No %1 Strongly agree 48 442 Agree 60 553 Disagree 1 0.94 Strongly disagree 0 0
123
Table 4.59 Responses according to school type (question 25)Category 1 2 3 4 NRA1 4 3 0 0 1A2 11 19 0 0 4Total A 15 22 0 0 5% 35.7 52.4 0 0 11.9P1 14 20 1 0 0P2 13 10 0 0 1Total P 27 30 1 0 1% 45.8 50.8 1.7 0 1.7S1 0 1 0 0 1S2 6 7 0 0 ^ 0TotalS 6 8 0 0 1% 40 53.3 0 0 6.7
Questions 26 and 34 UK Developments.Question 26. It is important for the school to keep up to date with UK developments in the
area of staff development.
This is an important question for the British style overseas school to consider. Although it
is necessary to keep up with curriculum developments for public examinations, the
necessity to adopt all UK initiatives is not there. All the school types indicated a strong
support for the importance of keeping in touch (see Tables 4.60 and 4.61).
Table 4.60 It is important for the school to keep up to date with UK developments in this area (Question 26)Number of Responses: 108 (94%) ______
Response No %1 Strongly agree 57 52.82 Agree 47 43.53 Disagree 4 3.74 Strongly disagree 0 0
Table 4.61 Responses according to school type (question 26)Category 1 2 3 4 NRA1 3 3 1 0 1A2 16 14 0 0 4Total A 19 17 1 0 5% 45.2 40.1 2.4 0 11.9P1 19 15 1 0 1P2 11 10 2 0 0Total P 30 25 3 0 1% 50.8 42.4 5.1 0 1.7S1 0 1 0 0 1S2 8 5 0 0 0Total S 8 6 0 0 1% 53.3 40 0 0 6.7
Question 34. The curriculum of the school is closely linked to the British National
Curriculum.
The schools overwhelmingly supported the British National Curriculum, with only 8% of
the respondents disagreeing. Responses across all three school types were almost equally
124
divided between the two categories of agreement and strong agreement (see Tables 4.62
and 4.63).
Table 4.62 The curriculum of the school is closely linked to the British National Curriculum (Question 34)
Response No %1 Strongly agree 53 49.12 Agree 46 42.63 Disagree 8 7.44 Strongly disagree 1 0.9
Table 4.63 Responses according to school tyCategory 1 2 3 4 NRA1 5 1 1 0 1A2 12 17 1 0 4Total A 17 18 2 0 5% 40.5 42.9 4.8 0 11.9P1 20 11 3 0 1P2 10 9 3 1 0Total P 30 20 6 1 1% 51.7 34.5 10.3 1.6 1.6S1 0 1 0 0 1S2 6 7 0 0 0TotalS 6 8 0 0 1% 40 53.3 0 0 6.7
>e (question 34)
Question 27 Quality Assurance.Question 27. Quality assurance initiatives such as Investors in People are valid for our
school.
The responses to this question were more tentative, and it was clear from several
responses that they were unfamiliar with Investors in People, and there was a
significantly higher level of disagreement (25% overall). The tendency was to agree with
the statement, although there was more disagreement across all three school types in the
other questions. In the context of the rest of the questionnaire, this question appears to be
rather irrelevant (see Tables 4.64 and 4.65).
Table 4.64 Quality assurance initiatives such as Investors in People are valid for our school (Question 27)
Response No %1 Strongly agree 14 14.32 Agree 59 60.23 Disagree 21 21.44 Strongly disagree 4 4.1
125
Category 1 2 3 4 NRA1 0 4 1 1 2A2 4 15 9 0 6Total A 4 19 10 1 8% 9.5 45.2 23.8 2.4 19P1 5 18 6 1 5P2 2 15 2 1 2Total P 7 33 8 2 7% 12.3 57.9 14 3.5 12.3S1 0 0 1 0 1S2 3 7 2 1 0TotalS 3 7 3 1 1% 20 46.7 20 6.7 6.7
(question 27)
Questions 28-31 and 33 Other Issues.Question 28. Staff development in the school is generally concerned with providing
essential in-service training.
The question of staff development being concerned with providing essential in-service
training was a more “loaded” question in which it was interesting to note a mixed set of
responses. It would be a shame if the purpose of staff development was merely to deliver
an essential INSET programme, and a greater level of disagreement would have therefore
been desirable. In total some 78% of the respondents agreed with the statement. In the
Primary sector, responses were equally divided between the two categories of agreement
with the largest proportion of disagreement coming from the all-age range (Category A)
schools (see Tables 4.66 and 4.67).
Table 4.66 Staff development in the school is generally concerned with providing essential in-service training (Question 28)Number of Responses: 104 (90%) ______
Response No %1 Strongly agree 23 22.12 Agree 60 57.73 Disagree 17 16.34 Strongly disagree 4 3.8
Table 4.67 Responses according to school type (question 28)Category 1 2 3 4 NRA1 1 5 1 0 1A2 3 9 7 1 4Total A 4 14 8 1 5% 12.5 43.8 25 3.1 15.6P1 8 5 5 3 4P2 8 11 3 0 1Total P 16 16 8 3 5% 33.3 33.3 16.7 6.3 10.4S1 0 1 0 0 1S2 3 9 1 0 0Total S 3 10 1 0 1% 20 66.7 6.7 0 6.7
126
Question 29. Staff development in the school is generally concerned with ensuring that staff are performing effectively.
Effective performance might be linked to appraisal and the question targets the
“controlling” institutional needs aspects of staff development. It is clear that the majority
of the respondents see this as the primary purpose of their staff development policy
(84%), and it would be an interesting exercise to see how far the staff in the schools
agreed with this in theory and in practice. Responses were equally divided across the
three school types (see Tables 4.68 and 4.69).
Table 4.68 Staff development in the school is generally concerned with ensuring that staff are performing effectively (Question 29)Number of Responses: 107 (93%) ______
Response No %1 Strongly agree 25 23.42 Agree 65 60.73 Disagree 13 12.14 Strongly disagree 4 3.7
Table 4.69 Responses according to school type (question 29)Category 1 2 3 4 NRA1 2 3 2 0 1A2 5 18 4 3 4Total A 7 21 6 3 5% 10.7 50 14.3 7.1 11.9P1 8 22 3 1 1P2 6 16 1 0 0Total P 14 38 4 1 1% 24.1 65.5 6.9 1.7 1.7S1 0 1 0 0 1S2 4 5 3 0 1Totals 4 6 3 0 2% 26.7 40 20 0 13.3
Question 30. As an overseas school, it is much more difficult for staff to receive ongoing
support from external bodies with regard to professional development.
The majority of respondents agreed that it is more difficult for staff to receive ongoing
support from external bodies as an overseas school (nearly 80%), and in some of the
remoter locations this must be even more the case, despite technological developments
which have speeded up communications, and there were no significant differences across
the three school types, although European responses indicated that this was less of an
issue than in other regions (see Tables 4.70,4.71 and 4.72).
127
Table 4.70 Ae an overseas school, It is much more difficult for staff to receive ongoing support from external bodies with regard to professional development (Question 30)Number of Responses: 105 (91 %) ______
Response No %1 Strongly agree 44 41.92 Agree 39 37.13 Disagree 15 14.34 Strongly disagree 7 6.7
Table 4.71 Responses according to school type (question 30)Category 1 2 3 4 NRA1 3 2 0 2 1A2 13 9 5 1 6Total A 16 11 5 3 7% 38.1 26.2 11.9 7.1 16.7P1 12 13 5 3 2P2 11 9 3 0 0Total P 23 22 8 3 2% 33.8 32.4 11.8 4.4 2.9S1 0 1 0 0 1S2 5 5 2 1 0TotalS 5 6 2 1 1% 33.3 40 13.3 6.7 6.7
Table 4.72 Geographical location: regional responses (question 30)1. Africa 2. Asia 3. C/S
America4. Europe 5. M.East
1 43 10 11 3 13 659% 41% 60% 38% 30%23% 26% 7% 30% 14%
2 39 4 9 1 14 1124% 33% 20% 41% 55%10% 10% 3% 36% 28%
3 14 3 5 0 4 218% 19% 0% 12% 10%21% 36% 0% 29% 14%
4 7 0 2 1 3 10% 7% 20% 9% 5%0% 29% 14% 43% 20%
103 17 27 5 34 2017% 26% 5% 33% 19%
Nil Responses 10 Responses expressed as:Question number and totals; number per region, percentage of regional total and proportional percentage of the total category response.
Question 31. There is a positive attitude towards staff development
Depending on the definitions of staff development, it would appear that the respondents
considered there to be a very positive attitude among staff, with 96% of the school
respondents agreeing with this. Again it would be an interesting exercise to cross-
reference this with the staff in the schools. The attitude in Primary schools seems to be
more positive with the highest proportional response rate in the “Strongly Agree”
category (43%; see Tables 4.73 and 4.74).128
Table 4.73 There is a positive attitude towards staff development (Question 31)
Response No %1 Strongly agree 43 39.42 Agree 62 56.93 Disagree 3 2.84 Strongly disagree 1 0.9
Table 4.74 Responses according to school type (question 31)Category 1 2 3 4 NRA1 4 3 0 0 1A2 10 20 0 0 4Total A 14 23 0 0 5% 33.3 54.8 0 0 11.9P1 12 19 3 1 0P2 13 10 0 0 0Total P 25 29 3 1 0% 43.1 29 3 1 0S1 0 1 0 0 1S2 4 9 0 0 0Totals 4 10 0 0 1% 26.7 66.7 0 0 6.7
Question 33. The geographical location of the school makes It difficult to keep up with
developments which are not always relevant to the needs of the school.
The location of the school and proximity to other similar schools plays an important part,
and not surprisingly the responses were very mixed. Over half (61%) agreed that
geographical location did make a difference. Schools across two of the school types were
in agreement about the problem of geographical location (all-age ranges, 62% and
Secondary 67%), although the Primary schools were almost equally divided on the issue.
There was little significant regional difference, although African responses showed the
highest proportion of agreement (see Tables 4.75,4.76 and 4.77).
Table 4.75 The geographical location of the school makes it difficult to keep up with developments which are not always relevant to the needs of the school (Question 33)
Response No %1 Strongly agree 15 14.92 Agree 47 46.53 Disagree 29 28.74 Strongly disagree 10 9.9
129
Table 4.76 Responses accord ng to school tyCategory 1 2 3 4 NRA1 2 1 2 1 2A2 5 14 6 4 5Total A 7 15 8 5 7% 16.7 35.7 19 11.9 16.7P1 3 13 12 4 3P2 4 10 6 0 3Total P 7 23 18 4 6% 12.1 39.7 31 6.9 10.3S1 0 1 0 0 1S2 1 8 3 1 0TotalS 1 9 3 1 1% 6.7 60 20 6.7 6.7
Table A1.77 Geograp Meal distribution (question 33)1. Africa 2. Asia 3. C/S
America4. Europe 5. M.East
1 14 6 3 0 4 140% 11% 0% 11% 6%43% 21% 0% 29% 7%
2 47 8 11 2 18 853% 41% 40% 50% 17%17% 23% 4% 38% 17%
3 29 1 10 2 8 87% 37% 40% 22% 47%3% 34% 7% 28% 28%
4 10 0 3 1 6 00% 11% 20% 17% 0%0% 30% 10% 60% 0%15 27 5 36 17
100 15% 27% 5% 36% 17%NR13
Responses expressed as:Question number and totals; number per region, percentage of regional total and proportional
percentage of the total category response.
Perceived Strengths, Limitations and Future Goals.The following information consists of the qualitative responses to the survey in questions
35 to 37. The method of analysis was to identify categories for the questions which dealt
with perceived strengths, perceived limitations of the process of staff development and
desirable changes in the surveyed schools. In some cases the responses covered more
than one category, and this is reflected in the totals. One important observation is that
these questions were the most likely not to be answered, and this perhaps reflects not only
their positioning at the end of the survey, but also the greater time and effort required.
Despite this, however, it was felt that to ask these questions in a more open-ended way
elicited responses which were more individually unique.
130
The categories were derived by reading the responses and noting the general area of
comment. These areas were then compared and definitive general categories were
identified, which were themselves subdivided. The numbers of responses within the
identified categories differed considerably and can be summarised as follows;
Fig. 4.78 Response rate to questions 35-37
Question Responses Returns Response Rate %
35 87 115 7636 87 115 7637 74 115 64
The categories which were identified in questions 35-37, together with the responses for
the categories in each question are shown below. With more than one category area
identified in the two questions, the total responses increased. The six main categories are:
• Strategic Planning
• Access and Accessibility
• Funding
• Time and Timing
• Attitude
• Miscellaneous
Fig. 4.79 Categories and the number of responses.Question and
number of responses
i .StrategicPlanning
2.Access and
Accessibility
3.Funding
4.Time and Timing
5.Attitude
6.Miscellaneous
35:104 43 17 9 1 26 8
36:97 14 19 32 20 10 237: 77 34 19 15 1 4 4
Some responses fitted into more than one category which accounts for the different
figures, as the responses identified in some cases three different category areas.
Fig. 4.80 Categories and the proportion of responses (percentages of total in F i
Question,number
i .StrategicPlanning
2.Access and
Accessibility
3.Funding
4.Time and Timing
5.Attitude
6.Miscellaneous
35: 41 16 9 1 25 8
36: 14 20 33 21 10 237: 44 25 19 1 5 5
9-4.79)
131
Strategic Planning.
Fig. 4.81. Responses regarding strategic planning.Strategic planning as a strength of the staff development programme (43 responses)
Strategic planning as a weakness of the staff development programme (14 responses)
• Needs identification the most significant area (34%).
• Ownership and collaboration are very significant (20%)
• Only seven responses linked the staff development programme to the school development plan
• Lack of linkage between the school development plan and appraisal to the staff development programme (4 responses)
• Only two or three responses linked the programme to appraisal, planning, working in teams and leadership (such as the role of the staff development co-ordinator).
• Staff turnover• Lack of co-ordination• “Patchy” and “fragmented" programmes
with a need for more review and follow-up.
As one school stated:“All staff can participate. This is made easier when advisers from international organisations are invited to present workshops in school or in other schools in town.” (School Code 10)
One school responded as follows to the perceived strengths of the programme:“Its links with the SDP. All teaching staff are included with a view to including non-teaching staff There is an element of accountability. It facilitates staff improving their teaching skills and thus the learning of students” (School Code 38)
Another positive school response indicated that the programme:“Meets the needs of the school; meets the personal needs of individual teachers; meets the requirements of the local Ministry of Education Schools Inspectorate and meets the needs of British expatriates including exam boards” (School Code 104)
The identification of the importance of strategic planning was summarised by one school
where staff development is:“ still not linked to a clear review system as it is dependent on staff applying to go on a courserather than it being suggested or advised.” (School Code 96)
Other areas mentioned by individual schools:
Almost half of the respondents identified strategic planning issues as an area to improve.
Areas which were identified were;
• Better integration with the school development plan. This was a weakness identified
by one respondent who stated that there was an:“ insufficient link with the overall SDP.” (School Code 1)
• More staff input
• More formalised training days
• Links between appraisal and staff development
• Introduce appraisal. A respondent identified this most succinctly:
132
“A staff appraisal system is not yet in place and therefore the staff development programme does not have information from this very important component to drive and feed into the decision-making process.” (School Code 123)
• Development of a relationship with a U.K. university
• Increase staff awareness
• Improve structured opportunities for staff which go beyond just meeting needs:“Introduce structure instead of responding to opportunities and situations.” (School Code 159)
• Improve monitoring, evaluation and follow-up
One suggestion was to link the school with a British higher education institution and
develop a partnership:“Possibly a modular scheme that allows the school to develop its own programme in association with a local provider, and to “reward” participation with credits. The scheme run by Clifton College, Bristol. UK with the University o f the West of England is very interesting in this respect.” (School Code 171)
Access and Accessibility.
Fig. 4.82 Access and accessibility: strengths and weaknessesAccess and accessibility as strengths of the staff development programme (17 responses)
Access and accessibility as weaknesses of the staff development programme (19 responses)
• A strength of the programme (17 responses)
• Use of external advisers or consultants (5)• Local liaison and INSET (5)• In-school training days (3)• Use of new staff to pass on prior expertise• Cascading• Links with other schools• Courses in the U.K.• Developing communication with the use of
the Internet
• Limited contact• Lack of inter-school liaison• Finding suitable courses to address needs• The problem of finding suitable consultants
and “experts”.• The distance and cost factors to both bring
out expertise and to send staff to the training,
• Isolation and insularity• Geographical location, relating to time,
distance and costs
The emphasis on staff involvement was made again:“Staff participation at each stage genuinely gives a sense of reality, ownership to it.” (School Code 61)
The “internal consultancy” approach appears to have been most successful in one of the
respondent schools which claims to have maximised the cascading potential of staff
recruited from the UK:“The majority of staff are recruited directly from the UK on 2 year contracts. Therefore they can provide appropriate in-service training. Access to previous educational authorities and advisors to keep informed about relevant courses in the UK is possible, and there is developing communication with other schools by Internet. Staff are extremely competent and enthusiastic to develop their expertise in the international field.” (School Code 173)
One problem was translating needs into action:“Having established a training need, locating courses that can address it.” (School Code 11)
As one school stated rather negatively:
133
“Geographic location and costs. Well-trained staff leave due to the transient nature of expatriate staff. One cannot count on a long tour stay (not the case with local hires). An example is when we lost an M.Ed this year who got promotion to a UK school on the basis of completing his degree. We paid forthe investment; he gains, as does his new school ” (School Code 104)
This raises an important question relating to commitment and loyalty, as well as the
responsibility for paying for professional development of this type. A number of schools
went further to define the constraints they face in terms of “isolation”Given that we see the need for input from specialists with current UK expertise and experience, our isolation limits possibilities and opportunities. Costs can be crippling (especially given the present rupee/pound exchange rate).” (School Code 57)
Recommendations made by the respondents (25% in this area) focused on:
• The use of more local and external experience
• Liaison with other schools to share costs, ideas and experiences
• Train staff involved in staff development
• Develop the use of specific regional organisations or consultancies.
• Develop the use of the Internet and E-mail:“We are hoping now to set up E-mail links with practising experienced subject areas or other specialists from good schools in the UK.” (School Code 57)
This was surprising given the large proportion of schools with Email and Internet access
(approximately one-third of the sample, although that proportion has probably increased
considerably since the publication of the ECIS handbook).
Funding.
Only a small number of schools mentioned funding as a strength, with three out of the
nine in Hong Kong. This was significant and linked to other comments about the role of
the ESF. Comments such as generous, good, reasonable, well funded and that it should be
value for money were to be found. One school was in the fortunate position of being able
to translate good funding into a good programme:“ Staff development is fully supported and generously budgeted by the School Board. It meets both school and individual development, uses quality UK and international providers and we have whole school professional development days.” (School Code 43)
This was echoed by another school where:“. .. ample funding is available. Whole school needs and individual needs are addressed.” (School Code 142)
Funding was seen as a major limitation, however, with one third of the respondents
commenting on it. Specifically mentioned by respondents were the costs of bringing in
expertise and sending staff on courses, limited financial resources of schools and
increased costs due to the uncertainty of exchange rates. One identified factor was the
self-financing nature of the school:134
“Financial resources are limited as the school is self-financing. Short term contracts of 3 years is seen as a uniting factor.” (School Code 122)
Schools mentioned not only the prohibitive costs of sending staff on long term
secondments, but also the high cost of sending staff on short term courses. Several
schools also questioned the value of funding individuals on courses if they were then able
to use their new expertise to seek promotion elsewhere. This has led in some schools to
an imbalance in the programme:“Lack of funds means that the school-wide projects (eg attendance at ECIS conferences) are difficult, hence the less-than-enthusiastic teachers are often excluded.” (School Code 3)
Clearly a major priority in many cases (almost 20% of the responses) was to raise the
level of funding which could be raised by a bigger budget for staff development if
possible. One school mentioned sponsorship as a possibility. One point related to staff
entitlement where the suggestion was to:“.... raise funding to include all teachers as an expectation/requirement.” (School Code 3)
Time and Timing.
Only one school made a positive reference in this area, with a mention of a high number
of in-service days per year (11-13), as well as courses in the summer. On the other hand a
lack of time was seen by over 20% of the respondents as being a major constraint. Time
and timing problems identified were the placing of INSET in the holidays (lack of staff
commitment), busy working schedules (time taken away from teaching), and therefore
more time needs to be found. As one school argued, time should be allocated to the pupils
first, and staff needs are therefore neglected:“The lack of time leads to the desire not to disrupt or to inconvenience other colleagues. The needs of the students come first. Staff do not really have time to think about their needs.^(School Code 52)
This lack of time was echoed by another respondent who identified this as the major
limitation:“A busy school day means that it is difficult for staff to find the time always to attend interviews etc.” (School Code 164)
Attitudes.
Attitudes towards staff development were frequently mentioned (by about one in four
respondents of the question). They can be divided into attitudes by the school towards the
staff and the staff towards development (mentioned four times as often). Staff were often
considered to be enthusiastic, willing and committed, with considerable staff involvement
and team work. Many of the respondents highlighted the “willingness of staff to
participate” (School Code 41) and recognised the importance of professional development,
and several respondents mentioned the value of external consultants and staff on degree
135
courses in this area. As one respondent stated:“Any staff development programme depends on the commitment and acknowledgment of a need to increase educational improvement among the staff. Some teachers are enthusiastic and hopefully the cascade effect touches most.” (School Code 152)
About 10% of the staff identified reluctance and negativity towards staff development.
As one school stated, some staff were abroad to get away from U.K. initiatives and felt
afraid and threatened, and older staff who had been in the schools for a long time were
resistant to staff development initiatives. An example of this was to be seen in one
school:“Many staff (all the locally employed) are “locked in”. Some have been with us for long periods of time. There are little prospects for promotion internally and zero opportunities in other schools There is, therefore, very little incentive for self improvement. We provide INSET courses, butthey have limited impact and even less long-term benefits.” (School Code 158)
Several schools recommended that attitudes could be improved by the use of more peer
support and to try to link personal/professional and institutional development more
effectively, although there was a view that there would always be a degree of negativity:“The attitude of some staff, a minority who feel they are better off outside UK and dislike or fear some UK initiatives - especially those criticized in the UK educational press.” (School Code 41)
In one school staff reluctance has hindered the process and placed the emphasis firmly on
the headteacher who complained that:“Too few people are willing to lead sessions. There is a heavy reliance on the head to do it n (School Code 162 )
The overall aim was summed up by one school which wished to:“ achieve a better interface between personal and professional development both within andoutside our school development plan and the initiatives associated with staff roles and responsibilities within school.” (School Code 44)
Miscellaneous.
In this category, several schools took the opportunity to point out that there were no
strengths of the programme, and two mentioned the importance of staff development for
future career prospects. One school suggested that it was difficult to monitor the real
value of staff development, and another suggested that the employment of more young
staff would help to solve problems.
136
Summary: The Main Points Arising from the Survey.
The school sizes, location and type show great diversity, although the majority of schools
had a staff size of sixty or fewer with quite a heavy dependence on local contract hire. A
high proportion of British nationals were employed. In nearly all the schools, the
headteacher, deputy or senior management team were responsible for staff development,
and they usually determined staff development needs. A specifically appointed staff
development co-ordinator was very rare. Only just over half of the schools had a formal
staff development budget, which appeared to meet current needs, although funding was
seen as a weakness in a number of schools. Although there was a certain amount of
planning, it was clear that closer links between a formal staff development policy and the
school development plan were necessary.
Whole-school in-service training was widespread with the majority of schools having
training days and subject-based INSET, although only a small number of schools had
external advice. Time and timing were often noted as constraints, however. Inter-school
liaison was fairly common and a lot of schools reported that they funded staff on courses.
A significant number of staff were involved in professional development courses, the
majority being at Masters degree level in education, although the perceived impact on the
school was limited. Almost all the schools had, or were developing, an appraisal system
which tended to be a line management system. Staff appeared to be committed to staff
development and keeping in touch, and there was a positive attitude in the schools with
staff often considered to be enthusiastic, willing and committed, although some
negativity was reported.
Location was considered to be a problem, and more so for some schools whose isolation
made it difficult for inter-school liaison. This could be overcome in many cases by
sharing costs, inter-school liaison and collaboration. The schools were scattered
geographically with clusters of schools in certain locations (for example in Hong Kong,
the United Arab Emirates and Kuwait)
137
Chapter 5: Findings From the Case Studies.
Introduction.
The aim of the chapter is to present the findings of the four case studies. The rationale
behind the selection of the schools and the outline of the research was dealt with in
Chapter 3. The case studies were carried out during the period December 1998-March
1999 and involved ten interviews in each of three of the schools, and two interviews in
the fourth (a total of thirty-two). The interviews were based around the five research
questions and were categorised as follows:
Fig.5.1 Interview questions and categories.No Category Question1 Philosophy What importance is placed on staff development by the school?2 Reality How is staff development managed in the school?3 Effectiveness How effective is the programme in the school?4 Staff Involvement What opportunities are there for staff to contribute?5 The Way Forward What could be done to improve the programme?6 Other Information
The method of presentation is as follows:
1. Each case study school is presented in terms of the findings from the interviews
2. Common themes, with response codes, are identified and connected
3. Differences between different roles in the school are considered; senior management
and administration (head, deputy and bursar); middle management (subject/pastoral
co-ordinators) and other staff (class teachers, local contract, part time and new staff).
4. Other evidence (documentary and information from the questionnaire) is considered
5. A summary of the overall findings from the case study school is provided
6. An overall summary of the findings from the four schools is provided
The four schools have had their names changed to preserve their anonymity, all staff are
referred to by means of codes, and the location of the schools is not mentioned.
School 1 is the “British Secondary School”
School 2 is the “Desert Village Primary School”
School 3 is the “British City Primary School”
School 4 is “The London School”
138
Results from School 1, “The British Secondary School” The Interviews.PhilosophyAlthough staff development was seen to be important by most of the interviewees, the
emphasis they reported was much more on personal development. As far as the school is
concerned:. staff development happens automatically” (101),
there are no philosophy or policy statements (101, 102, 103, 105) and a lot is left to
chance (102). Professional development is not particularly recognised by the school
(102), although sabbaticals are supported (103, 107, 109). It is considered important by
the school but there is no system or programme (103, 105) and it is ad hoc (104).
Although the school recognises the importance of keeping up to date (103), little
importance appears to be given (104, 105) to staff development on a whole school level.
There is no mention in the staff handbook (105), and one respondent found no evidence
of INSET (110) or active encouragement from the management, although one member of
staff considered that induction is very good (106). As one respondent stated:“... nothing appears to be written down” (103)
Staff development is seen as important by individuals who are involved in their own
development (105, 107). However, on a whole school level it was considered poor and
the responsibility for it was left to departments (106, 108, 109). There were no significant
differences across the three role groups, and all agreed on the ad hoc and fragmented
nature of staff development. The exception was in the responses from the middle
management and other staff categories in relation to the school’s perception of staff
development, and they considered that the school did not place importance on it. As one
member of staff commented:“A lot is left to chance, with worrying links in the chain. Professional development is not
particularly recognised by the school, and what happens is by accident” (102)
Reality
On a whole school level, staff development is to do with training to meet needs (101),
although according to one respondent there is no needs identification (105). There is no
target setting (102), no systems of review or evaluation (102), no procedures are written
down (103), budgeting is on a first-come, first-served basis (103, 105). As one
respondent stated, it is poor at whole school level (104) and another considered that it is
poor compared to recent experience in the UK, and there is no feeling of moving
forwards (106). The pyramid system does not really function (102) and cascading has had139
limited effect (105). It is reactive rather than proactive (102) and the school should be
more proactive (101). Whole school initiatives are rare (105), although they are useful
(107). Two interviewees did not know who was in charge (104, 110), and it was
recognised that staff may not be aware of procedures (101, 103) which are not defined
(108, 110), and two had no idea of how it is managed (107, 110). No attempt is made to
use staff development in the school (105). Staff development is mainly initiated by staff
themselves (101, 103, 109), is more concerned with subject-based skills (107) and
managed by staff in departments (104, 106). Therefore the management is ad hoc and
depends on the roles of individuals (102, 104). The management of staff development
depends on the time and motivation of the head of department (108) and it therefore
varies from subject to subject (109). There appeared to be little positive comment about
the strategic management and criticism was evident across all the roles. One respondent
summed it up as follows:“It happens on an ad hoc, first-come, first-served basis unless it is a very rare whole school initiative. There is no needs identification, it is fragmented, it is not part of the school development plan, no real attempt is made to make use of any staff development within the school and cascading has had a limited effect” (105)
Across the role groups, there was consensus regarding the laissez faire view of staff
development as an initiative which comes from departments as a training, curriculum-
based need which varied according to the individual attitudes of heads of department.
Effectiveness
Even though systems are not in place (101), the management view was divided. One view
was that it is generally working well, although it could develop faster (101, 103). As
evidence of this, all the money allocated is spent, therefore it must be effective (101).
Another tentative effectiveness indicator mentioned that the low staff turnover could be
evidence of a satisfied workforce, and therefore effective staff development (110).
However it is often instinctive and maybe more evidence is needed (101), and it is
recognised as a weakness, an “Achilles heel” (101) of the organisation. It is not effective
and the potential is not harnessed. It is ad hoc school-wide and it depends on luck in
departments (102). It is a low priority, although the potential benefits are enormous (102)
and it is not effective as in other organizations (for example the Armed Forces) (103). It
is therefore poor at whole school level (104), and one respondent was of the opinion that
one reason was that very little staff development has been undertaken by the senior
140
management team (105). It is effective in some departments (104, 109) and for staff who
take the initiative (107):“Departmental INSET has been very effective and has been held in response to external changes (e.g. health and safety policies in the U.K.” (109)
Therefore the importance of middle management has made it effective in certain areas
(110) and it depends on the department and the time available (108). Two interviewees
were not aware of any programme and therefore could not comment on its effectiveness
(107, 110), and another compared it to the UK, stating that it lacks the positive cascading
of UK INSET (106), one of the reasons being the lack of real understanding of current
issues and terminology (106) which has made many initiatives ineffective. Across the
role groups the effectiveness was seen to be questionable, and there were no significant
differences according to status.
Staff Involvement
Although some staff have led INSET sessions (101), opportunities for staff involvement
are not really in place (101) because there is no planned staff development programme
(105,107, 110) and the opportunities are few (101):“Opportunities are there for those who are keen, but it depends on their tenacity, enthusiasm and commitment. Staff in any case probably feel they need status before they can do things” (102)
Staff identify their own training needs (101, 103, 107), and opportunities depend on the
determination of the individual (102, 110). One identified reason is that staff probably
feel they need status before they do things (102). Opportunities exist mainly at
departmental level (104), and this is variable according to the department (104, 109).
Staff contribute informally as and when the need arises (105). There is therefore none
formally and staff development is imposed (105, 107). Some recent attempts have been
positive at whole school level to involve all staff (assessment, recording and reporting),
although they have been met with cynicism by some staff (106). One respondent that
opportunities should be provided on a “top down” basis (108). At present ideas filter
through by chance (109). Across the role groups, there was no significant difference, and
the main theme emerging was the importance of middle management within the current
structure. One member of staff, recently appointed ffom the U.K., felt that opportunities
were being wasted:“Staff from the U.K. should be used to disseminate information and experiences (e.g. inspection), and they should be made to feel more involved because their experience at present is hidden. There is a lack of cross-curricular experience, no systems are in place and as a result staff are demotivated” (106)
141
The Way Forward
There were a number of recommendations. There should be a stated policy and
procedures (101, 103, 105) and a structure (102, 109), as well as a programme linked to
the school development plan (101, 105). There should be a linking between personal and
professional wishes (101) as well as individual and organisational needs (105). Funding
for longer term courses would be desirable (101), as well as more INSET (102, 110).
Someone should be in charge of staff development (a Professional Development Co
ordinator) since the head is too busy (101, 102, 105, 106, 109, 110) to provide leadership
and coordination (104). The co-ordinator could provide more information about available
courses (107), provide better and more systematic staff induction of staff (110), training
(110) and mentoring (106). There should be more equitable access to staff development
opportunities (103), and a more effective needs identification process (104, 109) with a
link to appraisal or evaluation (105). The school should provide more support for staff
(104), and more time, particularly in practical subjects (108). Recently appointed staff
ffom the UK should be actively encouraged to share their experiences (eg of inspection)
and disseminate information (106) and new staff should be more involved (106). The
school should have systems which enable staff to learn specific skills ffom each other
(106, 107, 109) (e.g. leading meetings, role play in pastoral work etc.) with more
discussion (106). Part time staff need support to be kept up-to-date as they might have
been “out of the system” for some time (108)
Across the role groups the responses showed considerable consensus, with the most
significant recommendations for a co-ordinator who could presumably be appointed to
put everything into place.
Other Issues
A number of other issues were also identified.
• Staff development is in the head’s job description (102)
• The school supports staff on sabbaticals as unpaid leave which shows the school to be
a caring organisation, and there are many hidden costs which are borne by the school
(103)
• More opportunities would reduce frustration among staff and lead to more
commitment (104)
142
• Opportunities should be for everyone, and not just according to status as some have
been (certain staff were invited to attend specific management courses) (104)
• There is a need to keep in touch (106)
• Good ideas tend not to be carried through due to a lack of knowledge and
understanding (106)
• Staff in the school have to be more self-sufficient (107) than they would be in the UK
without the same level of support and information
• There is a feeling that local contract staff might be considered less important than
those on overseas contract, although this was not considered to be the case with one
respondent(109)
• Staff development is left to the individual (110)
Feedback from the Questionnaire.
The questionnaire seems to have effectively represented the views and perceptions of the
headteacher who recognises the desirability of creating a more structured programme
which would not only address staff needs, but also to create opportunities. The
headteacher considers that the nature of staff development is based around the needs of
individual staff, and that the effects of professional development have been on an
individual rather than an institutional level.
Documentary Evidence.
There was no specific documentary evidence available on staff development in the
school. No mention of programmes, policies or documentation related to staff
development were evident in documentation such as the staff handbook or school
prospectus. The only references were in the previous inspection report, “Report to the
Board of ... following a Review”, by Professors I.M. Jamieson and J.J. Thompson,
University of Bath School of Education, March 1994. They were clearly impressed by the
teaching staff when they stated that:“An important aspect of the success which the College enjoys in its academic work is the quality of the teaching staff” (Thompson and Jamieson, 1994, 6.3)
As part of their recommendations, they considered that staff development was an area
which needed attention. They suggested that there should be a staff development policy
to support the academic and professional development of the teaching staff, that with this
in place it would enable the systematic introduction of new aspects of development, and
each member of staff should be encouraged to produce a personal development plan with143
a proposed plan of action, possibly linked to a formal appraisal scheme (Thompson and
Jamieson, 1994, 3.95).
They identified the lack of planning in the process of staff development and identified
that:“Most aspects of staff development seem relatively informal and more a function of individual initiative than strategic planning. The role of staff development officer which one would find in UK schools is de facto taken by the Headmaster, but operating very much in a reactive mode.” (Thompson and Jamieson, 1994, 5.10)
They also pointed out that there was no system of staff development days and no
appraisal system, unlike all comparable institutions in the UK, although the “Godparent”
system of induction was working well. On the review of the management structure they
raised five key questions, one of which was:“Should there be a staff development officer, or at least somebody in a senior position who has this function as part of their role?” (Thompson and Jamieson, 1994, 5.13.4, p. 19)
Summary.
It is clear from the evidence of the 1994 inspection and the interviews that the issues
identified five years ago have not been put into practice. Anecdotal evidence, as well as
the evidence of examination performance and staff morale, would indicate that the school
has continued to be highly successful. This is a factor which may have contributed to the
lack of urgency in this area of school development. Throughout the responses, it is
evident that strategic planning is required for whole school staff development rather than
the present “system” of individual development (ie the 1980’s “training model”) and that
the headteacher is anxious to improve in this area, and the overwhelming evidence is that
someone needs to be appointed to take over this role. Certainly a future inspection is
likely to be highly critical of the present arrangements, and the stated aim of preparing for
inspection in the near future would make this a matter of some urgency. Across the role
groups, there was a surprising consensus about the ad hoc nature of the programme, and
it was clear that the head and the senior management team were concerned about, and
committed to, implementing changes in this area.
144
School 2: “Desert Village Primary School” The Interviews.Philosophy
All the staff interviewed stated that the school sees staff development as very important
and it has become a high profile area in the school since the arrival of the present
headteacher in 1997. The transformational nature of the head was summarised by one
response:“The head is absolutely brilliant, but we are still in the middle of the process” (208)
Another member of staff, who had been at the school for a number of years (209), also
commented on the differences. As the headteacher stated,“I see staff development as being very important, but I am not sure if we are ‘delivering the goods’. As a serious primary school, we must ensure that staff keep up to date with new skills and techniques” (201)
One interviewee stressed that the commitment of the school to staff development
extended to the governors (206), and the rapid expansion of the school has led to a large
number of new staff coming in, including overseas contract staff from the UK, and this
has “heightened awareness” (202) of the need for staff development. The recruitment of
staff from the UK was part of a conscious policy to bring in current British expertise, and
they were seen as “key players” in the development of the staff in the school. Several
staff identified the trend in the school towards whole school development (201, 202, 205,
208) rather than personal development, although one of the new members of staff
disagreed with this (206) in the light of recent UK experience where all staff development
opportunities were all “school driven”. As the teacher stated:“Opportunities for professional development have been greater than in the UK where you had to demand training; here it is offered” (206)
Therefore the philosophy appears to suggest a high level of commitment to, and support
for, all aspects of staff development with considerable management involvement (210) on
the whole school development at a time of rapid expansion, a new split school site and
large numbers of new staff. This emphasis on whole school development had, according
to one interviewee, made it harder for the school to give financial support for personal
development on external courses in the UK, which had happened before (208). Across
the role groups there was consensus on the importance attached to staff development by
the new head.
145
Reality.
The procedures and opportunities which are available were identified by all the staff
interviewed. They can be divided into induction, in-school training and development
work, the use of external consultants, the use of local staff cluster groups, and individual
short and long term courses in the UK or by distance learning.
Views on the induction process were divided, reflecting the different approaches in Key
Stages 1 and 2. In the former, the ongoing team support process was better established,
and this appeared to have positive benefits at the beginning and over the following terms.
Appraisal was used as a means to identify staff needs (202, 205), although the system set
up was not considered to be very successful. Staff have been encouraged to join the
recently set-up local cluster groups, and each member of staff is assigned to one (209).
Outside consultants from the UK have been brought in on a regular basis to conduct
whole-staff “twilight sessions” on areas such as literacy and numeracy (201, 202, 205,
208, 209). Teachers are entitled to funded external training (205) and staff who go on
courses are required to cascade information to the appropriate staff (201, 202, 205). A
member of staff is nominated to collect and disseminate materials from whole school and
individual in-service training (204).
Information about courses is passed on to staff through the Key Stage Co-ordinators
(201), and responsibility for staff development is with the Head and the Co-ordinators.
Most in-service training has been curriculum based (201, 208). Staff meetings have
become opportunities for staff development and staff are encouraged to contribute.
As one member of staff pointed out, the school has a responsibility to provide such
opportunities to staff (206) and, as the school is still developing, a lot of basic in-service
training in areas such as assessment have taken place. Although there are a wide number
of opportunities available, one respondent felt that the school was more concerned with
staff development for school, rather than individual, needs (208) but clearly staff who
have been in post for a long time have had the opportunity to keep in touch with current
developments (209).
There is no staff development plan, there are no formalised policies, and no specific co
ordinator (201, 206, 208, 210), and one respondent felt that it was done on an ad hoc
146
basis (206), although another felt that in comparison with what had existed before the
arrival of the new headteacher, things appeared to be planned much more with an
increased budget (202), although the budgeting appeared to be out of the hands of the
staff and decided by the governors. Therefore, although lines of communication and
communications seemed fairly clear (210), there was a feeling by some that things were
left up to the individual (204, 208). Across the role groups there were no obvious
differences, although the lack of documentation was mentioned more frequently in the
third group (class teachers, part time, local contract and new teachers) as procedures were
not always known about.
The procedures and opportunities which are available were identified by all the staff
interviewed. They can be divided into induction, in-school training and development
work, the use of external consultants, the use of local staff cluster groups, and individual
short and long term courses in the UK or by distance learning.
As one respondent summarised:“The school is still developing. A lot of internal INSET has taken place in basic areas such as
assessment and numeracy. It is a long process which is going at a good pace, not too fast and not
too slow” (208)
Effectiveness.
The headteacher recognised the limitations arising from the geographical location and
was trying to do the best possible under the circumstances, although felt that the
programme could be much better. One identified area was a lack of feedback from staff,
and there are no systems for monitoring and evaluation in place. Another respondent
identified that there were “huge areas for improvement” (202), although staff appeared to
be highly motivated to develop (202). Many staff commented on the effectiveness of the
programme so far and mentioned that their views were listened to and that morale was
high (203), but there was still a lot to do and not enough time available for development
work in addition to the busy daily commitments (204). The “internal consultancy” roles
of new staff has been effective (204) with some useful in-house in-service training (203,
208, 209), although the quality of some of the externally provided courses has been
variable (208, 209). One major problem was the availability of resources (204), but there
was more in-service training available more often in a variety of settings, including the
use of staff meetings (208).
147
There is no staff development plan. One response indicated that this was:. probably the one piece of documentation we do not have” (205),
and the same respondent indicated that the programme was not looking for quick fixes,
but was a gradual, rolling process. Across the role groups it appeared that the head was
probably the most critical about staff development in the school, and in the other two
groups it was evident that staff valued and appreciated the opportunities which were
being increasingly provided.
Staff Involvement.
Staff are involved in meetings (201, 202, 203) and feel that their views are welcomed and
listened to (201, 209, 210). Several staff have become involved in in-house staff
development recently (202) in addition to the headteacher and deputy, but they have
mainly been staff with posts of responsibility (208). Staff are therefore welcome to
become involved, but tend not to because they are too busy (204) or do not take the
initiative themselves:“The head has created opportunities, although the feeling is that staff are welcomed to, but not expected to, participate” (206)
One disincentive is the amount of time which is required to run in-house sessions (206),
and most staff would be reluctant to lead sessions because they lack the confidence (208,
210) although across all the role groups it was clear that all the staff felt that they were
welcome to participate.
The Way Forward
Staff identified a number of areas which they considered could be improved upon. The
school development plan needs to include staff development (201, 205), and there needs
to be a clearer focus on the appraisal system and its relationship with staff development
(201). As the headteacher stated:“We should be clearer about appraisal and not make it a ‘what would you like?’ list, and the
school development plan needs to be re-written to include staff development”
There should be a staff development policy/plan (204, 205, 206) and improved
communication and forward planning (203, 202). Links with other schools through
cluster groups should be developed (201, 205, 208, 209), and proper budgeting for staff
development is needed (201). Staff should be involved in ongoing professional
development (202). A co-ordinator for staff development could be useful, although there
are reservations about what they could achieve in comparison with UK counterparts (201,148
205, 206). There should be more use of external consultancies (205) and more staff
involvement at all levels (205). The induction of staff could be improved in a systematic,
planned way (206). There should be open access for staff to courses, rather than waiting
to be invited (209), and the school should pay for staff to go on courses in the UK (208).
There were no identifiable differences between the role groups, and the impression
overall was that staff across the school felt that they were in a period of change.
Other Issues
• One issue raised was that staff development is not as good as in the UK due to the
location (201)
• There are few opportunities for management courses (201)
• Recruitment is a way to bring in expertise (201)
• The school has responded well to appraisal after initial reservations (201)
• The mood and culture have changed and it has become more collegial (202)
• People feel more valued and willing to participate (202)
• Staff feel more empowered (202)
• The change of school size has created huge challenges (203)
• There are huge areas to develop, but why is it necessary to do the same as schools in
the UK? (204)
• It is not as good as the UK, and a specific co-ordinator might help (205)
• The internal consultancy role should be recognised (206)
• Performance-related pay would be a good motivator (206)
• The head has been transformational (206)
• Staff development is very important for pupils and staff (207)
• The changing management structure identifies problems of older and newer staff
(207)
• The pacing of the head is very good (208)
Feedback from the headteacher on the questionnaire.
The headteacher did not make any comments in the interview about the responses from
the questionnaire, although he indicated the accuracy of responses by ticks and crosses.
All the original responses were endorsed with the exception of 1 and 2 (school
expansion), 5 (needs are also identified by the staff), 15 (external INSET is conducted by
a variety of sources, not just Ofsted inspectors), 20 (two new staff are already doing
149
Masters degree distance learning courses) and 32 (his views about staff perceptions of
appraisal must have changed).
Documentary Evidence:
There was no evidence of staff development in handbooks, SDP or any other policy-
based source. The headteacher provided some extracts of three Headmaster’s Reports to
the Governors (1998-9). Section 3 concerned In-Service Training and Staff Development
which gave evidence of a literacy INSET by external lecturers, three in-house training
sessions conducted by teaching staff, local schools subject groups to reduce costs and
bring teachers together with “twilight sessions”, and planned in-service by an external
British consultancy, Worldwide Education Services (WES) and mention of the annual
regional headteachers’ conference. Mention was made of sharing costs with other schools
and opportunities for staff to participate in training enabling them to attain the UK
National Standards for subject leaders, special needs co-ordinators and headteachers.
There was also mention made of the achievement of a member of staff in the completion
of the Hornsby Diploma in the Teaching of Students with Specific Learning
Difficulties/Dyslexia. During the interview, the head showed the following documents;
an INSET Profile for all staff, which is a summary of all courses which were covered;
reports on INSET to board meetings and staff meeting minutes.
Summary.
The impression from the evidence is of a school which is moving forwards together under
the inspirational and transformational leadership of the current head who has faced major
challenges at a time of rapid school organisation. Staff development is recognised as an
essential component of whole school development and expansion, although the focus has
been much more on staff development to meet whole school training needs. Staff are also
encouraged on an individual level, and an interesting form of staff development is in the
use of staff recruited from the UK who are being encouraged to share and disseminate
their recent experiences. Regular in-service training is in place in staff meetings, and a
wide variety of opportunities are available to staff which were not available under the
previous head, where staff development activities tended to be of more personal benefit
and interest. Although there is no staff development policy in place, reference to staff
development in the school development plan, or specific co-ordinator, the activities are
planned to meet current needs and more staff are becoming involved. There appeared to
be a difference between KS1 and KS2 (on different sites), where the former seemed to150
work more in teams. As the headteacher stated, staff development policies were likely to
be written in the light of experience. There was a consistency in responses across the role
groups and therefore no significant differences between the implementation and policies
and how they were seen by staff at different levels of the school.
151
School 3: “The City Primary School” The Interviews.Philosophy.
Many comments were made regarding the attitudes and impact of the current head in
comparison to the previous one. The lack of importance placed on staff development was
summarised by one member of staff who believed that:“ somebody had to dig us out of the ‘60’s and ‘70’s” (308)
The new head is the opposite extreme of the old one (302, 303, 304, 306, 307, 308) and
she has made “rapid and overwhelming changes” (304, 308). As a result staff
development is now very high profile in the school (305, 306, 308, 310). The impact of
the head was mentioned by many of the staff. As one said:“The head is transformational and is making it possible for staff to move forwards” (305)
A number of staff mentioned that all areas of staff development are encouraged by the
head (301, 304, 305, 306, 308) who considers that it is very important for everyone on a
personal and professional level (301). Although the school provides a lot of support (302)
for staff development according to one respondent, the isolation of the head was noted by
one respondent who considered that the head was not fully supported by the deputy
(304), and as a result the philosophy of the head and the school are synonymous because
the head has imposed changes. Manifestations of the commitment of the head were
identified as team building (309) and staff meetings which have become INSET
opportunities (309) to replace the infrequent information-giving under the previous head.
A new member of staff was impressed and reassured by the work which was being
carried out and considered that there is high quality INSET which was not very different
to what was experienced in Britain, but was lacking in her previous overseas school
(310). Across the role groups there was agreement about the importance attached to staff
development, and not just training, by the head.
Reality.
A range of approaches to staff development were identified. Staff were encouraged to go
on short courses in the UK with partial funding (301), and the head was interested in, and
supportive of, self-funded continuing professional development in the form of Masters
degrees and diplomas (301). Collaborative planning was encouraged with full staff
involvement in teams and committees (301), although some staff felt that although
collegiality was encouraged, it was contrived because the head had already decided what
she wanted (306,309), and examples were given of where committees were overruled.
152
One member of staff highlighted a tension between top down control and empowerment
(309). This perhaps reflects the conflict of an organisation going through rapid and
fundamental change, with some traditionalists resisting aspects of it. This point was
summarised by one of the respondents who reflected the opposite view:“It is very difficult for the head to manage conflict between those who have just gone through UK changes and those who have been here for a long time” (310)
Inset takes place on a weekly basis in staff meetings (301, 308), and therefore these
meetings provide a focus for school-based staff development activities. There is some
resistance to this, although as one member of staff who had worked recently in the UK
stated, this was what would be done there (310). Also in school the head observes each
member of staff (not formal appraisal) and interviews staff (301, 306), a system which
was considered useful, although there was no follow-up according to one respondent
(309).
The external cluster groups were mentioned as a new initiative with other schools by the
head, and staff are encouraged to participate in them (301, 307). External advisers have
been brought in for key areas according to a Five Year Plan (301, 302, 306, 308), and
there has been considerably more liaison with other schools, something which was not
allowed under the previous head according to one respondent (305). It appears that
funding is not a problem and budgeting is done on a historical basis, with the “bursar”
acting as the facilitator rather than involved in policy-making.
Although many of the procedures were identified and were clearly part of an overall
strategic plan, there was no school staff development plan (301), and no written policies
or guidelines on staff development, and one member of staff was not sure if there was a
co-ordinator for staff development (310).
The head is fully responsible for staff development, and the deputy is not fully behind it
(304, 309), although others were becoming more involved in the process. Examples are
the key stage co-ordinators (304), as well as the subject co-ordinators.
The pace of change has been very fast, and some are going along with this, while others
are resisting (304), which makes it difficult to make this “great leap forward”. All staff
are being forced to become reflective practitioners (305), and the head is very much in
153
control although she welcomes new ideas (305). As one member of staff pointed out, she
was only trying to bring the school to the same stage as schools in the UK (310) and
another mentioned the huge set of inherited problems which had made the changes
challenging for everyone at the school (308). Among another group there was some
resistance to the processes which had been introduced where there was a feeling from
several staff that things were being pushed and imposed by the head.
Effectiveness.
A number of staff considered that the programme had been very effective (301, 302, 303,
304), leading to a sharper teaching focus (301) and staff empowerment (301). Systems of
monitoring and evaluation are in place (301) and results are fed back to staff. One
member of staff considered that it had been effective, despite initial reservations (302).
The external advisers were most helpful to some staff (302, 306, 307), and two members
of staff considered that personal involvement in staff INSET had been most helpful on a
personal professional level (304, 310). Not all staff agreed with this, however, and some
felt that the school-based INSET at staff meetings had been less effective (302, 306, 307).
One member of staff stated that the quality of school-based INSET was variable and
depended on the staff involved (308).
According to one respondent, the head “ ...has come in like a whirlwind” (304), and she
wants staff to be involved and creates opportunities for them (305). As a result more staff
have become involved at a whole school level (305), and this has led to a move from
personal to institutional development. Use has been made of staff with recent UK
experience (305), and the use of committees has been valuable in giving genuine
opportunities for staff empowerment (for the school brochure, staff handbook, assessment
policies, school buildings etc.) (306), and the same respondent felt that the “appraisal”
interviews with the head had been useful.
Although the head was only doing what a UK school would do (304), and she was
supportive and positive (308), there was a feeling that staff have reached saturation point
(302). For some the pace of change is too great (304, 310), and this compromised the
effectiveness of the programme according to one respondent who felt that it took up a
disproportionate amount of time and that the head would not listen to the pleas of a
154
number of staff on this issue (307). Another member of staff considered that the school
was perhaps moving too fast in some areas (310). The resistance of some of the staff was
mentioned by one respondent who was of the view that the effectiveness of the
programme had been affected by the negative attitudes of some staff (308). The main
reservations came from several staff in another group which indicated that too much was
being done, and too quickly.
Staff Involvement
A great deal of encouragement is given by the head, although the culture of collaboration
is still developing in the school (301, 308) and she is determined to change this (302). All
staff are encouraged to participate, although it tends to be the co-ordinators who are
involved (301, 302, 303, 304, 310). Staff are fully involved in meetings (305, 308), and
the head’s approach has been transformational (305, 306, 307) with open, approachable
and active encouragement (305, 306, 307, 308). Teams and committees have involved all
staff (302), although there has been some resentment and the response is often negative,
perhaps because staff are embarrassed and insecure (304). Staff are reluctant to prepare
INSET perhaps because they lack confidence, or because they do not consider it to be
part of their job (308, 310). One member of staff mentioned the reluctance of staff to
become involved due to peer pressure (306) and another because of the pressure of work
generally (307). As a result the staff have become divided into supporters and
reactionaries (306). It is clear that the newly empowered middle managers have
responded very positively to their new role, although the other teachers did not seem
quite as ready to become involved in the process.
The Way Forward.
There needs to be a written staff development policy with action planning and links to the
school development plan (301). Responsibilities need to be devolved (301). The pace of
change needs to slow down (302) and a period of consolidation without pressure is
needed (307). Regular evaluation of the programme is needed (301). More follow-up
from external INSET is needed (303). The school culture needs to change to make staff
more receptive:“Staff attitudes are a major block. Staff need to be pushed and the head needs to get tougher”(306)“Too many staff complain and feel that the workload is some kind of punishment. Staffdevelopment threatens people who have not moved forwards” (308)
155
More staff from the UK should be brought in to share expertise and contribute to the
development of the school (304, 305, 308). More opportunities for career development
should be provided (306) and information about courses (307, 309, 310). Staff should be
forced to become more flexible. They are too set in their ways (moving year groups, for
example) (306). The existing deputy head needs to be developed professionally to
support the initiatives in the school (308). Staff need more training before they deliver
school-based INSET (309). The cluster groups should be developed (310).
The major differences were not between the role groups, but between long-term and
newer staff. The former felt pressured and the latter positive about the future in which
they could at least develop themselves professionally.
Other Issues.
• The aim of staff development has been to change the school culture into a
collaborative one (301, 305)
• Individuals should be responsible for their own development (301)
• Change has put huge pressure on the staff, and increased absenteeism has been a
consequence (302)
• In relation to staff development, how far should a school of this type be expected to
conform to UK practice? (302)
• The administrative staff feel isolated from the changes and lack information (303)
• Common policies are being written leading to the strategic management of all aspects
of the school (304)
• Change is for the better (304) and it is needed (305)
• There is still staff hostility from a number of staff (305, 307), and one member of
staff has had problems with peers because of showing an interest in staff development
issues (306)
• The pace of change is too fast (305, 307) and the staff are under too much pressure
(307)
• The head is doing what is necessary (308)
• The school is the head, and it is difficult to say that there is any empowerment (309)
• The cluster groups are a start, but specific experience of one of them has not been
positive (309)
156
• Courses in the UK are available to staff, but it is not clear how to get the opportunity
to go on them (310)
Documentary Evidence
The headteacher showed evidence of very thorough and impressive planning from her
arrival in post in September 1997 which aimed to involve all teaching staff in the
identification of priorities (whole school audit) as collaboratively as possible. It was clear
that the process was a radical departure ffom previous practice which lacked formal
documentation of processes and procedures. The evidence showed that the chosen
priorities were based on the quantitative analysis of staff views with a rigorous and
democratic process of staff prioritisation. The development of INSET and training was
considered to be the fourth most important priority, although the headteacher
acknowledged that this required more formalised policies, although the practical
organisation, delivery and evaluation of the programme had brought more INSET and
training than staff were used to at the school. The School Development Plan from 1998,
based on the audit, included specific reference to the development of curriculum areas,
which were also identified in the strategic five year plan (1997-2002). Many staff
development activities were therefore evident in the documents which reflected the vision
of the headteacher to create a collaborative, team culture. This included the written
evidence of the documentation relating to individual staff interviews and target setting.
There was no evidence of any specific staff development policies, or specific links
between staff development and the school development plan, or about the role of the co
ordinator. No procedures for observation (appraisal?) were written down, although the
documentary evidence of that process was there. The view of the headteacher was that,
with so much needing attention in the running of the school, it was necessary for areas
such as a staff development policy to be written to reflect, rather than to initiate, practice.
It was clear from the documentation that the headteacher was most anxious to develop
staff by adopting the role of leading professional in the school, and when questioned
about this, declared that this was naturally a target to work towards. Staff meetings were
considered by the headteacher to be staff development opportunities, and INSET formed
the basis of the meetings. This was strategically planned and the documentary evidence
highlighted the strategic planning of this in-house staff development by the planned
agendas.
157
Summary-
From all the evidence it is clear that the arrival of the new headteacher in September 1997
has been transformational in all areas of the school, and that everything that has happened
has been reflected in staff development opportunities for all the staff. The energy,
planning, determination, hard work and vision of the head have contributed to the
implementation of fast-moving and necessary change to the school in the development of
a culture in which collaboration and professionalism are respected. From the interviews it
was clear that staff had been accustomed to work in isolation under a headteacher who
did not value staff development, and was not interested in self-funded professional
development to the extent that a member of staff had to conceal the fact that she was
doing a Masters degree (309) and another was ostracised for bringing in recent UK
expertise. The staff appeared to have been united, although under the new headteacher a
growing division has emerged between those who feel that their staff development
opportunities, and the development of the school, are being compromised by the vocal
and negative views of a dwindling number of staff. This has been manifested in negative
peer pressure and an attitude of complacent parochialism which rejects progress on the
grounds that the school is of a higher standard than UK schools, although there is only
anecdotal evidence to support this view. The school has therefore had to move quickly
and this has been a turbulent experience for many staff, including the deputy head. The
head’s approach was likened by one member of staff as that of a “missionary”, and there
was a view that she was only bringing the school up to date. As one member of staff
pointed out in a very appropriate analogy, it was difficult to see what the problem was: “Would you want to keep the same furniture in your living room for thirty years” (304)
The wide range of staff development activities and opportunities was reflected in the
documentary evidence which, although it did not contain a specific staff development
policy, consisted of a wide range of documents which reflected the importance which the
head placed on staff development. Given the above comments relating to the idea of a
“great leap forward”, it is clear that all activities have been staff development
opportunities since the school has attempted to put much of the practice of the last ten
years into place all at once. Whether this has been too much too soon will become
evident in the future.
It was difficult to see a pattern across the role groups, other than the enthusiasm in the
middle management brought about by their new-found empowerment. What was far more
158
evident were the differences between the older and newer staff, or staff with recent UK
experience who appreciated the changes, and the longer established staff who were
resisting them to some extent.
159
Results from School 4: “The London School”
Although the headteacher was most helpful and forthcoming, he was reluctant to allow
access to the staff in the way which had been intended, and therefore the spread of
responses was limited to primarily the headteacher. For most of the time the Academic
Curriculum co-ordinator was present, who also had the roles of Careers Advisor,
Professional Development Co-ordinator and member of staff responsible for timetabling.
Naturally this restricted access has an important bearing on the issues raised, although the
headteacher was extremely open and realistic about the problems and constraints which
the school faced, and it is therefore possible that other staff would have endorsed the
views which he and the other member of staff put forward.
Philosophy.
Although the headteacher would have liked many aspects of the school to have been
different, he was faced with the situation in which he believed that staff development was
virtually impossible, and that any staff development activities were concerned with the
basic training of staff from many different backgrounds to achieve a certain level of
consistency. Therefore, the philosophy was more concerned with maintenance rather than
development, particularly as a fee-paying school, the attitude of the owners is that
teachers should already have the expertise required. Therefore in terms of philosophy, it
is probably most accurate to state that the school aims to make it possible for staff to fit
into the system as effectively as possible at as low a cost as possible, since investing
money into staff development is undesirable because of the profit-making ethos of the
school and the unpredictability of staff movement.
Reality.
In the school workshops take place at the start of the year which are considered to be very
important by the school and are concerned with raising performance and teaching
standards. The school clearly had very specific differences from the other three case
study schools. The staff came from sixteen countries, and there were over one hundred,
mostly from the Indian subcontinent and only sixteen from the U.K.. It was normal for
the school to lose three or four staff every term, and this could happen suddenly and with
“monotonous regularity”, although there is a core of staff which have been there for a
long time. The transient nature of the staff is largely due to the large number of local
160
contract married women whose partners have frequent and often sudden moves, and
therefore in-service training is often seen by the school as a waste of time, other than to
prepare staff to cope with the demands of their present teaching commitments. The
“Professional Development Co-ordinator”, in one of his many roles in the school, was
responsible for in-service training in the school, but this was a source of frustration
because of the transient nature of the staff, the frequency of “inducting” new staff at any
stage of the term, and a lack of funding for staff development.
There is no formal staff development policy. As a commercially driven school, the
owners view staff development as unnecessary as they consider teachers should be
trained before they arrive. They will support curriculum-driven INSET, however. The in-
service training which is done is usually carried out by the headteacher and/or the
administrator of the school group (there are seven schools in this group). Documentation
relating to staff in-service training from October 1998 entitled “Raising Achievement;
Ofsted Observations” was provided. The aim of the document was to familiarise staff
with general information, and this included statistical data which compared school GCSE
performance against English average scores.
Effectiveness.
The school tries to have one such session per term, with most occurring in the secondary
section of the school. A lot of the work focused not on development, but on practical
training which was intended to provide consistency among staff of different nationalities
and enable them to teach in a British curriculum school. This, according to the
headteacher, appeared to be effective for the staff who stayed on at the school, but with
so many staff leaving quickly or after a short time, the effectiveness was reduced and this
created problems for replacements. As a result the school was reluctant to invest money
in staff development, since this could have the consequence of staff finding opportunities
elsewhere. The “poaching” of staff by other schools was a particular problem since
salaries and “packages” were likely to be much better. The attitude towards professional
development in the form of Masters Degrees was also significant. The headteacher did
not discourage staff from doing self-financed courses as long as they did not interfere
with teaching commitments, but did not consider them to have any benefit for the school
as a whole. There was no cascading of information, and the mainly Indian sub
continental staff who were involved in this were “collecting qualifications” to enable
161
them to fulfil entry requirements into countries such as the USA or Canada, and as he
stated, they . .see the country as a half-way house”.
Staff Involvement.
As a result, there were no opportunities for staff involvement in whole school staff
development in a recognisable sense.
The Way Forward.
The headteacher could not relate to the idea of staff development in the same way as the
other schools, and hoped most of all for a stable staff to achieve a greater level of
consistency. Developmental ideals were not really of great significance since the
immediate concerns were with day-to-day survival.
Documentary Evidence.
The headteacher made no alterations regarding the information from the questionnaire,
and no other documentation was provided other than a breakdown of the origins of the
1770 pupils, 528 of which were from India, 394 from Pakistan and the next largest
groups from Iran (128), Egypt (102) and the UK (99). The headteacher also showed a
copy of an in-service training summary concerned with the British system and
terminology which showed that examination results were higher than the UK national
average.
Summary.
It was clear that this very large school was doing its best to provide a sound educational
experience for its pupils, and that its external examination results demonstrated that it
was performing well against the UK national average. The priorities of the school were
much more concerned with day-to-day survival, and that the culture of the school was
more concerned with training for basic consistency. The transient nature of the staff (and
pupils) made striving for continuity the greatest aim, and with staff leaving and arriving
throughout the year, this was a major challenge. The attitude towards continuing
professional development was that it was more concerned with empowering staff to move
elsewhere. Under these kinds of pressures, together with the profit-making ethos of the
school, low staff salaries and limited resources, staff development in a positive sense as
could almost be seen to be a luxury when so much else was needed. Although the school
has an identified professional development co-ordinator, the role is much more concerned
162
with training than development, although the design of in-service training is part of that
role.
163
Summary: The Main Points Arising from the Case Studies.
The main issues arising from the four case study schools are identified in Fig.5.2 below:
Fig. 5.2. The main points arising from the case studies.Summary: School 1
“The British Secondary School”
Summary: School 2. “Desert Village Primary
School”
Summary: School 3 "The City Primary
School”
Summary: School 4 “The London School”
• Highly successful school: lack of urgency about putting staff development policies into place
• No strategic planning of staff development. Happens in a reactive and ad hoc way
• Little whole school staff development
• Initiatives of departments
• Recognition across the role groups of the need for coordination and policies
• External pressure of inspection makes this a matter of some urgency, and the senior management team is committed to change
• Inspirational and transformational leadership of the current head who has faced major challenges at a time of rapid school organisation.
• Staff development is recognised as an essential component of whole school development and expansion
• The focus has been much more on staff development to meet whole school training needs.
• Staff are also encouraged on an individual level
• Use of staff recruited from the UK who are being encouraged to share and disseminate their recent experiences (“internal consultancy”)
• Regular in-service training is in place in staff meetings
• No staff development policy in place, reference to staff development in the school development plan, or specific coordinator, the activities are planned to meet current needs and more staff are becoming involved.
• There appeared to be a difference between KS1 and KS2 (on different sites), where the former seemed to work more in teams.
• Staff development policies were likely to be written in the light of experience.
• There was a consistency in responses across the role groups
• Transformational impact of the new headteacher
• staff development opportunities for all teaching staff.
• The energy, planning, determination, hard work and vision of the head have contributed to the implementation of fast-moving and necessary change to the school in the development of a culture in which collaboration and professionalism are respected.
• Conflict between those in favour of the changes and those against, who have been negative and found the process unnecessary and turbulent.
• The school has had to move from 1960’s attitudes and practices in one step (The Great Leap Forward”).
• Wide range of staff development activities and opportunities which are thoroughly documented.
• The head places great importance on staff development.
• No formal staff development policy in place, although there is an in-service five year plan.
• Major concerns for day-to-day survival
• The culture of the school emphasised training for basic consistency in the Briti8h-8ystem approach for staff unfamiliar with the system.
• The transient nature of the staff (and pupils) made striving for continuity the greatest aim, and with staff leaving and arriving throughout the year, this was a major challenge.
• Continuing professional development is tolerated, but seen for personal gain only.
• The profit-making ethos of the school makes it impossible to implement a staff development policy. Training is provided to meet curriculum needs only.
• Low staff salaries and limited resources contribute to the low priority for staff development when so much else is needed
• The role of the professional development coordinator is to do with training, inducting and carrying out inset rather than a more developmental approach
One of the identified stages of the data collection and presentation was to consider the
responses in relation to the roles in the schools. It was found that, when considering the
views of the three identified role groups (senior management, middle management and164
unpromoted teaching staff), there was a surprising consistency between the responses,
and the headteachers and senior management responses were often more critical than
other staff responses. This highlighted the consistency of responses within the institution
in relation to the processes and procedures and clearly indicated that, in the case of the
first three schools in the study, the headteacher’s views and perceptions were generally
echoed by other staff at different levels of the school structure. As a result it was possible
to identify a different sub-grouping which was particularly in evidence in “The British
City Primary School”, and partly in “The British Secondary School” and “The Desert
Village Primary School”. There was an identifiable difference between staff who had
been at the school for a long time and those with recent UK experience. The former
group can be classified as “pioneers”, or staff who came a long time ago and have in
many ways contributed to the setting up of the school and system and who will resist
change, and the “settlers” who have come at a more recent time, with many of the
attitudes and practical experiences of a more recent nature which may challenge the
established order of the pioneers. Another type which has been identified is the
“missionary”, an idea embodied in the approaches of the headteacher of “The British City
Primary School” who has brought the conviction of systems from the mother country
and whose stated “mission” is to “convert” the staff.
The four schools demonstrated striking differences in their approaches to staff
development which ranged from a focus on training for day-to-day survival in “The
London School” to systematic and structured staff training and whole school
development in “The Desert Village Primary School” and “The British City Primary
School”. In “The British Secondary School”, the need for systematic staff development
policies has been recognised, but the school has been so successful that this has not been
a high priority issue. The two Primary schools shared a similar legacy and both have been
faced with putting systems in place to bring them in line with current UK practice (“The
Desert Village Primary School” is one year ahead of “The British City Primary School”),
and in both cases they have what has often in the interviews been referred to as
“transformational” headteachers who have managed the whole process and both aim to
introduce staff development to an extent that the culture of the school will change to
empower and develop staff and eventually move away from the initial top-down stages. It
is clear that both schools are succeeding in this, although “The British City Primary
School” is finding it more difficult because of the long-term “pioneers” in the school.
165
The physical expansion of “The Desert Village Primary School” has also facilitated the
process, since with the arrival of a large number of staff and a new split-site school
organisation, the changing overall structure of the school has probably helped to make the
staff more receptive to change.
In “The British Secondary School” it is evident that the appointment of a co-ordinator
could make a significant impact, and that with a stronger whole school emphasis staff
could benefit considerably. The secondary school has one important advantage in this
area as external examination results are an excellent external accountability exercise, and
this has clearly influenced curriculum-based staff training which appears to be
functioning well. The secondary school experience is directly the opposite of that in the
two primary schools where the initiatives identified are almost invariably “bottom up”
with middle managers seen as the catalyst.
166
Chapter 6. Analysis.Introduction.
The purpose of the chapter is to draw together the themes from the literature review and
the findings from the survey and the case studies. The approach is to consider the issues
in relation to the research questions and the hypotheses. In the case studies the research
questions formed the basis of the interview questions, although there was an additional
question which related to staff involvement in the programme. The overall results from
the survey reveal differences of emphasis, but this was more sharply identified in the case
studies where the four schools revealed marked differences of approach and provided a
cross section of responses.
The research questions are as follows:
1. What importance is placed on staff development by British-style overseas schools?
2. How is staff development managed in British-style overseas schools?
3. How effective is the staff development programme in the school?
4. What could be done to improve the staff development programme in the school?
The hypotheses are as follows:
1. Staff development is likely to be “bolted on”.
2. A wide range of interpretations and systems are likely.
3. Staff development is likely to be led by the headmaster or senior management team.
4. There are serious financial constraints for schools of this type unless they can share
costs and resources.
The aim of this method of presentation is to present a fully integrated analysis which is
done thematically and covers the research questions and hypotheses
167
w
Fig.6.1. Stages of the analysis. Survey DataCase Study DataLiterature
ReviewThemes
Research Question 1
Research Question 2
Research Question 3
Research Question 4
Hypothesis 3Identification o f SubthemesHypothesis 1
Presentation o f Sub-themes across the research question areas, with a consideration o f the hypotheses.
Hypothesis 2
Summary
Hypothesis 4
Fig.6.1 aims to show the inter-relationship between the various sections of the analysis
and how the evidence of the literature review, survey and case studies feeds into the four
research questions. The subsequent creation of the sub-themes and incorporation of
evidence to evaluate the hypotheses is intended to present a balanced analysis.
168
Definitions of Staff Development.
One of the challenges faced in the research was in how the schools defined the term “staff
development”, and therefore how they put it into practice. In order to avoid ambiguities
in the research, the introductory letters for both the survey and case studies gave
definitions of staff development in relation to British overseas schools as an initial point
of reference. The term was introduced as an all-embracing one which covers all activities
from staff induction to in-service training and continuing professional development and
this reflects the developmental approaches as stated in the Literature Review. Therefore
the definition which was provided allowed for interpretations from a basic in-service
training function to professional development for institutional improvement.
This echoes the problems of definition expressed by many writers, and as Glover and
Law (1996, p. 2) stated, there is no single definition and often terms are used
interchangeably. The overall impression which could be gained from the case studies in
particular was the extent to which schools saw staff development in terms of a training
function (Mattheson, 1981), or one in which the development of the individual
contributes to whole school development (Bradley, 1987, O’Sullivan et al., 1990, Hall
and Oldroyd, 1991, Fullan, 1992, Tomlinson, 1997). In the “British Secondary School”
and “The London School” this was seen far more as a reaction to external changes in the
curriculum which in the former tended to be identified and managed at middle
management level, whilst in the latter there tended to be reaction to a high staff turnover.
In this environment it is hard to see a place for genuine staff development to take place,
particularly without the support of the owners of the school, since basic training to
maintain continuity is a higher priority. In the two primary schools the situation was
rather different, and with the arrival of headteachers from the United Kingdom it was
clear that the training culture which existed was the beginning of genuine, collaborative
staff development in which individuals such as the headteachers and others were working
towards a culture of collaborative professional development.
The Importance of Staff Development in the Schools.
A good practical starting point for the 1990’s view of staff development and its
importance is provided by the DES in the early stages of school development planning.
One of the claims of school development planning is that it improves the quality of staff
development.“Until recently few schools have had written policies for staff development, or a co-ordinator (or
169
committee) with responsibility for its planning and evaluation” (DES 1991, p. 15)
DES identify the weaknesses of previous approaches to staff development which have
focused on individuals attending courses by choice:
• Staff may receive inadequate advice
• INSET is by choice, some get more, some get none
• It may not be related to the needs of the school
• It mainly takes place outside school
• The outcomes and gains are not necessarily shared
Development planning builds on developments such as school-focused and school-based
staff development, professional training days and appraisal:
• The plan focuses on school needs
• Appraisal identifies links between individual needs and school needs
• Every teacher has a right to professional development and therefore the distribution is
more equitable
• Professional development is directed and therefore the knowledge and skills acquired
through INSET are put to immediate use in the interest of the school
• Staff have a framework for disseminating new knowledge and skills
• Professional training days are used better
• Information on external courses is collated and checked for relevance to school needs
• School-based INSET and external courses are used to complement one another
• Staff development is included in the school’s budget
(DES, 1991, p. 15)
A consideration of the importance of staff development in the schools and the
“philosophy” of the school is dependent on the individual definitions of staff
development. Although this was not a direct question in the questionnaire, the attitude of
the respondents towards the importance of staff development was implicit through many
of the question areas. The responses from both the survey and the case studies revealed
that the management was very much left in the hands of the headteacher and/or the
deputy who were also very much involved in needs identification for whole school and
individual needs. This echoes the findings of McMahon (1996) which showed that staff
development was almost exclusively in the hands of the head or senior management170
team. The importance of the role of the headteacher is identified by Southworth (1984),
although he warns against the headteacher being seen as the controller. As Bradley
(1991) points out, it depends on whether the headteacher sees their role to change the
culture to facilitate staff development, or to see themselves as facilitators in a team of
equals. Research carried out by Harland, Kinder and Keys (1993) highlighted the
problems which could arise through competing roles and the reluctance of headteachers
and senior management to devolve responsibility for staff development, and even where
this does happen and the responsibility is passed to a professional development co
ordinator, Adey and Jones (1995) found that the lack of status could create problems of a
different type.
Responsibility for Staff Development.
Staff development was usually organised by the headteacher or senior management team
(87% of the total). The impact of the headteacher was of great significance in “The
British Secondary School”, “The Desert Village Primary School” and “The British City
Primary School”. In “The British Secondary School”, interviewees commented on the
lack of leadership and strategic management as the factor which had resulted in a
fragmented and ad hoc “balkanised” approach to staff development (mentioned by
Middlewood 1997, p. 198); while in “The Desert Village Primary School” and “The
British City Primary School” it was evident that the vision, leadership and strategic
management of the headteacher was the most significant factor in the staff development
programme where the emphasis was on initially developing whole school strategies and
working to devolve responsibilities by empowering staff in a more collaborative culture.
The importance of developing collaborative cultures is mentioned by a number of writers
such as Drucker (1988), Fullan (1992) and Hargreaves (1992), which can lead to genuine
change (Nias et al, 1989). Effective development occurs when the teacher develops rather
than is developed (Day et al, 1985), leading to the idea of the learning organisation
(Bradley et al, 1994, p.237). This supports one of the four hypotheses which was that
staff development is likely to be led by the headmaster or senior management team. This
was the case in all of the case study schools, although in “The British Secondary School”
the initiatives came from middle management with the head nominally in charge of what
was described as an ad hoc approach to staff development.
171
Staff or Professional Development Co-ordinators.
Only seven survey schools (5.9% of the total) had a specifically appointed staff
development officer. In practice, one of those interviewed in “The London School” was
responsible for a wide range of academic and curriculum functions, and acknowledged
that the role was more concerned with the design of termly whole-school training and the
individual training of new staff, rather than any developmental function. As several staff
in two of the case study schools suggested, this was a role which was not really needed in
the overseas primary school because of the limited availability of courses, although in
these statements there was an implicit narrowing of the role to the dissemination of
information. Evidence from the SITE project (Bolam, 1978-81) suggests that the idea of a
staff development officer or professional development co-ordinator is by no means a new
one, and this is a role which has become well-established in schools in England and
Wales. In the case of Hereford and Worcester LEA which produced a “Professional
Development Co-ordinator Handbook” (1991), there is an explicit link to the importance
of the co-ordinator in being involved in the formulation of the school development plan,
and in a 1995 survey it was found that the co-ordinators played a major part in the staff
and school development planning processes (Adey and Jones, 1997). According to Adey
and Jones the role was held by a member of the senior management team in 96% of cases
(1997) and this resulted in problems of time because of other competing roles. A
variation of this role was the use of the staff development committee (O’Sullivan et al,
1997; Bradley et al, 1994).
There was already a staff development officer in place in one case study school (“the
London School”), although by his own admission the circumstances of the school made
the word “development” rather inappropriate, and it would be better substituted by
“training”. In “The British Secondary School” there was a strong feeling that this role
was needed and most of the interviewees identified this as a role which needs to be
created, and this was supported by the recommendations of the 1994 School Review.
This was less so in the two primary schools, although overall there was a feeling that
someone needed to be in a proactive leadership role in this area, and the responsibilities
would appear to cover a wide range of needs from managing the budget and the
dissemination of information to being involved in induction, mentoring and running and
leading staff in-service training. In the primary schools, the interviewees very clearly
172
identified the head with this role, although in the secondary school the impact of the head
in the same role had been less obvious.
Types of Staff Development.School-Based Staff Development.
The move towards school-based staff development following the James Report (1972)
has led to a growth in the importance of school-run staff development, as noted by Bolam
(1994), Levine (1994) and Stott and Walker (1996) who see the “escape over the
perimeter fence” as having little to do with improvement. This move was reflected in he
school responses, although in many cases the geographical isolation of the schools must
have a significant impact on the importance placed on school-based staff development. In
the survey, in-house in-service training was very common with 97% of the schools
reporting that they had some form of whole school work of this type, with nearly three-
quarters of the schools indicating that they had specifically scheduled staff training days.
This was particularly the case with primary schools (72%), and 35% of all the schools
had five or more training days per year. The majority of schools had a regular cycle of
meetings which were scheduled on a regular basis (80%). In “The Desert Village Primary
School” and “The British City Primary School” the scheduled staff meetings have
become in-service training opportunities, rather than the more information-related
meetings in “The British Secondary School”.
There was a variation in timings, however. “The British Secondary School” had
experienced the occasional school-based opportunity, and one example quoted was a
pastoral workshop in 1997. “The London School” aimed to have a termly in-service
session which was mainly based around informing staff of current British curriculum
approaches. “The Desert Village Primary School” and “The British City Primary School”
had been far more active in this area, and pointed to the changing nature of staff
meetings as in-service led, rather than an information-giving opportunity. “The British
Secondary School” did not have any specific training days, although used the pre-term
week at the beginning of each academic year as an opportunity for administrative
meetings. “The Desert Village Primary School” and “The British City Primary School”
had developed a regular ongoing series of in-service days and “twilight sessions”, some
led by staff and others externally.
173
Subject-based in-service training was common, although it was found to be reactive,
responding to changes in the curriculum. Primary schools had the highest proportion of
responses which identified regular subject-based in-service training (45% of the
responses). In school 1 this was well developed, depending on the interests of the head of
department who could take the initiative to bring subject officers from the examination
boards in the UK. This was also well developed in “The Desert Village Primary School”
and “The British City Primary School” where current developments in primary education
necessitated work on areas such as literacy and numeracy. This was done in the schools
as in-house follow-up to visiting consultants, and continued into the area of inter-school
liaison.
Internal Consultancy.
A variation in school-based staff development which was identified was that of the
“internal consultant” (Bennett 1997) who could bring cascading opportunities from recent
UK experience to the overseas school. In the case study schools, the value of external
advice was seen to be of great significance and staff have gained confidence as a result.
This has enabled subject specialists to conduct more informed staff development follow-
up activities, although staff found that these sessions were of variable quality. There was
an implicit recognition that this was an important stage in the creation of a collaborative
staff development culture in which this aspect of “cascading” became increasingly more
common, and therefore the ongoing value of external support was guaranteed beyond the
completion of the course. This was manifested in “The Desert Village Primary School”
by the conscious decision to appoint staff ffom the UK into influential positions so that
they could share their recent UK experiences with the staff as a whole. Although in its
early stages, this appeared to have been an effective development. The school benefits
ffom the experience of the staff, who in turn gain greater experience and status at a
whole-school level, resulting in a transactional meeting of institutional and individual
staff development. Bennett (1997 p.43) identifies this connection and goes on to state that
this is a more cost effective option than external consultancy and can provide
encouragement for colleagues. It may present problems of looking at the “big picture”,
and perhaps having to criticise colleagues, or be seen to be presumptuous. Bennett does
come to the conclusion, however, that unless the “internal consultant” is a member of the
senior management team, it is not likely to be effective.
174
“Internal consultancy” is one example of school-based development which can be of
enormous benefit to the British overseas school although some writers have been cautious
about school-based staff development in general and voice concern about the variability
in its quality (Bradley et al, 1994 and Harland et al 1993). Several responses in the case
study schools mentioned this, particularly in relation to school-based in-service training
following an external consultant. It was suggested by one of the teachers appointed into
the internal consultancy role that it could be rewarded by enhanced status and salary,
even in the form of performance-related pay. This, as well as other initiatives, could lead
to a greater devolution of responsibilities for staff development and greater staff
empowerment. As Cowan and Wright (1990) found in their research, school-based in-
service was often carried out in an arbitrary way, and often focused on lower order forms
of information-giving and training (Harland et al, 1993, Kinder et al, 1993, Campbell,
1989).
External Staff Development.
External advice was not as common, presumably due to the higher costs of bringing in
expertise from abroad and only 30% of the schools utilised it on a regular basis, and this
was more common in the ESF and BSME schools. Three of the case study schools
reported recent subject-based in-service training during this academic year, and “The
British City Primary School” had a five-year strategic plan of advisers in a range of core
subject areas from the UK. A significant proportion of the external advice was connected
to information technology (21%), and Ofsted inspectors accounted for a significant
proportion (19%), with some examination board advisers (11%). “The British Secondary
School”, “The Desert Village Primary School” and “The British City Primary School”
each had experience of bringing in advice from inspectors as consultants, and school 1
was about to embark on the process of preparing for a formal Ofsted-style inspection at
the time of the investigation. A major theme in the literature is the development of
school-based staff development which can be traced back to the James Report (1972),
and as a result of their location and insularity it is likely that many of the schools in the
survey will have been dependant on internal staff development with the limitations, as
highlighted by Bradley et al (1994), of variable quality, lack of planning (Cowan and
Wright, 1990) and the information-giving exercises with lower order information found
by Harland et al (1993). It is therefore desirable for schools to receive as much external
175
support and liaison as possible to ensure that they are exposed to current developments
and have the opportunity to assimilate them.
Inter-School Liaison.
One important method in which this assimilation process can occur is through inter-
school liaison. Stott and Walker (1996) refer to the “escape over the perimeter fence” as
having little to do with improvement, although in the case of overseas schools this may
be seen in a different perspective. Without the proximity of LEA support, the notion of
school-based staff development may be seen in the context of the British Overseas
Schools to encompass inter-school liaison as well in a culture where knowledge,
understanding and practical experience may be limited to a small number of individuals.
Inter-school liaison appeared to be well developed in the English Schools Foundation
(ESF) schools in Hong Kong, it was mentioned in one of the South American schools
(the Latin American Heads Conference Schools), and in the European Council of
International Schools (ECIS) particularly in Europe. A new group, the British Schools of
the Middle East (BSME), was also mentioned, and all the case study schools were
members of this group and encouraged subject staff to become involved in subject cluster
groups. From the evidence of the interviews, these cluster groups represent an excellent
opportunity for inter-school staff development, although some staff felt that the work had
not been as beneficial as it might have been with a clearer focus and agenda. This refers
to the problems of variable quality raised by Bradley et al (1994). Although Harland et al
(1993) were critical of some of the Professional Development Days they observed
because of the lower-order information given, arguably this can be of great benefit to
overseas schools to keep in touch with developments. Inter-school liaison seemed to be
fairly well developed across the survey schools, with almost one-third of the schools
reporting some form of liaison. As many staff pointed out, inter-school liaison with the
pooling of resources could be of enormous value, although in more isolated schools this
may prove to be an impossibility. Therefore whether staff development can only occur in
isolation or with other schools, Bradley’s (1991) comments about the importance of
bringing staff together to build up a team spirit and a sense of achievement during
professional development days are relevant. Inter school liaison can encompass not only
school-based advantages, but be combined with the sharing of resources for external
176
courses. This can enable schools to provide the complementary opportunities of internal
and external staff development suggested by Hargreaves and Hopkins (1991).
In the survey, some of the respondents suggested that there should be more local liaison
with a pooling of resources to share costs, ideas and experiences. In some places, regional
or local organisations were already in place for this purpose, and the Internet and the use
of E-mail contact was suggested by some schools as a way round the problem. As the
case study school responses indicated, the idea of local liaison was a new initiative which
appeared to offer opportunities for sharing ideas and that as an idea it had a great deal of
potential if the aims of the groups are clear to all the staff.
Support for Continuing Professional Development.
The range of staff development activities in place indicated a commitment to a wide
range of training, liaison and professional opportunities which were on a whole school,
departmental and individual level. The evidence of funding of staff on courses of all
types, whether partial or full, is further evidence of the importance placed on staff
development by the schools (96% of the schools stated that this was the case), and a
culture of continuing professional development may exist with such a large number of
schools reporting that staff were actively involved in, or had recently completed, distance
learning courses which were self-funded (72% of the schools had at least one member of
staff in this category, and across the schools which replied there was a mean of almost
four staff in each school). Nearly all the schools replied that they funded (74%) or
partially funded (22%) courses for staff, particularly locally available (37%) or overseas
short courses (37%). Long-term continuing professional development also received
funding with 17% of the teachers receiving financial help for distance learning and nine
staff full-time funding. The majority of these courses were related to education at Masters
degree level (86% of the total), although less than one quarter of the respondents
considered that this had made a significant impact on the school as a whole and was more
likely to be of personal benefit.
This raises the important question as to how far any positive benefits of such award-
bearing school-based research were being exploited at a whole school level. Conner
(1994) and Triggs and Francis (1990) both argue that long-term award-bearing courses
have an important impact not just for the individual, but also for the institution with the
177
emphasis on a “deep” reflective approach rather than the short-sharp focus of in-service
training, and this leads on to the consideration of teacher as researcher advocated by
writers such as Walker (1985) and Conner (1994), and recently endorsed by Chris
Woodhead of Ofsted (reported in the Times Educational Supplement, March 1999).
In “The Desert Village Primary School”, two members of staff who had been recently
appointed and were doing Masters degrees in Education stated that they felt this to have
made a major impact on their ability not only to improve their own practice, but also to
disseminate information on a whole-school level, and it was a stated aim of the
headteacher to recruit and make use of their experience and academic expertise on an
“internal consultancy” basis. The school needs to make a conscious policy decision to
link this kind of individual development to institutional development, however, and this
was clearly not happening in “The British Secondary School” according to two members
of staff who were involved in courses. The question of higher qualifications in the
overseas schools is a sensitive one, and evidence of this could be seen in the staff lists in
the school brochures where qualifications were shown. Many of the staff were non
graduates, some did not appear to have teaching qualifications, and the few staff who had
higher degrees were not necessarily in senior management positions. This could have an
impact on the effectiveness of school-based research which is carried out by junior or
middle management teacher-researchers, and a regional example comes from one of the
survey schools where the headteacher is conducting research and the school has
developed a relationship with a British university. In the role as headteacher or senior
manager, the impact of such school-based research should be more institution-wide.
Many writers tackle the issue of individual or institutional development, and these can be
linked (Hargreaves and Hopkins, 1991). As Oldroyd and Hall (1991) point out, needs
identification should become a two-way process and a shared task which reconciles the
two.
The respondents were asked to reflect on the impact of professional staff development,
and there was a positive response in terms of numbers of staff involved in courses of all
types, although only 24% of the respondents considered that this had made a significant
impact on the school, and the conclusion may be that it has had more of an impact on the
individual rather than the school, although few staff appeared to have gained promotion
as a result (8%). “The London School” was negative about the motives of staff who were
178
doing courses, and it appeared that the impact on the school was negligible since staff
used their qualifications as a means to emigrate, and they therefore saw the location as a
“half way house” between the Indian subcontinent and North America. In “The Desert
Village Primary School” and “The British City Primary School”, it appeared that
professional staff development was making an impact, with more staff involvement in all
aspects of staff development.
One interesting finding related to the perceived impact of continuing professional
development on the school. The large numbers of staff involved in postgraduate courses
in education should have a whole school impact, and there was a contradiction between
the numbers involved and the perceived impact which might indicate that schools have
not developed strategies to link this aspect of professional development to whole school
improvement. This links to points raised in the case study schools about the need for
schools to draw on their own resources and become more self-sufficient than staff would
have to be in the UK because of the constraints caused by the location. Therefore the idea
of school-based staff development came across strongly in all the schools, although some
interviewees suggested that the quality of such work could be improved.
Appraisal and Staff Development.
Appraisal systems were common, with 89% of the respondents indicating that they had a
system. This was most likely to be a line management system (48%), or a combination of
line management and peer appraisal (31%). This type was more common in secondary
schools, although there was no system of appraisal in “The British Secondary School”.
The respondents indicated that staff were not always positive about appraisal (25%), and
this experience in “The Desert Village Primary School” had led to a review of the
system. In “The British City Primary School” the system was informal and involved
some observation and an interview which took place with the headteacher. A large
proportion of school respondents (84%) also felt that staff development was also
concerned with ensuring that staff are performing effectively, and this was a stated aim of
“The London School”, although only three responses linked appraisal with staff
development.
One of the hypotheses concerned the presence of a wide range of interpretations and
systems in place, and this appears to have been bome out by the evidence from the survey
179
which suggests that schools have many interpretations of staff development which are the
result of geographical location, resources and school type. Even within the four case
studies, the evidence highlighted systems which were markedly different. The survey
revealed a wide variety of staff development activities, including the different emphasis
on the timing and frequency of training days, subject-based in-service training, the use
and nature of external advice, inter-school liaison and appraisal systems. It was clear that
there was no generic approach to staff development in the schools, and no obvious model
for implementation as would be found in, for example, curriculum documentation such as
National Curriculum, GCSE or Advanced Level criteria. If there is no generic approach,
then it can be assumed that there is also a wide variety of definitions of staff development
which range between the training (i.e. Matheson, 1981) and the development approach,
and the individualistic or institution-based approaches (i.e. Tomlinson, 1997). The
literature certainly reflects this diversity and the overseas schools are left with a
bewildering set of definitions which are more likely to conform to a reactive training and
in-service function to meet the needs of the changing curriculum which may lead schools
to conform to Bradley’s (1991) “Road to Damascus” model in which external change
makes what schools do less appropriate and therefore they need to react to this. It is likely
that Bennett’s (1997) internal consultancy idea will have great impact as staff receive
training or acquire information or skills which they will share with others.
Strategic Planning.In “The British Secondary School”, staff development was seen as important by
individuals, but the school did not have an explicit staff development policy, and
therefore staff development tended to be based around subject-coordinated curriculum-
based training. As Bradley (1987 p. 194) argues, this is not enough and staff development
should go far beyond the provision of in-service training. The headteacher acknowledged
the importance of developing this area which was at the time of the investigation
described as “ad hoc and fragmented”, and conforms to the laissez-faire approach defined
by Southworth (1984, p.9). The headteacher, who was nominally in charge of staff
development, had not had the time to strategically plan it, and the successful profile of
the school and continuity of the staff has made it low on the list of priorities. This
interpretation of staff development reflects much more the training approach mentioned
by Stevenson (1987, p.234), and as Heidemann (1990, p.4) argues, this reflects only one
aspect of staff development since it is reactive and informational rather than
180
developmental in terms of changing attitudes. This was not the case in “The Desert
Village Primary School” and “The British City Primary School” where the vision and
leadership of new headteachers appointed ffom the UK has been significant in raising the
profile of staff development on a whole school level in Heidemann’s more developmental
sense, or along the lines suggested by Bradley (1987) of teacher growth leading to
institutional growth. At this level, the impact of a headteacher with the benefits of direct
involvement in UK initiatives has been considerable, and both have been described as
“transformational” in their schools. As Henderson (1976, p. 15) found in his case study
research, the effectiveness of in-service training is enhanced if the school is involved as a
system rather than the teacher as an individual. In “The London School” , a different
issue is raised with staff development being concerned with the more pragmatic day-to-
day concerns of training staff to enable them to carry out basic teaching functions
according to British curriculum criteria which may reflect more the Matheson (1981)
definition of staff development as a training function.
It was interesting to note that although a great deal of documentation was in place in “The
Desert Village Primary School” and “The British City Primary School”, none of the case
study schools had an explicit staff development policy, and therefore no links to the
school development plan. This would appear to put the schools significantly behind
expectations, if not practice, in the UK. Hargreaves and Hopkins (1991) identify the
importance of the connections between staff development, appraisal and the school
development plan, and this is echoed by Caldwell and Spinks (1992) who also make
connections on a system-wide basis which reflects the role of external agencies. Glover
and Law (1996) identified a pattern of support for schools from Ofsted inspections which
had links between staff development and school development policies, and this was also
mentioned as an important consideration by inspectors in one of the case study review
findings (“The British Secondary School”, 1994).
Strategic planning was considered to be a strength with 41% of the school responses
identifying aspects of strategic planning in their staff development programmes. Only
seven responses linked staff development to the school development plan, however, and a
number of respondents identified the lack of linkage between appraisal, the development
plan and staff development. Middlewood (1997) sees the staff development plan as
crucial. Although none of the case study schools had an explicit staff development policy
181
or linkage to the school development plan, schools 2 and 3 were planned with appropriate
documentation. In school 3, the headteacher had a five year plan for in-service training,
and monitoring and evaluation of in-service training was carried out on a formalised
basis. This was not the case in school 1, however, where the approach was described as
ad hoc and fragmented, or laissez-faire, although the headteacher acknowledged that this
was an important area to target. Bradley (1987 p.p. 192-3) argues that policies are vital
and should recognise a staff development policy in terms of staff appraisal, in-service
training, collaboration and team-work, involvement in management and decision-making,
school-based research and staff development as professionality. Bradley’s findings about
the state of staff development were that policies encompassed only “the minimum
competency elements” with improvement concerned with “the repair of deficits”
(Bradley 1987, p. 194).
Almost half the respondents who identified issues in the area of strategic planning
suggested that this was an area which needed attention. Better integration with the school
development plan, more staff input and more formalised training days, links between
appraisal and staff development, develop a relationship with a British university, increase
staff awareness and opportunities and improve monitoring, evaluation and follow-up
were all areas which were identified. In the case studies a number of staff and the
headteachers felt that there should be a clear staff development policy, linked to the
school development plan, and possibly to appraisal. It was clear from the lack of
documentation in three of the case study schools that this was an area of school
management which had not received as much formalised attention.
This evidence overall suggests that the hypothesis that staff development programmes are
likely to be “bolted on” may not necessarily be the case. The rationale behind the
hypothesis was that it was unlikely that schools would have formalised staff development
policies, and that programmes, if they existed, were more likely to focus around in-
service training. This appears to have been the case, and the variety of responses in the
survey and the case studies reveal fairly individualistic interpretations, and in two of the
case study schools, although the policies were not formulated, practice was formalised.
182
Approaches to Staff Development.
In each of the four case studies there is a recognition of the importance of staff
development, but the emphasis ranges ffom the ad hoc and laissez faire approach of
school 1 to the practical concerns of the other three schools. In schools 2 and 3, the need
to manage the process strategically to create a culture of collaborative planning is the
stated aim, and this accounts for a more " "top-down” approach in the early stages in
response to the need for major changes in the school structure in general. In the survey
schools there was a variety of responses which indicated that it was considered to be
important, although there were many constraints in terms of resources, lack of
information, funding, location and priorities which may not have made it possible for
schools to have been as developmental in their approaches as they would have liked. This
may also affect individuals whose personal professional development may be more
difficult to organise without the ongoing access to LEA advice and support, and the
wealth of opportunities provided for UK based staff.
A lack of planning and explicit staff development policies were identified as problematic
by McMullen (1991), and writers such as Nicholls (1994) and Bradley (1991) highlight
the importance of strategically planning staff development. The staff needs identification
process is merely the first stage in a six stage cycle according to O’Sullivan et al (1990).
An interesting point which was raised in the case studies was that of linking whole school
needs to individual ones. This is an important theme which is identified by writers such
as Hargreaves and Hopkins (1991) who suggest that the focus of staff development
should be integrated to match institutional and individual needs. In two of the case study
schools (“The Desert Village Primary School” and “The British City Primary School”),
some staff felt that individual professional development took second place to whole
school development, and they would like to see more of a balance. More effective needs
identification was mentioned in three of the case study schools, and this could be
achieved through linking an explicit staff development policy through the six stages
identified by O’Sullivan et al (1990) to appraisal and the school development plan
(Hargreaves and Hopkins, 1991).
Collaborative Planning.In the management of staff development it appeared that only ten survey schools (13%)
identified whole school needs identification through collaborative planning and in most183
schools it was the responsibility of the headteacher and the senior management team who
also had a significant input into the identification of individual needs with one quarter of
the schools reporting that appraisal and target setting were the means by which individual
needs are identified. Formal appraisal did not exist in any of the case study schools,
although in “The Desert Village Primary School”, “The British City Primary School” and
“The London School” there were systems in place for observation and discussion. In
“The British Secondary School”, any planning was devolved to the subject leaders who
initiated subject-based training if they needed it, but at whole school level little was in
operation and tended to be imposed according to the interviewees. In “The Desert Village
Primary School” and “The British City Primary School”, collaborative planning was an
acknowledged aim and was recognised by many of the interviewees as such, although the
cultures of the schools which were the legacy of the previous headteachers made the
development of a culture conducive to collaborative planning a gradual process. This
move towards a collaborative culture is seen as important by writers such as Middlewood
(1997, p. 187) and Bradley et al (1994, p.241), and according to Oldroyd et al (1984,
p. 16), one of the ways in which this can be achieved is through the leadership by example
of senior managers by showing their willingness to be involved in professional
development themselves. This is connected to a culture of reflective practice (Schon,
1983, Caldwell and Spinks, 1992, Osterman and Kottkamp, 1997, Bradley et al, 1994).
Staff seemed to be keen to participate in staff development opportunities, and the
respondents felt that it was important to keep up to date with UK developments. The vast
majority of schools (92%) responded that they closely followed the British National
Curriculum. All four case study schools were in this category, and the two primary
schools were in the process of introducing SAT’s and had recently brought in expertise
from the UK to help with literacy and numeracy. In “The British Secondary School”
there were fewer opportunities, although those which were provided were seen as
positive experiences by the staff interviewed. There was some resistance which was
noted in “The British City Primary School”, however, where some staff felt that to spend
time on staff development initiatives was valuable, although too time-consuming and it
was to the detriment of teaching. Nearly all the responses indicated that there was a
positive attitude towards staff development (96%), although staff turnover was an issue
which was identified by one of the schools. Staff were often considered to be
enthusiastic, willing and committed and respondents recognised the importance of
184
continuing professional development, although some 10% of the responses pointed out
reluctance and negativity by staff towards staff development. One school identified staff
resistance because of a fear of change, and “older” staff were resistant to new initiatives.
As the survey revealed, the schools were quite heavily dependent on local contract staff,
with only 28% of them able to recruit 75% or more of their staff from overseas. The
primary schools were the most heavily dependent on local contract hire. Although it was
found that 70% of the schools reported more than 50% of its staff to be British nationals,
it is significant how many non-British nationals there are working in the schools. This
must have a significant impact on the ability of the school to deliver a British curriculum.
This echoes the problems found by Dienye (1987) of integrating untrained teachers
through in-service training, and his findings showed that it could be done effectively.
This problem was revealed in “The London School” where the headteacher identified one
of the major problems as the training of non-British nationals in the consistent delivery of
the British National Curriculum when they had never experienced a British education
themselves. With sixteen staff nationalities and a high staff turnover, maintenance rather
than development would seem to be the logical choice of emphasis. Among the British
nationals who are employed on a local contract, there is a profile in the Middle Eastern
schools, which may be reflected elsewhere, of the local contract teacher as female and
employment as a second income. This was the case with the teachers interviewed in this
category. Their different status may have an impact on the motivation to keep up with
developments (as indicated by one of the interviewees), or there may be little chance of
continuity because of a dependency on the spouse’s employment which may involve
sudden relocation (as mentioned as a serious problem in “The London School”).
An important division became evident in the other three case study schools. Among the
British staff, which formed the overwhelming majority, there was a tension between staff
who had been in post or overseas for a long time (more than ten years) and those who had
come ffom the UK most recently. In all of the schools there were staff who felt that their
experience of recent UK practices, including inspection, would be of great value. This
had been identified by the headteachers of “The Desert Village Primary School” and
“The British City Primary School” and teachers in this category were being increasingly
encouraged to share their expertise. In the long-term category, a clear sub-division
emerged between those resistant to change and those who had attempted to keep up with
185
developments. Thus, change in these two schools has been challenging as they are faced
with stafF in some cases having to reconcile their practices and attitudes ffom the 1970’s,
‘80’s or early ‘90’s to the challenges of education under New Labour. The difficulty the
school in this position faces is how far to “mix and match” practices, and both schools
can be described as having adopted Bradley’s (1991) “Great Leap Forward” model for
reasons of necessity.
Attitudes of staff towards staff development could be improved by the use of more peer
support according to some schools, and to try to find a better link between personal
professional and whole school development, and to achieve a higher level of staff
involvement. In any case, as one school pointed out, staff development was necessary for
future career prospects. More opportunities for staff development were seen as a crucial
factor for “The British Secondary School”, and three of the schools identified the desire
for a more equitable distribution of opportunities.
Finance and Budgeting
A large number of survey schools reported (60%) that there was formal budgeting, and
one quarter linked funding for staff development to the school development plan,
although a similar proportion did this on an ad hoc basis. A large proportion of schools
(66%) stated that they were happy with their level of funding and only 21% indicated that
there were insufficient funds. Despite this few schools identified funding as a strength of
the programme, and this was certainly the case in “The London School” where funds
would only be allocated to meet curriculum needs. Staff development was not considered
to be important by the owners whose attitude was that staff should be properly trained
before they come to the school, and that, as the school existed as a profit-making concern,
this was not necessary or appropriate. In “The Desert Village Primary School” and “The
British City Primary School”, funding appeared to be readily available for whole school
related in-service training in areas such as literacy and numeracy, although there was no
specific budget. The boards of governors appeared to be involved in the allocation of
funds. The school bursars were facilitators of the process, and budgeting was not linked
to the school development plan. This was also the case in “The British Secondary
School”, although the bursar had a more active role in the allocation of funds which were
set on a historical basis to staff on a first-come first-served basis, and the use of those
funds was an effectiveness indicator. This had been the system which had operated for
many years, although the interviews revealed that some staff were unaware of how186
funding could be acquired, and therefore did not ask for it. The disparity of funding in the
survey and case studies reflects the findings of Glover and Law (1993) which showed the
wide variation of funds available, and the TTA survey (1995, reported by Sweetman,
1997) which showed that funds for staff development were often used in a haphazard way
and diverted for other purposes. Glover and Law (1993) reported a range of funding
between £12,000-85,000, although this figure does not reveal the size of the schools. It
would be interesting to develop a formula of per capita budgeting, although it is clear that
limited resources has been a problem in U.K. schools. Therefore, as in the U.K., staff
development activities need to provide value for money as Nicholls (1994) suggests. He
goes on to recommend sponsorship from industry. For overseas schools operating for the
benefit of expatriate pupils, there may be opportunities through parental and community
contacts to develop this area, and this may also take into account the provision of
resources for continuing professional development, as McMahon (1996) suggests.
In some of the survey schools funding was a serious limitation. Common themes were the
costs of bringing in outside expertise, uncertainty due to exchange rates and the higher
costs of funding staff on overseas courses. Funding did not appear to have compromised
the ability of “The British Secondary School”, “The Desert Village Primary School” and
“The British City Primary School” to deliver the courses and experiences which they
considered to be important, although in “The London School” this was a serious problem.
Several schools questioned the value to the school of funding individual staff courses
since there was a chance that they would move to other schools, and this was echoed by
“The Desert Village Primary School” where the responses in the interviews clearly
showed a change in policy from an individual to an institutional focus. The survey
revealed that in a number of schools the level of funding for staff development needs to
be raised (20% of the responses), and as two case study schools suggested, a proper
budget is needed for this.
One of the hypotheses concerned with funding was that there are serious financial
constraints for schools of this type unless they can share costs and resources. From the
evidence it was difficult to find a generalisable pattern, although the Middle East and
Hong Kong schools reported more positive responses in this area. Three of the four case
study schools seemed to be well resourced and willing to use finances to support training
and development on a whole school or subject curriculum-led initiative. “The London
187
School”, on the other hand, pointed out that the reality of their situation was to avoid
expenditure on this area unless it was absolutely necessary. In the survey it was rare to
find schools which mentioned funding as a strength, and one third of the respondents
raised it as a serious problem. In another part of the survey this was contradicted,
however, and only 21% of the respondents considered that the funding is insufficient.
Constraints.
The effectiveness of staff development was constrained by the geographical location of
the schools with 80% of the survey respondents agreeing that it was more difficult to
receive ongoing support from external bodies, although the European responses indicated
that this was less of a problem than in the other areas. Over half of the schools (61%)
indicated that geographical location made a difference to the ability of the school to
deliver a staff development programme, and this was particularly the case in Africa.
Limited contact with other schools and the problems of finding suitable “experts” were
mentioned, and the problems of location, time, distance and cost were identified as
making a negative impact on the staff development programmes of the schools. These
concerns were echoed by the case study schools, although “The British Secondary
School”, “The Desert Village Primary School” and “The British City Primary School”
were able to afford a significant amount to finance consultants ffom Britain. Many of
these problems were unique to this school type and therefore not referred to in the
literature. A lack of time, as found by Adey and Jones (1995) in their research, was a
frequently mentioned problem with 20% of the responses indicating that this was a major
constraint, and this was an area identified in all the case study schools. The process of
day-to-day management was seen to be so time consuming with busy timetables that time
for development was a problem. This is also a major concern of Harland et al, (1993),
Morrison (1992), Brown and Earley (1990) who agree that a lack of time can
compromise the purpose of staff development. On a general level, much comment was
made on the pacing of staff development initiatives. Although this was not seen as a
particular problem in “The British Secondary School” because the middle managers
dictated the pace, in “The British City Primary School” some staff found the pace of
change and involvement in a range of groups and teams to be threatening and to the
detriment of their propensity to teach effectively. In “The London School”, where the
schools faced serious problems of high staff turnover, continuity of staffing was seen as
one of the most important factors for improvement. It may be that the kind of
188
strategically planned staff development envisaged by writers such as Middlewood (1997),
Everard and Morris (1990) and Whitaker (1993) might address a number of these issues
and increase staff commitment and motivation in a learning organisation based on
collaborative enquiry (Aspinwall, 1996) and internal consultancy (Bennett, 1997).
Summary.
Many of the schools felt that the purpose of staff development was to fulfil a training
function, with 78% of them agreeing that staff development in the school was concerned
with providing essential in-service training. This was endorsed in different ways by all
the schools in the case studies. The focus in “The British Secondary School” was
primarily concerned with individual subject departments and their curriculum needs,
while the two primary schools were anxious to train the whole staff in the latest
developments. There was a feeling that they had to bring their schools forwards very
quickly because on appointment the headteachers saw that the practices were
significantly behind expectations in the British system. In “The London School” training
was the focus to enable a consistency of approach. These approaches are endorsed by
Bradley (1991) who argues that a major purpose of staff development is to cope with
recent major changes. The emphasis, however, is far more on training (i.e. Matheson,
1981) rather than the more developmental models.
Therefore the range of staff development activities in place in the British overseas
schools was broad and variable, and the emphasis appeared to be more on training than
development. Needs at whole school and subject level were identified and the reactive
approach of responding to deficits appeared to be the solution for most of the schools. An
interesting phenomenon was the impact of newly appointed headteachers from the UK
who had been faced with the need for a “Great Leap Forward” (Bradley, 1991)
The perceived effectiveness of staff development in the survey and case study schools
was also considered. The responses throughout are attitudinal, although the case studies
allow for a greater breadth of response since the views of a sample across a cross-section
of staff by role are considered. In the survey schools, the responses were likely to be from
the headteacher or the deputy head, and therefore there are no opportunities for internal
triangulation. However, similarities and differences across all the survey responses
provide a useful overview of attitudes. In the absence of any specific staff development
189
plan in the case study schools, it was difficult to gauge the level of evaluation and
monitoring which goes on beyond what “feels” to be effective, although “The British
City Primary School” had a more developed system of evaluating and monitoring specific
in-service courses.
190
Chapter 7: Conclusions.Overview of Findings.
The purpose of the research was to examine the nature of staff development in British
curriculum overseas schools and to consider the extent to which the schools followed
practice and methodology in the United Kingdom. The theme of “touching base”, or
keeping in touch with current methodology and practice is a recurrent dilemma for these
schools. The literature review provided evidence not only of desirable approaches to a
more proactive form of staff development, but also the changes which have occurred over
the last two decades to move from what was described as a training culture to a culture of
development and collaboration in which the school developed as a learning organization
through collaborative enquiry (Aspinwall, 1996). Writers such as Bolam (1982), Bradley
(1987, 1991), Heidemann (1990), O’Sullivan et al (1990), Glover and Law (1996) and
Middlewood (1997) point to this theme.
One method of evaluating practice has been through an examination of research findings,
and it is clear that research in this area has been fairly limited in scale. Many of the
research projects covered a small sample, or had low response rates in comparison to the
research which has been carried out in the overseas schools. The research does reveal in
general terms the importance of a range of approaches towards staff development and its
importance in the teaching and learning process, and highlights the potential benefits of
encouraging schools to manage strategically to effectively link individual and
institutional needs. Time and resources have been a consistent problem, however, and if
this is the case in Britain, the situation for the overseas schools is more critical. Joyce and
Showers (1980) found that teachers were wonderful learners, and could learn new skills
particularly well through combining methodology with simulations. Henderson (1975,
1976) found that there was a connection between in-service training and school
innovation. The SITE Project report (Baker and Sikora, 1982) highlighted the importance
of more school-based staff development and went on to suggest the need for professional
development co-ordinators. A decade later Adey and Jones (1995) examined the role and
found that it had certain shortcomings in relation to status and a lack of time, and, as
Harland, Kinder and Keys (1993) found, the control of staff development remained very
much in the hands of the headteacher or the senior management team rather than
following LEA advice to devolve responsibility. Triggs and Francis (1990), Bradley and
Howard (1991), Vulliamy and Webb (1991) and Conner (1994) all found that the award-
191
bearing course was important and relevant to individual and institutional development
against the short, sharp training experiences of in-service training.
The case study schools provided evidence from the three main school types (the primary,
secondary and all-age categories), and illustrated the diversity of situations which schools
find themselves in. An acknowledged limitation of the case studies was that they all took
place in one country, although the evidence ffom the schools helped to identify a wide
range of issues which related back to themes identified by the writers. The most
significant findings were:
• The role of the headteacher was crucial. “Transformational leadership” had enabled
two of the schools to move forwards in all areas, and as both headteachers had been
appointed from the United Kingdom recently, their impact and the cascading effects
within the school made their input current. With recent experiences of school
development planning and inspections, the two headteachers were in a position to
develop their staff. Bradley (1991) sees this as crucial.
• Internal consultancy. A significant finding was the importance of what Bennett
(1997) refers to as “internal consultancy”, particularly with staff who, like the
headteachers, had recently arrived ffom schools in the United Kingdom.
• The need for strategic planning, and a co-ordinator to do this. The importance of
strategic planning is highlighted throughout the literature (O’Sullivan et al, 1990;
Bradley, 1991; Nicholls, 1994; Bradley et al 1994), and writers such as Oldroyd and
Hall (1991) and Bradley (1991) point to the importance of the co-ordinator role.
Throughout the study, one of the most recurrent cliches has been that the staff are the
greatest resource of the school. Therefore the training and development of the staff has to
be of paramount importance if the school wishes to fulfil its primary function of
providing the best quality teaching and learning experiences. It is clear ffom the literature
that this was not achieved consistently in schools in Britain (Bradley, 1987), although the
legal requirements of appraisal and support from a wide variety of sources and the
increasing use of professional development co-ordinators has raised the profile and
accountability of staff development in schools. The British overseas school faces a
challenging situation, and the dilemmas are clear from the evidence of the schools.
Although the schools are homogenous in terms of their categorisation as British
curriculum schools, the reality is that they have little else in common. The wide variety of
192
school types, sizes, proportion of British staff, types of pupil, diverse geographical
location and isolation, level of funding and interpretations of current British practice are
factors which make them heterogeneous. The schools are linked in the area of staff
development by common problems such as how far to adopt British practice, how to
overcome the lack of information and the cost of bringing in outside expertise.
The focus of the research has been to consider four research questions and four
hypotheses. They have been considered in the previous chapter in a thematic way. In
conclusion it is necessary to consider them separately and make some overall general
statements.
1. What importance is placed on staff development by British overseas schools?
Through the survey and the case studies it has been seen that staff development is seen as
important by the schools and many opportunities are provided. What is clear, however, is
that although schools recognise the importance of staff development, it does appear to be
carried out on a fairly ad hoc basis. McMahon’s 1996 research in schools in England
revealed that coverage of policies was patchy, and this would appear to the case in many
of the schools targeted. It also tends to be more reactive and concerned with training,
rather than coming more in-line with developmental approaches. Although many staff are
involved in personal professional development, there is an insufficient linkage between
institutional and individual needs. Middlewood (1997) proposes staff development for
organisational improvement and it is needed to cope with major changes (Bradley, 1991).
Heath (1993) stresses the importance of staff development with the need for policies
which are developmental.
The overall responses from the survey suggest a number of indicators which emphasise
the importance which the schools place on staff development. This is more concerned
with strategic planning than the philosophy of the school. A large number of schools
(90.7%) had in-house INSET which was usually scheduled (65%) and with specific
training days (69.8%) where 60% of the schools had two or more per annum. Subject-
based INSET was variable with only 38% of the schools doing it as part of schools doing
it as part of school policy. The use of external advice was variable which reflected the
high costs. Almost one-third of the schools were involved in inter-school liaison. 80%
have regular scheduled staff and other meetings and 74% funded staff and 23% partially,
193
although the tendency was for short courses. The importance to individuals was shown by
the large numbers of staff on self-financed courses (76%), with the majority being
Masters degrees in education (66%). Only 24% of the survey respondents considered that
professional staff development had made a significant impact on the school as a whole,
however, and the view tended towards benefits to the individual (18%) or in certain parts
of the school. Staff appeared to be keen to participate in staff development initiatives,
however (99% or the respondents agreed or strongly agreed) and there was a positive
attitude among staff (96% overall). Appraisal systems were common. Schools either had
appraisal systems (61%) or were developing them (30%). There was evidence that many
schools saw a link between staff development and effective performance with 84% of
respondents indicating that this was the primary aim. There was a high level of agreement
that keeping in touch with UK developments because of the close links to the National
Curriculum (92%).
In “The British Secondary School” staff development was seen as important, but it was
more about individual development. Staff development happens automatically, is ad hoc
and unplanned, and is usually left to subject departments. There is no whole school
planning, and this perhaps reflects the successful record of the school where it may not be
seen to have been necessary to plan more strategically in the past. In two of the other
schools it was seen as very important with heightened awareness brought about by the
arrival of new headteachers from the U.K. and new staff with recent U.K. experience. In
one of the schools this had been manifested in what was seen to be high quality INSET
with a focus not just on training but also on development and working towards a
collaborative culture, the importance of which is recognised by Bradley et al (1994),
Aspinwall 1996 and Moore (1988). This was not the case in the fourth school where the
situation was not ideal with the headteacher unable to go behind basic training needs,
although this was seen as important. As Glover and Law (1993) found, the importance of
staff development can be compromised by disparities in funding, and this was evident
from the responses in the case studies.
2. How is staff development managed in British-style overseas schools?
As has been noted throughout the research, the lack of strategic planning and connections
to appraisal, budgeting and school development planning may have resulted in planning
which is ad hoc. The headteacher and senior management team have a strong influence
194
and control over staff development, and there does not appear to be evidence of the
collaborative cultures mentioned by many of the writers. One significant finding was that
the staff co-ordinator role did not often exist, with only seven of the respondent schools
identifying the role, and one of the case study schools provided evidence that this role
had little to do with the developmental aspects of the role in British schools. The
importance of SDCs was highlighted in the SITE Project (1978-81) and reinforced by
writers such as Bradley (1991). The SDC was considered to be a key post in a practical
sense (Hereford and Worcester LEA; Fife, 1995).
According to the survey, staff development is usually organised by the headteacher or a
member of the senior management team (87% of secondary and 83% of primary schools),
and only seven SDCs were identified from the 115 responses. Harland, Kinder and Keys
(1993) showed in their research that staff development was generally managed by senior
staff and advice to devolve responsibility was largely ignored. The importance of strong
positive leadership was emphasised by Glover and Law (1996). The importance of the
head and senior management team in needs identification was stressed in the survey, and
only 13% of the schools identified needs through collaborative planning. Although
Bradley (1991) considers that the role of the headteacher is crucial, and McMahon’s
research (1996) showed that all but one school had a deputy or senior teacher in charge of
staff development, it is evident that opportunities for devolving responsibilities have not
been taken. The findings of Harland et al (1993) were similar to those of McMahon, and
O’Sullivan et al (1997) reported on some use of committees but this appeared to be the
exception.
Individual needs also appeared to be decided by the headteacher and senior management
team in a significant number of schools (38%), although a large number were through
appraisal (25%). Glover and Law (1996), Gilroy and Day (1993) and others highlight the
transition from personal to institutional development. The importance of needs
identification was highlighted by Oldroyd and Hall (1992) which, according to
O’Sullivan et al, 1990, should be school-focused.
A large number of schools had some form of staff development budget (60%), although
only 25% of them were linked to school development planning. In one English school the
IQEA approach was used with links to the school development plan and collaborative
195
planning (Lewis 1996) Nearly all the schools have whole-school inservice training
(90.7%), although its frequency was variable. Most schools have specific training days
(69.8%), although again the frequency was variable. Subject-based inservice training was
frequent, although only 38% of responses indicated that this was done as whole school
policy. The presence of school-based in-service training is a positive finding, although
schools should be cautious in relation to findings which would suggest that it can be of
variable quality (Bradley et al, 1994; Harland et al, 1993 and Cowan and Wright, 1990).
Nearly one third of the schools (30% had regular external advice which tended to be
clustered in areas where there were more schools (e.g. Hong Kong and the Gulf states).
Where external advice was used, the themes varied with the most frequent being
Information Technology (21%), Ofsted inspectors (19%) and examination board advisers
(11%). Inter-school liaison was quite common with one-third of the schools identifying it
on a regular basis. Most schools (80%) have a regular cycle of planned staff meetings,
which in the case of two of the case study schools were used as ongoing staff
development opportunities. Nearly all schools funded (74%) or partially (22%) funded
staff on courses which tended to be short courses in the U.K. (37%) and elsewhere (37%).
There was some funding for distance learning courses (17%) but funding for long term
courses was rare. Self-funded courses were common, with 76% of the schools in this
category. They tended to be Masters degrees in education-related fields (86%) with a
mean of 3.7 staff per school in the positive response schools and 2.5 per school across the
whole range of survey responses. This would indicate that the concerns of researchers
such as Triggs and Francis (1990) about the decline in long-term award bearing courses
has not been borne out in the overseas schools with the availability of distance learning
opportunities. Appraisal systems were in place in two thirds of the schools with a further
30% developing systems, although staff attitudes towards appraisal seemed to be mixed.
In “The British Secondary School” the management of staff development was seen to
involve training to meet needs, and the process was considered to be ad hoc and on a
first-come, first-served basis with no explicit staff development policies. Bradley (1987,
1991, 1994) argues that staff development policies should be in place and Middlewood
(1997) states that it is crucial to have a plan for staff development. No formalised systems
were in place in the school and the responsibility for it was in the headteacher’s job
description, which confirms McMullen’s findings (1991) that staff development
196
programmes were often relatively unplanned O’Sullivan et al (1990) stressed the
importance of a cycle of staff development in place which covers not only needs analysis,
but also monitoring and evaluation. A practical example from a London school stressed
the importance of a proper staff development policy (Lewis 1996).
The leadership role of the headteacher was confirmed in three of the case study schools in
which staff development was managed by the headteacher. In another school the
management of staff development had involved a shift in emphasis from individual to
institutional development. Funding for external training was available, although staff
were expected to “cascade” on their return. Key Stage co-ordinators were responsible for
passing on information and staff meetings were used, as in one of the other schools, as an
inservice staff development opportunity. Another explicit policy was the use of internal
consultancy with staff appointed from the U.K. with recent experience. Bennett (1997)
argues that internal consultancy has considerable potential. There was no formal staff
development plan or explicit mention in the school development plan of staff
development, and no evidence in the documentation which was presented. In another
school a wide range of approaches was used which included partially funded short
courses in the U.K., the use of external consultants and the use of staff committees and
cluster groups with the aim of developing a collaborative culture. “The London School”
had a SDC who combined this role with many others, although it was clear that the
priorities of the school were for maintenance rather than development, and again there
was no formal staff development policy.
3. How effective is the staff development programme in the school?
Although there were many positive features of staff development which were mentioned
in the survey and case study schools, there was a feeling that there were many factors,
both internal and external, which made the programme less effective than it might have
been. Some responses in the survey and case studies indicated that individuals had
benefited more than the schools, and this was reflected in Halpin, Cross and Redman’s
findings (1990) that INSET had a great deal of influence on day-to-day work, although
less on school organisation and policy (i.e. individual rather than institutional). The need
for more whole school strategic planning was one area in which the schools could
improve, but other factors such as distance, isolation, the cost of external consultants and
lack of information were all areas which were mentioned.
197
With a single respondent, to judge the effectiveness of an individual school is a fairly
subjective exercise, although patterns did emerge from the qualitative data in the survey.
Although 41% of the responses indicated that strategic planning was a strength in
relation to needs identification and ownership and collaboration, it was significant that
44% of the responses saw strategic planning as an area to improve. Effective staff
development should be collaboratively planned (Stevenson 1987). The term “strategic
planning” was not used in the questionnaire and became a category which derived from
the evidence. It may be the case that the respondents may not have reflected the views of
the organisation as a whole and may have been rather optimistic about this.
Funding was not considered to be a strength, with one-third of the respondents seeing it
as a major limitation and 20% said more funds were needed. Funding individuals was not
seen as effective by some schools. Lack of time was seen to be a major constraint by 20%
of the schools, and one school felt that it was difficult to monitor the real value of staff
development.
In the case study schools, one of the schools referred to staff development as the
“Achilles heel” of the organisation. It was not seen to be effective, it had a low priority, it
was patchy and ad hoc. Glover and Law’s research (1996) reported a shift from ad hoc
approaches towards a professional development culture which was not evident there.
There was no means to gauge effectiveness formally and no explicit programme at whole
school level. Another school’s headteacher mentioned the limitations of the geographical
location, but the school was doing the best it could. No systems for monitoring and
evaluation were in place, but mention was made of the effective use of internal
consultancy with some useful in-house INSET. The availability of resources was a
problem. In the third school staff development appeared to have been effective with a
sharper focus and staff empowerment. As the practical Fife document highlights (Welsh
1995), to be effective there should be systems of monitoring, evaluating and reporting
should be in place. Evaluation is essential, and McMahon’s research (1996) showed that
this was relatively unplanned. Monitoring was discussed by Oldroyd and Hall (1991) and
by Fidler and Cooper (1992) who stress its importance. In practical terms the Fife (1995)
document states that effectiveness should be gauged by monitoring and evaluating. Well-
defined procedures for assessing and monitoring should be in place according to Glover
198
and Law (1996). Systems of evaluation and monitoring were in place and results were fed
back to the staff. The external advisers provided useful input. There was more staff
involvement and use of staff with recent U.K. experience (i.e. external consultancy), and
there was the danger of trying to do too much, too soon with staff reaching saturation
point. In the fourth school staff development appeared to have been quite effective in
meeting basic training needs, although effectiveness was compromised by external
constraints such as high staff turnover and a lack of support from the owners. No systems
of evaluation or monitoring were in place.
4. What could be done to improve the staff development programme in the school?
There were many suggestions by the schools of ways in which improvements could be
made, and these are outlined in more detail in the section below. Many of these could be
implemented with minimal cost to the school, and the main implications would be
commitment, expertise and time.
In the area of strategic planning, responses to the survey suggested that there should be
better integration with the school development plan. More staff input and more
formalised training days were mentioned by some respondents. Appraisal was seen as a
means to improving staff development with links. Staff awareness should be improved,
and so should needs identification, opportunities for staff, monitoring, evaluation and
follow-up. One way forward which was identified by one school was the development of
a link with a U.K. university.
Access and accessibility were seen to be of significance to the schools.
Recommendations were that more local and external experience was needed, liaison with
other schools should be developed, staff in charge of staff development should be trained
properly, the use of regional organisations and consultancies should be developed. The
use of the Internet and E-mail were considered to be important by some school
respondents.
The level of funding should be raised (mentioned by 20% of responses), and one school
mentioned that sponsorship is a possibility. More time was mentioned, and this was
considered to be a major limitation. In one case study funding for longer term courses
would be desirable, as would more equitable access to staff development opportunities.
199
Attitudes could be improved by more peer support, and there was a feeling that personal
professional and institutional development should be linked more effectively.
There were many recommendations from the case study school respondents. In “The
British Secondary School” it was felt that there should be a stated policy and procedures
and a programme linked to the school development plan. Personal and institutional needs
should be linked. There should be a staff development co-ordinator who should be trained
(Attwell 1994). Baxter and Chambers (1998) put emphasis on the developmental role of
the SDC. Other areas mentioned were links to appraisal, the use of internal consultancy
and the use of staff expertise. In “The Desert Village Primary School” the school
development plan needs to include staff development, and there needs to be a closer link
between appraisal and staff development. Appraisal should be used more effectively and
Ofsted (1996) see this as an area for schools to work on. More links with other schools,
more use of external consultants, better induction of staff, more staff professional
development and the appointment of a co-ordinator would be useful.
In the “The British City Primary School”, the need for a written staff development policy
with action planning and links to staff development should be recognised.
Responsibilities should be devolved, regular evaluation is needed and staff should be
developed to become more flexible. The appointment of staff with recent U.K.
experience was mentioned as an important area, and there was mention made of the need
for the senior management team to all be trained in, and committed to, professional
development. “Quick fix” solutions should be avoided (Bradley et al, 1994; Heidemann,
et al, 1990). In “The London School” development was not considered to be possible,
and the aim was for greater continuity and consistency. Higher education links were
mentioned by one of the survey schools, and this was endorsed by the practical
experience of an English school in its documentation (Lewis 1996). The importance of
lifelong learning is also stressed (Burke, 1990; Aspinwall, 1996).
There were four hypotheses which were also considered.1. Staff development programmes are likely to be “bolted on”.
In relation to comments made about strategic planning above, it would appear that in
many of the schools staff development was likely to come lower down the list of
200
priorities than many other areas, and that it would be appropriate to see staff development
being more concerned with training, probably closely related to the curriculum. In the
absence of explicit staff development policies, it is arguable that staff development is not
as strategically managed as it might be, although there was considerable evidence of
planning in the case study schools at both senior and middle management level.
2. A wide range of interpretations and systems are likely.
The diverse range of responses to the questionnaire in relation to course types and
frequency, together with the diversity of locations and cultures, suggests that there is a
wide range of interpretations and systems. This reflects the problems faced by the
overseas school of interpreting methodology and practices in Britain without necessarily
having the experience of the systems. The case study schools, despite being close
geographically and having regular inter-school liaison, showed that the variations were
considerable. In one school, staff development was seen to be operating on a
departmental, rather than a whole school level, in two others it was centrally managed by
the headteachers, and in the fourth school it was, by necessity, a system designed to train
for consistency. These three manifestations are likely to be reflected in the other schools
since they represent a continuum between strategic planning and ad hoc staff
development.
3. Staff development is likely to be led by the headteacher or senior management team.
This was shown to be very much the case, and was particularly evident in the primary
schools. Although it is hard from the evidence of one respondent in the survey schools to
gauge the extent to which the responses indicated the presence of a collaborative culture,
from the responses it was possible to deduce that staff development appeared to be very
much a “top down” approach. In the case study schools there was an interesting
contradiction in that in the two schools which strategically managed staff development,
the feeling amongst the staff was that it was very much led by the headteacher, although
the headteachers acknowledged that their aim was to provide a “top down” approach in
order to create a collaborative culture. This appears to be a contradiction, but was seen by
them as the means of developing staff along recent British-system lines to empower
them. In one of the schools where the system was described as ad hoc, although the
control was ultimately in the hands of the headteacher, the decisions about staff
201
development were very much left in the hands of middle managers in a balkanized
environment.
4. There are serious financial constraints for schools of this type unless they can share costs and resources.
There was strong evidence to indicate that costs of all types caused difficulties for the
schools, and that liaison, collaboration, sharing resources and contact at all levels was of
enormous benefit. This would not necessarily be easy for many of the schools in more
isolated areas, and evidence of this was seen in the difficulties and time required for some
of the survey returns. The use of other methods of communication, such as email and
facsimile machines could be a way forward, and the latter was a method which was used
by a number of schools in their replies.
Recommendations.From the evidence of the survey, the case studies and the literature there are a number of
areas which British overseas schools could address. Given the constraints of distance,
location and limited finances or higher costs, there are a number of ways in which
schools could make staff development a higher priority with relatively low expense. If the
school is concerned with providing the best possible learning experiences for its pupils, it
is essential for the school to take a significant responsibility for the development of its
staff. This is essential not only on an institutional level, but also on an individual level.
Staff have an entitlement to quality development opportunities to enable them to progress
beyond the school and be employed back in the UK or elsewhere, as well as to benefit the
pupils. If the school is able to do this, it should be in a position to make the opportunity
an attractive one for potential staff.
The most important step forwards would be for the school to appoint a staff development
officer or professional development co-ordinator. This is likely to be a new role in which
the person appointed should be elevated into a senior management position. If the
structure of the senior management team is already fixed and in place, it is probable that
the roles allocated are more concerned with the day-to-day running of the school (i.e. a
maintenance role). It would therefore be inappropriate to burden them with a broad
developmental role which would be time consuming and difficult to reconcile with their
202
other responsibilities. The professional development co-ordinator could become the
catalyst for all forms of in-house, external and continuing professional development.
One aspect of this role would be the formulation of a staff development policy, which
would include all areas of staff development from staff induction, in-service training,
local liaison, continuing professional development, external courses and relocation. The
co-ordinator could also be involved in the formulation of the school development plan,
and, if in place in the school, the links with appraisal, needs identification and target
setting and budgeting.
Whether the school does this or not, it is essential that it manages staff development
strategically to ensure that needs are properly identified on a whole school, departmental
and individual level and that they are prioritised. This should include making information
more readily available to staff and encouraging collaborative planning. Professional
development in the form of award-bearing courses should be encouraged and supported,
and whole school needs could be integrated into teacher-based research projects. With so
many overseas staff involved in distance learning courses, the school has an opportunity
not only to tacitly support projects, but to actively encourage staff to contribute at a
whole school level by directing studies towards whole school needs, particularly in the
form of action research projects. Even if the staff are financing the courses themselves,
there must be more incentive for them to feel that they are contributing to the overall
development of the school and this would provide a platform for more career
development for individual staff.
Inter-school liaison at a subject and whole-school issue level with improved contacts
between staff of different teaching phases should be developed and strategically
managed. Although there was evidence that it was happening from the case study
schools, it needs overall co-ordination with a clear sense of purpose and anticipated
outcomes. Staff from the same subject areas should have a considerable amount in
common, and the idea of sharing information, experience and expertise should be
encouraged. There does arise a problem where certain staff feel that they are giving more
than they are gaining from the process, but the commonality of purpose should benefit
the teaching and learning experiences of all concerned. This is of particular value in
cross-phase subject liaison which can be of benefit to the curriculum as a whole. This
203
liaison could extend to cooperating and pooling resources for any external advice, or even
cascading to colleagues from other schools.
With the emphasis in the NPQH on the headteacher as the leading professional in the
school, headteachers and the senior management team should be encouraged to enrol on
management courses as a condition of their contracts. It is wrong to expect staff lower
down the school to respond to change if the management team have not gained expertise
in this area. It is possible that staff in these positions have been out of the UK for a
number of years, and as a result have perhaps lost touch with the latest developments, or
interpret them differently. Oldroyd et al (1991) made this point strongly when they
argued that unless the senior members of staff were active and committed, there would be
little chance of staff development initiatives succeeding. It was clear from the case
studies that the impact of the new headteachers with current experience from the UK had
been transformational in their schools, and if the senior management team wish to be
seen as the leading professionals in the schools, their own professional development is
likely to have a far greater impact on the institution as a whole than if they choose to
avoid it. This could take the form of distance learning courses such as the MBA in
Educational Management, or similar Masters degrees in Education. It would also be
desirable for British overseas schools to lobby bodies such as the TTA and Ofsted to
make it possible for overseas staff to do courses such as the NPQH and to train staff as
inspectors. All of these initiatives would not only give the senior management teams
greater status and credibility within their own schools, but would also raise the profile of
such schools in Britain, thus making overseas experience attractive to British employers.
Similarly middle managers should be encouraged to undertake management courses, not
only for their own present and future personal professional needs, but also to have an
impact on the school as a whole. As part of the staff development process, there should
be an induction into the expectations of the role which should closely resemble the more
developmental aspects of the standards of the planned NPQSL. Like those for the NPQH,
these standards can assist the British overseas schools in the provision of a model. If
middle managers, like senior managers, are encouraged to undertake award-bearing long
term distance learning higher degrees, this would have the effect not only of enhancing
the individual’s professional credibility and promotion potential, but it would also be a
means of extending, encouraging and strategically managing school-based research.
204
Naturally there is a cost for the individuals concerned in terms of time and money, but the
school could provide incentives where possible if the individual teacher were producing
school based research which would be of value to the institution. This could be a
financial one, or the provision of promotion opportunities on completion of the course.
The encouragement of teacher exchanges is one way of promoting staff development
which may be relatively inexpensive. British-based teachers could be encouraged to
exchange positions with a colleague in a British overseas school, providing that they meet
the TTA employment criteria. This could involve short-term exchanges lasting up to a
year, and this could be richly rewarding for the staff and schools concerned. The British
teacher could bring in current expertise, and in return the teacher from the overseas
school could add a rich dimension to the pupil learning experiences and return with
information which could be cascaded to other staff. Alternatively, schools overseas could
develop links with UK schools and arrange for mutual visits which would again have the
possibility for a two-way transaction, or a motivated member of staff in a UK school
could be brought out for a working holiday in a new location.
Schools could benefit considerably from the use of the Internet and E-mail. Already there
are web-sites which replicate teachers centres and deal with staff development issues, as
well as providing easy access to sources of information from Ofsted, the Teacher
Training Agency and the Department for Education and the European Council of
International Schools, as well as to publications such as The Times Educational
Supplement and access to university departments. A useful connection could be made to
create a web-page with links to useful sites and create a forum for exchanging
information on-line about curriculum and courses, and even for transmitting teacher-as-
researcher projects. A university department such as the Leicester University Educational
Management Development Unit could extend its own web-site to fulfil this objective, and
this might have the additional advantage of generating interest in its distance learning
courses which would also improve staff development opportunities in schools overseas.
205
A Model For The Practical Organisation of Staff Development in the British Overseas School.
Taking all of these factors into account, it would appear that schools would benefit
considerably from appointing a staff development officer, and a model for this is
suggested below. The information comes from a range of sources (Fife, Welsh, 1995;
Hereford and Worcester LEA, 1991; Baxter and Chambers, 1998), and represents both a
methodology and a series of practical suggestions which could be incorporated into the
role.
A great deal of important work was done at the beginning of the 1990’s in Hereford and
Worcester Education Authority. Led by Colin Bayne-Jardine and Isobel Roberts, the
handbook which the authority produced provides a useful starting point for schools
contemplating the formalisation of a staff development policy.
The role of co-ordinator is referred to variously as professional development co-ordinator
(PDC), staff development officer (SDO) or staff development co-ordinator (SDC), and
the last is the one which has been used in the model. In Fig.7.1 below a possible
identification of developmental tasks which could be the responsibility of the SDC are
identified. This does not assume that the current headteacher and senior management
team should only be involved in the day-to-day running of the school, or a maintenance
role, and be redundant in the area of school and staff development, but that the SDC
could take on a valuable number of developmental tasks which could complement other
school management strategies and act as co-ordinator, adviser and change-agent. Such a
person would need to be supported by in-service training and be an effective
communicator, and in the right context other staff might become interested in taking on
some of the developmental work as part of a staff development committee. This could
provide a school with a realistic and relatively inexpensive solution to meet their current
and future staff development needs.
206
Fig. 7.1 Model for the role of staff development co-ordinator.
Headteacher and senior management team.
Maintenance role: the administration and running
of the school. Developmental role
supported by the SDC
Appointment of a staff development co-ordinator
Developmental role: co-ordination and providing advice and support at all levels.
Training for the staff development co-ordinator
Appraisal
Budgeting
Formulation of the staff development policy with links
School development plan
Role of the staff development co-ordinator
In School• Collaborative planning• Mentoring• Induction• In-service training: planning and
delivery• Distance learning courses• Short courses• Staff relocation• Appraisal• Information• School development planning• Budgeting• Staff development committee• Teacher-as-researcher projects• Co-ordination of cascading and internal
consultancy• Advice and information about all areas
connected with school development
Out of school• Inter-school liaison• School exchanges• Primary-secondary liaison• Liaison with other staff
development officers• Links to UK universities• Links to government
information• Co-ordination of access
through the Internet and email• Provision of information about
all areas connected with staff and school development
207
Significance
Many of the issues which have been identified by writers and through research have been
echoed throughout the findings of the investigation. Lack of time, the dilemmas over the
leadership of staff development and the tension between staff development for training or
development, as well as the diversity of funding, have all been revealed. The latter is
probably far more pronounced as a result of the many different locations and currencies.
The research in this study consisted of two approaches, the survey and the case studies.
The questionnaire which was developed was thoroughly piloted, and the survey
proceeded in a most encouraging manner, although the time delays in many of the replies
extended the period of the returns over a five month period. The number of returns during
that period resulted in 115 replies, or two-thirds of the sample, and during the period
from November 1998-March 1999, further returns (not included in the processing) led to
a response rate which approached 75%. The findings are generalisable within the target
population, and it became clear that postal and communication difficulties may have
accounted for some non-response. All the case study schools approached participated
willingly and provided documentation, although one of the schools was reluctant to allow
interviews of a cross-section of the staff. The findings from the case studies were based
on interviews with thirty-two teachers (or 80% of the projected sample), and it was
possible to use the in-depth responses from the case study schools to triangulate the
survey data.
The schools were widely dispersed, and many factors not revealed from the survey such
as staff salaries, school budgeting and cost of living were not included. Therefore the
generalisability of the findings has to recognise these factors, although many common
themes did emerge. It was clear that the respondents were able to identify a wide range of
staff development activities, although many limitations of the staff development
programme in the schools were revealed. The findings showed that a more strategically
planned programme would bring greater benefits, although constraints due to isolation,
funding, resources and costs made it significantly harder for schools to keep up with
changing policies and practice. A limitation of this method was that the questionnaires
came from a single respondent, and therefore the case studies provided an opportunity to
assess the attitudes of a cross section of the staff.
208
An interesting factor arising from the survey was that there appeared to be a lack of
significant differences across regions, although areas where there was a higher
concentration of schools seemed to be more active in, for example, inter-school liaison.
In the case studies, the cross-section of staff revealed that the headteachers and senior
management were as critical or positive as other staff interviewed, and the differences
between responses according to status were surprisingly small. Often the headteachers
were the most critical. This finding perhaps strengthens the potential validity of the single
respondent survey returns. One trend which was identified, however, was that of the
differences in responses between the more recently appointed staff (i.e. those with recent
U.K. experience) and staff who had been in post for a long time.
The recommendations should provide a basis upon which the British overseas schools
can address their needs with regard to staff development. This is a high priority area
which can be addressed proactively by means of a committed professional whose tasks
are based around development rather than maintenance, and this could have an impact
which goes beyond the brief of staff development into all areas of school development
and improvement as overseas schools work to face the challenges of the new millenium.
209
Appendix.1. Copy of the letter sent to the survey schools2. Copy of the questionnaire3. Copy of the optional questionnaire answer sheet4. Letter to the headteachers of the case study schools5. Letter to the staff of the case study schools6. Interview recording schedule for the case study interviews
210
1.Stephen Lewis, Dubai College, P.O. Box 837,
_______________Dubai, United Arab Emirates._______________1st May 1998.
Dear Colleague,
I am a teacher at D ubai College, a British curriculum school in the Gulf. 1 am carrying out a piece of self-financed doctoral research for the Ed.D. in Educational M anagement at Leicester University. A major part of this research consists of this survey w hich is being sent to all the 178 schools in 65 countries around the world w hich were identified in the E.C.I.S. handbook as "UK curriculum", or schools named "The British School of ....". This w ill be follow ed up w ith a number of case studies.
I would be m ost grateful if you would be prepared to take part in this survey which is based around the them e of staff development in the overseas British- style school (including schools in this category in the U.K.). Starting w ith the standpoint that staff are one of the most valuable resources a school has, the questionnaire focuses on a number of key issues related to staff development:
1. Information: Staff can often find it difficult to keep up with current developm ents, particularly if they are employed on a local contract basis.
How relevant are UK initiatives for overseas schools?
2. Recruitment: The em ploym ent of overseas contract staff may have huge advantages, but enormous cost implications.
To what extent does your school face this problem?
3. Staff Developm ent: Subject in-service training, the Times Educational Supplem ent, the Internet and Distance Learning courses are all ways in w hich staff can keep in touch.
How important is th is to your school?
4. Geographical Location: As I understand from my own position, an overseas school w ill often have to work much more in isolation and local conditions may also influence the policies of the school.What specific problem s do overseas schools face in this area?
I am looking to find out the ways in which the targeted schools address these issues at the moment; to see whether geographical location or age range makes a difference to the opportunities provided; and what schools feel could be done to improve their provision for staff development to enhance the quality of teaching and learning. I hope that the end result w ill not only produce some valuable research, but w ill also provide useful information for all overseas schools which follow a British curriculum, including yourselves.
Please could you answer the questions in one of three ways:1. Complete the answers on the questionnaire.
211
2. Complete the answers on the answer sheet to minimise return postal costs.3. E-mail the results by typing the question number and response letter.
I have enclosed an International Reply Coupon which should cover the return cost of postage. I w ould also welcom e replies by fax.
If you have the tim e I w ould really appreciate any more detailed responses which you could provide, particularly to expand on the four questions above, or send any other relevant information such as your school prospectus, or any documentation you are prepared to share which relates to staff development issues in your school.
The overall results w ill be in the public domain and w ill hopefully be published on com pletion of the thesis, although the results from specific schools w ill remain confidential. If you have access to the Internet I w ill leave information through a sim ple home-page I am currently developing for this purpose, and I w ill tiy to provide feedback there. I hope that it may be possible to establish links in th is area in the future. The responses are coded to provide statistical evidence on school type, location etc.
I w ould be grateful if you could complete the questionnaire and send it back to me as soon as possible, preferably by the middle of June if possible to enable me to process the results over the summer. Thank you very much in advance for your help and I look forward to your reply,
Yours faithfully,
Stephen Lewis,Head of History, D ubai College.
Tel/Fax: E-mail: Internet:009714-448368 sblewis£>emirates.net.ae http://members.tripod.com/~StephenLewis/index-2.html
212
STAFF DEVELOPMENT IN THE BRITISH CURRICULUM OVERSEAS SCHOOL
School Code:Please tick the appropriate boxes and add comments if necessary. If you would prefer, you can answer the questions on the separate answer sheet.
I.How many full and part time teaching staff do you have in your school?
A 1-20B 21-40C 41-60D 61-80E 81-100F 100+
2.Approximately what proportion were recruited from the U.K. on overseas contracts?
A NoneB Up to 50%C 50-75%D Over 75%E All
3. Approximately what proportion are British Nationals?
A NoneB Up to 50%C 50-75%D Over 75%E All
4. Who is in charge of staff development in your school? (e.g. INSET, appraisal, continuing professional development etc.). Please choose one
A HeadB Head and Deputy/SMT
C DeputyD Staff Development Officer, Professional Development Co-ordinator or similar, specifically
appointedE Individual heads of department or similar
F None of the above: Please specify
5. How are school staff development needs decided in your school? Please choose one
A By the headB By the head and senior management team
C By the designated staff or professional development co-ordinator
D By the staff as a whole through meetings and collaborative planning
E “1 By a combination of the above three methods
F Other: please specify
213
6. How are individual staff development needs decided? Please choose one or more
A By the headB By the head and senior management teamC By individual staff identificationD Through appraisal and target settingE Other: please specify
7. How is INSET and staff development funded? Please choose one or more
A By a separate INSET/staff development budgetB As above, linked to the school development planC On an ad hoc basis: funds are provided if required by negotiationD By individual teachers who pay directlyE By external sponsorshipF Other: please specify
8. Is the funding adequate? Please choose one
A Current funding is sufficient to meet present staff development/INSET needsB A review of funding is desirable to provide new opportunitiesC There is insufficient funding to meet present needsD The funding is not fully used within the present frameworkE Other: please specify
9. Does your school have in-house in-service training on whole- school based issues? (eg the pastoral programme, reports, assessment etc.)
A YesB No
10. If the answer to 9 is YES, how often does it occur? Please choose one
A AnnuallyB On a regular, unscheduled basisC As and when neededD Other, please specify
11. Do you have specific staff training days?
A YesB No
214
12. If t ie answer to 11 is YES, how often do they occur? Please choose oneA 5 or more days per yearB At the start/end of each termC As and when neededD Other, please specify
13. 1sthere subject based INSET? Please choose oneA On a regular basis, coordinated and organised as part of whole school policyB As and when required, coordinated and organised as part of whole school policyC Occasionally, coordinated and organised as part of whole school policyD NoE Variable, according to individual departmental needs and arranged by departments
themselvesF Other: please specify
14. Are external advisers brought in? Please choose oneA On a regular basisB As and when requiredC OccasionallyD NoE Other: please specify
15. tf the answer to 14 is not D, what kind of advisers are they? Please choose one ormore.
A Information Technology related, locallyB Information Technology related from abroad
C OfSTED inspectors from the UKD Local education advisers and organisations (eg British Council)E Advisers from international organisations (ECIS, WWF, UN etc.)F UK exam board subject advisersG Other: please specify
16. Is there inter-school liaison on subject or whole school based issues? Please chooseone
A On a regular basisB As and when requiredC OccasionallyD NoE Other: please specify
215
17. Is there a regular cycle of whole staff and other specific role-related meetings? Please choose one
A On a regular basis, time-tabled in advanceB As and when requiredC OccasionallyD NoE Other: please specify
18. Does the school fund individual staff on courses? Please choose one
A YesB NoC Partially
19. If the answer to 18 is YES or PARTIALLY, please identify the following types which do, or have, received funding: Please choose one
A Short courses available locally arranged by local providersB Short courses in the UK or elsewhereC Long term distance learning courses (MA, M.Ed, MBA etc)D Long term full-time funding (eg 1 year Masters courseE Other courses (please specify)
20. Are there staff currently involved in self-financing distance learning courses, or who have completed courses in the last two years? (MA, MBA etc.)
A YesB No
21. If the answer to 20 is YES, please give the number of staff involved in each course area.
Tick Number
A MA subject related.B MA/MEd in EducationC MBA In Educational ManagementD PhD, EdD in EducationE Advanced Diplomas, Postgraduate CertificatesF Other school-related courses (Please specify)
216
22. Has any of this professional staff development such as in questions 19-21 made an impact on the school? Please tick more than one box if appropriate
A It has made a significant impact, with staff contributing to whole school developments and their contributions welcomed by the management
B It has made an impact, but more in individual areas of the school than at whole school level
C It has made some impact in all areas of the school, but not all information has been passed on
D The impact has been fairly limited on the school as a whole, but appears to have made significant differences to the individuals concerned
E Staff involved in such courses have been able to get promotion within the school as a result
F Staff involved in such courses have left for promotion elsewhereG Other: please specify
23. Does your school have an appraisal system?
A YesB NoC A system is under development/consideration
24. If the answer to 23 is A or C, how would you best describe the system in place? Please choose one
A A line management system with accountability to the next level of managementB A peer appraisal system with staff appraising fellow colleaguesC A combination of A and BD Other (please specify)
The following statements are concerned with your views on the attitude of teachers to staff development initiatives in your school. Please write the appropriate number using the key below:1 Strongly agree 2 Agree 3 Disagree 4 Strongly disagree
25 Staff at the school are keen to participate in staff development opportunities and keep in touch with developments in education
26 It is important for the school to keep up to date with UK developments in this area27 Quality assurance initiatives such as Investors in People are valid for our school28 Staff development in the school is generally concerned with providing essential in-service training
29 Staff development in the school is generally concerned with ensuring that staff are performing effectively30 As an overseas school, it is much more difficult for staff to receive ongoing support from external bodies
with regard to professional development31 There is a positive attitude towards staff development32 There is a positive attitude towards appraisal33 The geographical location of the school makes it difficult to keep up with developments which are not
always relevant to the needs of the school34 The curriculum of the school is closely linked to the British National Curriculum
217
35. What do you consider to be the strengths of the staff development programme in your school?
36. What do you consider to be the limitations, if any, of the staff development programme in your school?
37. What changes, if any, would you like to implement in the staff development programme in your school?
Many thanks for completing this questionnaire. Please could you return it to me as soon as possible. Stephen Lewis, Dubai College, P.O. Box 837, Dubai, United Arab Emirates.
TeVF§x: E-mail: Internet:009714-448368 [email protected] http://members.tripod.com/~StephenLewis/index-2.Html
218
3.STAFF DEVELOPMENT IN THE OVERSEAS SCHOOL: RESPONSES
P/ease complete this sheet if you do not wish to use the questionnaire.SCHOOL CODE..................Please circle the appropriate answers and add any additional information in the “Please Specify” categories. Other/please specify information.1 A B C D E F
2 A B C D E
3 A B C D E
4 A B C D E F.......................................................................
5 A B C D E F.......................................................................
6 A B C D E
7 A B C D E F.......................................................................
8 A B C D E
9 A B
10 A B C D
11 A B
12 A B C D
13 A B C D E F........................................................................
14 A B C D E
15 A B C D E F G...........................................................
16 A B C D E
17 A B C D E
18 A B C
19 A B C D E
20 A BPlease give the numbers of staff next to the circled letter(s)
21 A B C D E F.......................................................................
22 A B C D E F G..........................................................
23 A B C
24 A B C D
25 1 2 3 4
26 1 2 3 4
27 1 2 3 4
28 1 2 3 4
219
29 1 2 3 4
30 1 2 3 4
31 1 2 3 4
32 1 2 3 4
33 1 2 3 4
34 1 2 3 4
35
36
37
Many thanks for completing this questionnaire. Please could you return it to me as soon as possible. Stephen __________________ Lewis, Dubai College, P.O. Box 837, Dubai, United Arab Emirates.
Tel/Fax: E-mail:009714-448368 [email protected]
220
Steve Lewis, Dubai College, P.O.Box 837, Dubai, UAE.Tel/fax: 448368 E-mail: [email protected]
4.January 1999.
Dear
You kindly participated last year in a survey in the field of staff development which I carried out a s part of my research for the Ed.D. (Doctor of Education) thesis from Leicester University. I received a most encouraging response from well over 100 schools worldwide (about 70% of the sample) and I have been able to collect and collate a fascinating range of data which I look forward to sharing with you.
I have now reached the final stage of my research which is to carry out four case studies to support the survey data. I am writing to you to ask if you would be prepared to participate a s an individual and as a school. I need to have a cross- section of school types (Primary, Secondary and schools which cover the whole age range) to validate the results from the survey, and School B is one of the few in the last category in this area. As cost is an important factor in a self-financed piece of work, it is easiest to attempt to carry out the case studies locally if possible, but anonymity is guaranteed. School names would not appear, and would be part of a "cast list” and the school would be identifiable only by its category.
In the case studies I would like to do the following with your permission and approval:1. Look at any documentary evidence you may have regarding staff
development from the prospectus, handbook or any other documents and make notes.
2. Have a brief interview (about 30 minutes if possible) with you to discuss your views in the light of your responses to the questionnaire (a summary will be provided beforehand) and to discuss five questions with you (outlined below).
3. Identify a sam ple of staff (about 8) and arrange interviews which represent the following roles in the school:
• A Deputy• The Bursar, or similar• The Head of one of the three core subjects (English, Maths or Science)• Another subject co-ordinator or pastoral leader/head• A classroom teacher• A local contract teacher• A part-time teacher• A new member of staff
As in the case of the interview with you, the following five questions would be provided before the interview in an explanatory letter and the interviews would be based around them and last about 15-20 minutes.Interview questions:1. What importance is placed on staff development by the school?2. How is staff development managed in the school?
221
3. How effective is the staff development programme in the school?4. What opportunities are there for staff to contribute to the staff development programme?5. What could be done to improve the staff development programme in the school?
Naturally I would ensure the confidentiality of the individual responses, but I would make it clear that I would be prepared to submit the overall findings when they are completed to the school, which would also have access to the rest of the research work. This would hopefully be of value to the school in this area.
I would like to carry out the case studies during February and March and would anticipate that they would cause very little disruption. I would be able to attend the school on occasions during working hours if it were convenient and I would try to arrange interviews after school hours in informal settings if possible. Once the findings are collated, I would be happy to come and see you again and give you formal feedback from the research findings.
I hope that you will be able to help and that the work may prove not only to be of value to your school, but that it may contribute to an area which has been very under-researched in schools of our type. I look forward to hearing from you, and please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any reservations about the planned research. I have enclosed a copy of the letter I intend to use with the interviewees.
Yours faithfully,
Steve Lewis.
222
5Steve Lewis, Dubai College, P.O.Box 837, Dubai, UAE.
__________________Tel/fax: 448368 E-mail: [email protected]_________________
January 1999.
Dear
As you probably know, I am carrying out a piece of doctoral research for my Ed.D. thesis in Educational Management from Leicester University. This is the second phase of my research into Staff Development programmes in British-style schools overseas following a survey of 178 schools in 65 countries earlier on this year in which School X also participated.
I became interested in the subject of staff development because of the very different position we find ourselves in working abroad, and the different relationship we have with the school, if we do work so far from the home base, how do we manage to keep up with the changes and how much does the school support this? How important are courses and in-service training opportunities, and do they have any impact? Staff Development embraces a wide range of activities from in- service training, subject-based courses, distance learning courses and professional development activities through to appraisal.
The second phase of my research consists of case studies in four schools locally in which I would like to get a more in-depth understanding not only of the ways the management state the programmes are being carried out, but also to gauge the views of a sample of the teaching staff in various positions/roles in the schools involved. I would therefore be really grateful if you would be prepared to participate in a short interview (about 15-20 minutes) at a time convenient to you. The questions I would like to base the interview around, which concern your views on staff development policies and practices in the school, are as follows:
1. What importance is placed on staff development by the school?2. How is staff development managed in the school?3. How effective is the staff development programme in the school?4. What opportunities are there for staff to contribute to the staff development programme?5. What could be done to improve the staff development programme in the school?
You are encouraged to answer these questions frankly, and your views may reflect those of colleagues as well. Your replies will be treated as confidential, although the overall results will be in the public domain and may form part of a published work in the future, or be distributed through the European Council of International Schools. You are invited to examine the overall responses prior to any publication, and you can contact me about this at any stage following the interview.
I hope that you will agree to participate and I will be in touch with you shortly to arrange an interview time.
Many thanks in advance,
223
6.C ase S tud ies: Interview Recording Schedule
School and Date School Type:A1 A2 P1 P2 S1 S2
StaffTypo
Head Deputy Bursar Eng,Maths,SciSL
Subject,Pastoralhead
ClassTeacher
Part time New Staff Localcontract
1 The I°hilosophy: VVhat importance is placed on staff development by the school?
2 The Reality: How is staff development managed in the school?
3 The Effectiveness: How effective is the staff development programme in the school?
224
4 Staff Involvement: What opportunities are there for staff to contribute to the staff development programme?______________________________________________
5 The Way Forward: What could be done to improve the staff development programme in the school? ___________
6 Other information
225
R eferencesAdey, K. and Jones, J. (1997), “The Professional Development Co-ordinator. Obstacles to Effective Role Performance”, Vol.25(2), 133-144, BEMAS. London, Sage.
Anderson, G, (1990), Fundamentals of Educational Research. Lewes, Falmer.
Anderson, L and Bums, R, (1989), Research in Classrooms. Pergamon.
Andrews, I., (1991), Staff Development for School Improvement. Lewes, Falmer
Arkin, A.., (1997), “In Search of a Model”, Staff Development Update, The Times Educational Supplement, 16/5/97
Aspinwall, K., (1996), “Becoming a Learning Organisation: The Implications for Professional Development”, Management in Education. 10 (4) p.p..7-9
Attwell, G, (1994), “Curriculum Development: The Case of Gwent Tertiary College”, Ch.3 in Crawford, M; Kydd, L and Parker, S, Educational Management in Action. A Collection of Case Studies. London, Paul Chapman/The Open University.
Baxter, G. and Chambers, M., (1998), “Setting the Standard for Co-ordinators” , Professional Development Today. 2 (1), Birmingham, Fortune.
Bell, J. (1993), Doing Your Research Project. 2nd Ed, Buckingham, Open University Press.
Bell, L., (1997), “Staff Teams and their Management”, Chapter 9 in., Kydd, L., Crawford., M and Riches, C., Professional Development in Educational Management. Buckingham, Open University Press.
Bennett, N., (1997), “The Internal Consultant", Professional Development Today. 1(1) 1997.
Blalock, H. (1970), An Introduction to Social Research. New Jersey, Prentice-Hall.
Blenkin, G., Edwards, G., and Kelly, A. (1997), “Perspectives on Educational Change”, Chapter 20 in Harris, A., Bennett, N., and Preedy, M., (1997), Organizational Effectiveness and Improvement in Education. Buckingham, Open University Press.
Bolam., R., (1994), “The Impact of Research on Policy and Practice in Continuing Professional Development”, British Journal of In-service Education. 20 (1) p.p..35-45
Bradley, H. (1987), “Policy Issues Concerning Staff Development”, Ch. 13 in Wideen, M. and Andrews, I. (1987), Staff Development for School Improvement. Lewes, Falmer.
Bradley, H., (1991), Staff Development. Lewes, Falmer.
Bradley, H. and Howard, J. (1992), “Where are they now? - the impact of long courses on teachers’ careers and development”, British Journal of In-service Education. 18 (3) p.p.. 186-190.
Bradley, H., Conner, C. and Southworth, G. (1994), “Developing Teachers, Developing Schools”, Chapter 16 in Bradley, H. and Howard, J. (eds.), Developing Teachers. Developing Schools. London, David Fulton.
Bullock, K., James, C. and Jamieson, I., (1995), “The Process of Educational Management Learning”, Chapter 4 in Kydd, L, Crawford, M. and Riches, C. (1997), Professional Development for Educational Management. Buckingham, Open University Press.
Burke, P., (1990) “Future Directions for Staff Development - The Staff Development Specialist", Chapter 12 in Burke, P.(ed.) (1990), Programming for Staff Development: Fanning the Flame. Lewes, Falmer
226
Boyle, W., (1997), “Invest in Your Staff’, Managing Schools Today. April 1997 p.p..30-32
Button, D (1996), “Staff Development the IIP Way, or, ‘I Can’t Put My Tights On, Mr.Martin’!”, Management in Education. 10 (4) pp10-11.
Caldwell, B and Spinks, J. (1992), Leading the Self-Managing School. London, Falmer
Chambers, J. (1981), “Staff Development Decision-Making and Contracts”, British Journal of In- service Education. 8(1), Autumn 1981, p.p. 16-18
Clegg, D., Billington, S., (1994), Making the Most of Your Inspection (Secondary). Lewes, Falmer.
Clegg, F, (1990), Simple Statistics. Cambridge University Press.
Cohen, L. and Manion, L. (1980), Research Methods in Education. London, Croom Helm.
Cohen, L. and Manion, L, (1992 and 1994) Research Methods in Education. 3rd and 4th Eds.; Routledge.
Conner, C. (1994), “Higher Degrees That Serve The School or Institution: is there still a justifiable place for study at Masters degree level in the current in-service climate”, Chapter 4 in Bradley H. and Howard, J. (eds.), Developing Teachers. Developing Schools. London, David Fulton.
Connor, D. (1997), “Becoming a Professional Development Co-ordinator - The Challenge”, in Professional Development Today. October 1997pp 48-52, Birmingham, Fortune.
Cooper, D. and Ebbutt, D. (1974), “Participation in Action Research as an In-service Experience", Cambridge Journal of Education. 1974 (4), p.p. 66-71.
Day, C. (1989), “INSET: the marginalising of higher education”, British Journal of In-service Education. 15, p.p. 195-196
DES (1991) “Development Planning, A Practical Guide: Advice to Governors, Headteachers and Teachers” (2), School Development Plans Project.
Elliott, J. (1983), “School-focused INSET and research into teacher education”, Cambridge Journal of Education, 13(2) pp19-31)
Dienye, N.E., (1987), “The Effect of Inservice Science Education”, British Journal of Inservice Science Education. 14(1), p.p. 48-51
Eraut, M., (1993), “The Characterisation and Development of Professional Expertise in School Management and in Teaching”, Educational Management and Administration. 21(4) p.p.. 223- 232.
European Council of International Schools Handbook. 1996-7, ECIS (1996)
Everard, B. and Morris, G, (1990), Effective School Management. 2nd Ed., London, Paul Chapman Publishing.
Fife Regional Council Education Department, (1995), Staff Development and Appraisal. Management Support Unit, Fife (Welsh, B.)
Findley, R., (1997), International Education Handbook. London, Kogan Page.
Fullan, M., (1992), Successful School Improvement. Buckingham, Open University Press.
Gilroy. D.P., Day, C. (1993), “The Erosion of INSET in England and Wales: analysis and proposals for a redefinition", Journal of Education and Training 19 (2)
227
Glaser, B. and Strauss, A. (1967), The Discovery of Grounded Theory. London, Weidenfeld and Nicolson.
Glover, D. and Gleeson, D. (1997), “The Professional Development Needs of Middle Managers”, p.p. 23-28, October 1997, Professional Development Today, Birmingham, Fortune.
Glover, D. and Law, S. (1993), “Changing Partners: Professional Development in Transition. A Survey of INSET Perceptions in Secondary Schools”, Keele Professional Development Papers, In-service Education and Management Unit.
Glover, D. and Law, S., (1996), Managing Professional Development in Education. London,Kogan Page
Gray, J. and Wilcox, B., (1995), Good School. Bad School - Evaluating Performance and Encouraging Improvement. Buckingham, Open University Press.
Hall, D., (1994), “Professional Development Portfolios”, Chapter 14 in Kydd, L, Crawford, M. and Riches, C. (1997), Professional Development for Educational Management. Buckingham, Open University Press.
Hall, V., (1996), “Learning to Learn: Directions for CPD”, Management in Education. 10(4) p.p.3-4.
Halpin, D., Croll, P. and Redman, K., (1990), “Teachers’ Perceptions of the Effects of In-Service Education”, British Educational Research Journal. 16(2) p.p.. 163-177.
Halsall, R. (ed) (1998), Teacher Research and School Improvement. Buckingham, Open University Press.
Hargreaves, A. (1995, “Beyond Collaboration: Critical Teacher Development in the Postmodern Age”, Chapter 9 in Smyth, J. (ed.), Critical Discourses on Teacher Development. London, Cassell.
Hargreaves, D. and Hopkins, D., (1991), The Empowered School. Trowbridge, Cassell.
Harland, J., Kinder, K., and Keys, W. (1993), Restructuring INSET: Privatization and its Alternatives. Slough, N.F.E.R.
Heath, G. (1989), Staff Development. Supervision and Performance Appraisal. Harlow, Longman.
Heidemann, C. (1990), “Introduction to Staff Development”, Chapter 1 in Burke, P. et al (eds.), Programming for Staff Development. Fanning the Flame. London, Falmer.
Henderson, E.S., (1975), “Attitude Change in In-service Training”, British Journal of In-service Education. 2(2) p.p. 113-116
Henderson, E.S., (1976), “An Investigation of Some Outcomes of In-service Training”, British Journal of In-service Education. 3(1) p.p. 113-116
Henderson, E.S., (1977) “The Evaluation of an Open University Course for Teachers”, British Journal of In-service Education. 4(1)
Hereford and Worcester Education Authority (1991), Professional Development Co-ordinator Handbook. School Support Unit, Worcester (Bayne-Jardine, C. and Roberts, I.)
Hilsum, S and Kane, B.S. (1971), The Teacher’s Dav. Windsor, National Foundation for Educational Research.
Hoinville, R. and Jowell, R. (1978), Survey Research Practice. London, Heinemann
228
Hopkins, D., Ainscow, M., and West, M, (1994), “School Improvement - Propositions for Action", Chapter 24 in Harris, A., Bennett, N., and Preedy, M., (1994), Organizational Effectiveness and Improvement in Education. Buckingham, Open University Press.
Hopkins, D., Howard, J., Johnston, I., Glover, B. and Woodbum, S. (1991), “Teacher Appraisal, Professional Development and School Improvement: a case study”, School Organisation. 11(1) p.p. 37-53
Johnson, D. (1994), Research Methods in Educational Management. Harlow, Longman.
Joyce, B. and Showers, B. (1980), “Improving Inservice Training: The Messages of Research”, Educational Leadership. February 1980 p.p. 379-385
Kane, E. (1985), Doing Your Own Research. London, Marion Boyars.
Kelly, A., (1997), “Covey in Practice”, Managing Schools Today. June/July 1997 p,21.
Kelly, F., (1997), “The Seven Pillars of Leadership”, Managing Schools Today. June/July 1997 P.20.
Kogan, M., Johnson, D., Packwood, T. and Whitaker, T. (1984), School Governing Bodies. London, Heinemann.
Knight, J., (1997), Strategic Planning for School Managers. London, Kogan Page.
Kydd, L, Crawford, M. and Riches, C., (1997), Professional Development for Educational Management. Buckingham. Open University Press.
Lambert, K., (1989), School Management Volume 2: Staff Development. Materials and Simulations for In-Service Training. Oxford, Blackwell.
Lavan, A, “Questionnaires”, ch.7 in Kane (1985), Doing Your Own Research. London, Marion Boyers
Lewis, S. (1996), “Rocking the Boat? - Development Planning for School Improvement”, Leicester University MBA Dissertation.
McGilchrist, B., Mortimore, P., Savage, J. and Beresford, C, (1997), “Development Planning in Primary Schools”, Chapter 20 in Preedy, M., Glatter, R. and Levacic, R., Educational Management - Strategy. Quality and Resources. Bristol, Pa, Open University Press.
McMahon, A.., (1996), “Continuing Professional Development: Report from the Field”, Management in Education. 10(4) p.p..5-6.
McMullen, H. (1991), “The Role of Appraisal in Staff Development,” Ch.11 in Bell, L. and Day, C. (eds), Managing the Professional Development of Teachers. Buckingham, Open University Press.
Merrick, N., (1997), “Serving Heads to Go Back to School”, Staff Development Update, The Times Educational Supplement, 16/5/97, London.
Middlewood, D., (1997) “Managing Staff Development", Chapter 13 in Bush, T. and Middlewood, D. (Eds.), Managing People in Education. London, Paul Chapman.
Miles, M. and Huberman, M, (1994), Qualitative Data Analysis , Beverley Hills, CA, Sage McBride, R. (1989), The In-Service Training of Teachers, Lewes, Falmer.
Murgatroyd, S. and Morgan, C., (1994), Total Quality Management in Schools. Buckingham, Open University Press.
229
Nicholls, M., (1994) “Managing Staff Development”, Chapter 4.6 in Green, H. (ed.), (1994), The School Management Handbook. London, Kogan Page.
Nyland, J., (1996) First Thoughts”, Management in Education. 10(4) p.2.
Ofsted (1996), “The Appraisal of Teachers 1991-1996: A report from the Office of Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Schools”. Ofsted HMR/18/96/NS
Oldroyd, D., Smith, K. and Lee, J., (1984), School-Based Staff Development Activities. A Handbook for Secondary Schools. York, Longman for Schools Council.
Oldroyd, D. and Hall, V., (1991), “Identifying Needs and Priorities in Professional Development”, Chapter 11 in Kydd, L, Crawford, M. and Riches, C. (1997), Professional Development for Educational Management. Buckingham, Open University Press.
O’Neill, J., (1994), “Managing Human Resources", Chapter 10 in Bush, T. and West-Burnham, J. (eds), The Principles of Educational Management. Harlow, Longman.
O’Neill, J., Coleman, M. and Fogelman, K., (1995), Study Guide to Research Methods in Educational Management. E.M.D.U., University of Leicester.
Osterman, K, and Kottkamp, R., (1994), “Rethinking Professional Development”, Chapter 3 in Bennett, N, Glatter, R and Levacic, R. (Eds.) (1994), Improving Educational Management Through Research and Consultancy. London, Paul Chapman.
O’Sullivan, F., Jones, K. and Reid, K., (1990), “The Development of Staff, Chapter 15 in Kydd,L, Crawford, M. and Riches, C. (1997), Professional Development for Educational Management. Buckingham, Open University Press.
Passmore, B. (1993), Lost in the Acronym Forest, Times Educational Supplement, 5/2/1993
Redwood, F., (1997), “Making INSET Real Training”, Managing Schools Today. May 1997 p.p..6- 7
Robson, C. (1993), Real World Research. Oxford, Blackwell.
Roberts, I., (1994) “Achieving a Clear Focus: Whole School Planning", in Bayne-Jardine, C. and Holly, P., Developing Quality Schools. Lewes, Falmer.
Sale, J., (1997), “Leading From the Heart”, Managing Schools Today. June/July 1997 p.p.. 16-19
Sammons, P; Hillman, J, and Mortimore, P. (1995), Kev Characteristics of Effective Schools: A Review of School Effectiveness. London, Ofsted.
Sammons, P., Thomas, S. and Mortimore, P., (1997), Forcing Links: Effective Schools and Effective Departments. London, Paul Chapman.
Scott, J. (1990), A Matter of Record. Cambridge, Polity Press.
Simpson, J and Tuson, J, (1995), Using Observations in Small-Scale Research. SCRE (1995)
Southworth, G. (1984), “Development of Staff in Primary Schools (some ideas and implications)", British Journal of In-service Education. 10(3)
Southworth, G., (1997), “The Deputy Dilemma”, Managing Schools Today. June/July 1997 p. p..24-25
Southworth, G. (1998), “The Learning School: What Does it Look Like”, Managing Schools Today. January 1998, Birmingham, Fortune.
230
Stevenson, R. (1987), “Staff Development for Effective Secondary Schools: A Synthesis of Research”, Teaching and Teacher Education. 3 (3) p.p..233-248
Stones, E. (1992), Quality Teaching: A Sample of Cases. London, Routledge
Stott, K. and Walker, A., (1996), “Helping Staff Develop”, Management in Education 10(4) p.p. IQ- 12
Sweetman, J., (1997a) “Towards a New Framework”, Part 1 of The INSET Service. Managing Schools Today 6(4). January 1997.
Sweetman, J., (1997b) “Teachers as Researchers”, Part 4 of The INSET Service, Managing Schools Today 6(7). April 1997.
Sweetman, J., (1997c), “Teacher Standards”, Part 5 of The INSET Service, Managing Schools Today 6(8). May 1997.
Sweetman, J., (1997d) “Planned Professional Development”, Part 6 of The INSET Service, Managing Schools Today 6(9), June/July 1997.
Tesch, R, (1990) Qualitative Research: Analysis Types and Software Tools. London, Falmer.
The Teacher Training Agency (July 1997), National Standards for Subject Leaders. Annex, Revised Draft-July 1997, London, TTA.
Tomlinson, H., (1997), “Supporting Staff Development”, Governing Schools Today. May 1997 P-P-2-4.
Triggs, E. and Francis, H., (1990) “The Value to Education of Long (Award Bearing) Courses for Serving Teachers”, (summary of a research report to the Leverhulme Trust).London, Institute of Education.
UCET (1991), Annual Report. Autumn, no.23
Waters, M., (1997) “Restoring the Feel-Good Factor”, Staff Development Update, The Times Educational Supplement, 16/5/97
West, M, (1994), “School Improvement and Staff Development: The Thurston Development Project”, Chapter 10 in Bradley, H. and Howard, J. (eds.), Developing Teachers. Developing Schools. London, David Fulton.
Whitaker, P., (1993), Managing Change in Schools. Buckingham, Open University Press.
Whitaker, P. (1993), “Changes in Professional Development: the Personal Dimension”, Chapter 1 in Kydd, L, Crawford, M. and Riches, C. (1997), Professional Development for Educational Management. Buckingham, Open University Press.
Williams, G. (1981), Staff development in Education. Guidelines in Educational Management, Series 3, Sheffield, Pavic Publications.
Youngman, M.B. (1986), “Analysing Questionnaires”. University of Nottingham, School of Education.
231