Teaching Is a Full Time Job and so is Managing: Dilemmas and Delights of Managing a Small School
Ron Jordan and Tony Whiteley
Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference
(September 11-14 1997: University of York)
Abstract:This paper presents the results of a questionnaire survey conducted in a rural county in the South West of England. The views of headteachers on a range of issues which impact ultimately on the quality of pupils’ learning are recorded and discussed. The responses illustrate many of the advantages of being small, but also highlight some of the difficulties, particularly with regard to managing the curriculum and resources. The headteachers’ views on priorities for development are considered, as are initial implications for the local education authority (LEA) in terms of its role in promoting and ensuring quality in its small primary schools.
Introduction
Small primary schools are a continuing feature of the provision of many LEAs, and particularly of those with large rural areas. Discussion and debate over their desirability and viability also continue, with questions associated with the curriculum, management and funding (see, for example, Vulliamy & Webb, 1995; Coopers & Lybrand, 1993; Audit Commission, 1990). The Rural White Paper (Department of the Environment, 1995) covered many rural issues, but did not address the very real challenges which face a rural authority in providing and delivering education services, particularly given the successive budget cuts over a number of years in many of these authorities.
It was in the light of such discussions that in late 1995 one LEA in the South West, which has a high proportion of small rural primary schools, entered into a partnership with Exeter University and the University College of St Mark & St John to undertake an interesting collaborative approach to research in small schools. Two of the principal aims of this research are to support the effectiveness and improvement of small primary schools and to identify some of the conditions and processes necessary for ensuring improvement. The research centres on two main questions: how can the LEA promote and assure quality, effectiveness and improvement in small primary schools; and what are effective ways of deploying resources in small primary schools. This questionnaire survey was undertaken as a key part of the initial stage of the project.
Methodology
The main aim of the research was to elicit views of headteachers about a range of issues associated with managing a small school, with the research questions guiding the investigation and the issues drawn from an initial review of literature. As part of the longer term project described above it was intended to provide an information base to guide the precise focus of future research. It was also the intention to provide both the schools involved and the LEA with information gained from the survey, which may assist with supporting teaching and learning in the classroom as effectively as possible.
Sample Group
For the purposes of the research a small school was defined as one with fewer than 100 pupils on roll (in January 1996). This gave a group of 84 schools, around one third of all primary schools in the LEA, which were geographically dispersed throughout the LEA, but in the main in areas some distance from centres of high population. Additional support for small schools through clustering arrangements had been established under the Education Support Scheme (ESG) funded by the Department of Education and Science (DES). Although this source of funding ceased some time ago and LEA funding has reduced over recent years, the structure is still in place and all but 3 of the schools were members of these geographically based clusters.
Procedures
A questionnaire was sent to each of the headteachers of the 84 schools in the sample, with a covering letter from the LEA adviser with responsibility for primary education. The letter explained the aims of the research and the two questions around which the project was based. The researchers and two advisers (one with responsibility for primary education, the other with responsibility for small primary schools) met with a number of the headteachers in the sample group to explain further the aims of the research and encourage their support in helping to secure a good response rate. In the event 71 questionnaires were returned, a response rate of 85%.
Instrument
Data were collected using a questionnaire with 7 sections: contextual information (relevant details not already held by the LEA); national curriculum; internal allocation of resources; information technology; LEA support; cluster activity; and strengths, constraints and key issues for the school. The first and last sections contained open-ended questions as well as questions seeking responses about quantity or information. The middle sections sought responses to factors on a 4 point scale (excellent, good, sound and satisfactory, for example), asked respondents to identify and rank the three most important factors and in addition provided space for an open-ended response.
Analysis
The questionnaire data were analysed using the statistical package for the social sciences (SPSS) to produce descriptive statistics (see Appendix 2 for raw frequency data) and to test for simple interrelationships. Numerical values were assigned in accordance with the qualitative scales to give ordinal data (excellent =4, good =3, sound =2, unsatisfactory =1 for sections 2, 3 and 4, for example). Responses to the ranking of factors were analysed by considering both % responses and responses weighted by priority (first priority times 3, second priority times 2, third priority unweighted) and summed for each factor. Qualitative responses were subject to a form of content analysis to illustrate general or specific views.
Discussion
Context
Pupil numbers in the schools ranged from 21 to 107, with an average of 66. Most of the schools had 2 or 3 classes of pupils, with an average size of 23.5, which compares favourably with the overall class size average for all the LEA primary schools of 27.6. Schools with 2 classes had average class sizes of 22.2 for the youngest class and 22.6 for the older class. Schools with 3 or 4 classes had average class sizes for the classes of older children of 26.7 and 25.9 respectively.
Staff working in classrooms included between 1.5 and 5 full time equivalent teachers, including head (average 3.25) and between 0.2 and 4 full time equivalent classroom assistants (average 1.62).
The vast majority of the headteachers in this survey taught for at least the equivalent of 3 days each week, with an average teaching commitment of 17.7 hours, around 3.5 days for most schools. The maximum reported was 26 hours and the minimum was 7, and there was no statistical association between teaching commitment and size of school (correlation coefficient = -0.4011). Similar levels of teaching commitment have been reported in other studies and national analyses. Many headteachers cited lack of time for managing as a constraint upon the progress of the school and several of these headteachers indicated that this would be the one thing they would change if they could. Such comments conveyed messages which were similar to the sentiments expressed by one headteacher who would:
'…have a non-teaching head. This should be the case in all schools - the responsibility of teaching is a full time job - and so is management. Much, much more progress would be made in all areas'.
National Curriculum
Headteachers were asked to rate the current practice in their school in a number of areas, with numerical scores assigned to the responses (excellent =4, good =3, sound =2, unsatisfactory =1). The results, in order of descending means, and therefore decreasing satisfaction with the factor, are given in Table 1.
The two factors rated as fifth and sixth in terms of satisfaction (monitoring and evaluation of pupil achievement and progress (nce) and the use of assessment to inform curriculum planning and pupil learning (ncd)) were also given as the highest priorities for development (see Appendix 1, Table A). Least satisfaction was felt with the use and development of subject co-ordinators (ncg), yet this factor did not feature significantly as an area for development (see Appendix 1, Table A). However, this factor was the most frequent subject of written comment where it was clear that the majority of respondents felt that subject co-ordinators were not appropriate for small schools. They felt that subject co-ordination was more appropriately achieved through a collective response. The views of many were expressed by the headteacher who wrote:
'I have not included G (the use and development of subject co-ordinators) as a priority although I feel it unsatisfactory. We have so few full time staff. This is I feel an impossible problem to resolve. To compensate for this we all participate in subject co-ordination.'
Table 1: The National Curriculum - Responses to Factors
Factor / Mean / Minimum / Maximum / N= / Ref.Whole school curriculum planning / 2.87 / 1 / 4 / 70 / nca
Matching learning tasks to pupils' developing abilities / 2.77 / 1 / 4 / 71 / ncc
Continuity and progression of knowledge understanding and skills within a Key Stage / 2.69 / 1 / 4 / 70 / ncb
Developing teachers' knowledge of the subjects and how they are learned / 2.48 / 1 / 4 / 71 / ncf
Monitoring and evaluation of pupil achievement and progress / 2.31 / 1 / 3 / 71 / nce
The use of assessment to inform curriculum planning and pupil learning / 2.23 / 1 / 3 / 70 / ncd
The use and development of subject co-ordinators / 1.76 / 1 / 3 / 63 / ncg
Allocation of Resources
This section explored levels of resources in the school and analysis followed a similar numerical scoring of responses to rating and priority questions as in the previous section. Table 2 gives the results, again in order of decreasing satisfaction with the stated factor.
Table 2: Allocating Resources - Responses to Factors
Factor / Mean / Minimum / Maximum / N= / Ref.Internal decoration of accommodation / 2.21 / 1 / 4 / 71 / arg
Classroom assistant time / 2.18 / 1 / 4 / 71 / arc
Books, materials and equipment / 2.16 / 1 / 4 / 70 / ard
Staff development programme / 2.07 / 1 / 4 / 70 / are
Accommodation / 1.94 / 1 / 4 / 71 / arf
Headteacher's management time / 1.63 / 1 / 4 / 71 / ara
Teacher's management time / 1.57 / 1 / 4 / 70 / arb
The low mean scores compared to other sections illustrate the generally low levels of satisfaction accorded to the allocation of resources. The four factors accorded highest satisfaction had means slightly better than sound, whilst the remaining factors were rated in the range unsatisfactory to sound. Those factors of accommodation, headteachers management time and teacher management time figure prominently throughout other sections of the questionnaire. Greatest priority for development was given to improving headteachers and teacher management time and staff development. One headteachers summed up the feeling of many in writing:
'Our resources are so depleted that it means we rely on beg, borrow and steal and share and share alike.'
Information Technology
Headteachers were most satisfied with the use of computers in administration (Table 3). This is an understandable outcome given the emphasis on local management of schools in recent years and the use of increasingly sophisticated LEA wide software, with associated training and support in this area. Use of computers in the classroom occupies the middle ground with training of staff and use of Internet and email affording least satisfaction.
Priorities for development (Table C, Appendix 1) placed those factors associated with the use of computers in the classroom at the head of the list.
The difficulties associated with IT were summed up by the headteacher who wrote:
'We have Internet but no time or money to train staff who in turn will train children to use it with confidence - a wasted resource at present.'
Table 3: Information Technology - Responses to Factors
Factor / Mean / Minimum / Maximum / N= / Ref.Availability of computers for administration / 2.96 / 1 / 4 / 70 / itf
Use of computer in administration / 2.83 / 1 / 4 / 71 / ith
Range of administrative software / 2.67 / 1 / 4 / 70 / itg
Availability of computers in the classroom / 2.59 / 1 / 4 / 71 / ita
Administrative training in IT / 2.52 / 1 / 4 / 71 / iti
Use of computer in classroom / 2.11 / 1 / 4 / 70 / itc
Range of educational software / 2.08 / 1 / 4 / 71 / itb
Training of teaching staff in IT / 1.90 / 1 / 4 / 71 / itd
Training of support staff in IT / 1.69 / 1 / 4 / 71 / ite
Send and receive e-mail / 1.25 / 1 / 4 / 44 / itj
Access the INTERNET / 1.21 / 1 / 4 / 43 / itk
LEA Support
In this section questions asked how helpful LEA support was, in terms of publications, partnership (with the advisory service) and service level agreements, purchased on an annual basis. The numerical scores assigned to the responses were: very helpful = 3, quite helpful = 2 and not helpful = 1. The number of schools which did not use a particular publication or service was also recorded and the results are shown in Tables 4, 5 and 6.
LEA publications were well received with two major publications found to be quite or very helpful (see Table 4). The focus of these publications was on school policies and curriculum guidance. A further 12 publications which had been helpful to individual schools were identified in the 'other' boxes. Those publications recording least satisfaction when used by some schools were also associated with high overall rates of non-use.
The production of high quality written materials was an important part of LEA policy in this largely rural authority.
Table 4: LEA Support, Publications - Responses to Factors
Publication / Mean / N= / Not Used N= / Ref.Keats Primary School Folder / 2.78 / 69 / 1 / pua
Subject Guidelines / 2.48 / 67 / 1 / pue
Somerset Successful Schools / 1.91 / 54 / 16 / pub
Somerset Scheme of Competence / 1.88 / 32 / 34 / pud
Investors in People / 1.63 / 30 / 38 / puc
Funds that have traditionally supported the LEA's inspection and advisory service have been devolved to schools. The Education Development Service has entered into a voluntary partnership with schools who wish to purchase their services and work to a shared agenda focused on school improvement. Considerable satisfaction is accorded to: the work of the School Development Adviser, with regular meetings to discuss issues identified by the school as well as by the LEA; the Curriculum Development Advisers bought in by the school to provide subject specialist advice; and primary focus meetings which centre on current issues of relevance to all schools. Table 5 also indicates that the vast majority of the schools take advantage of these partnership activities.
Table 5: LEA Support, Partnership - Responses to Factors
Activity/function / Mean / N= / Not Used N= / Ref.School Development Adviser / 2.59 / 69 / 1 / pab
Curriculum Development Adviser / 2.51 / 65 / 4 / pac
Primary focus meetings / 2.41 / 64 / 5 / paa
A similar picture of general satisfaction is accorded to the majority of support services brought in under service level agreements (Table 6). Greatest satisfaction is with the Education Financial Service which was always rated quite or very helpful. Views of many headteachers were reflected in the following comment:
'In general terms I find the quality of services and individuals involved to be very impressive.'
However, a number of schools found it impossible to purchase all the services offered, a situation described by one headteacher in the following terms:
'Because of budgetary constraints we do not buy into SOMMITS (musical instrument teaching service) or the museum service and now we are no longer able to buy into EDS (Education Development Service) and governor support. If the situation arose that we could not afford resources for learning (the former library service) it would be a disaster.'
Table 6: LEA Support, Service Level Agreements - Responses to Factors
Service / Mean / N= / Not Used N= / Ref.Education Financial Services / 2.87 / 69 / 0 / slj
Resources 4 Learning / 2.78 / 64 / 6 / sld
The Education Personnel Service / 2.71 / 70 / 0 / sli
Exchequer Services / 2.70 / 69 / 1 / slk
Education Development Service / 2.68 / 66 / 3 / sla
Somerset Property Services / 2.62 / 69 / 1 / slh
Legal Services / 2.62 / 50 / 17 / slm
Somerset County Museum Service / 2.57 / 42 / 27 / sle
Information Technology Support and Development / 2.43 / 69 / 1 / sll
Ground Maintenance / 2.43 / 61 / 9 / slg
Contract Support Services / 2.39 / 54 / 15 / slf
Musical Instrument Teaching Service / 2.13 / 38 / 30 / slc
Somerset Governor Support / 2.11 / 45 / 25 / slb
Cluster Activity
A number of activities were identified and headteachers asked to identify the importance of each on a five point scale (high = 1 to low = 5). Providing a forum for professional discussion was identified as the most important feature of cluster activity (Table 7). One headteacher described this in the following terms:
'Mutual support of each other had been our most important achievement over the past five years during the bumpy ride given to schools by the previous government.'
However, in the open response in which headteachers were asked to list significant achievements of their cluster, the majority of respondents identified pupil activities, social and curriculum as their most important achievement. Such meetings focused on a range of activities: subject; able pupils; sport; games; art; drama; music; camp; artist and author in residence. For example, one headteacher wrote:
'Quite a well run programme of events and activities which enable our children to mix with a larger group of their peers which include children with severe learning difficulties. These socialisation opportunities are invaluable to the children of this school in particular. These activities also mean that we can offer the children a broader and more balanced curriculum than we could as individual schools.'
Responses to significant blocks to progress in the cluster yielded a number of linked factors that exemplified the difficulties of managing a small school. Many schools lack funds to provide supply cover to release staff to attend cluster meetings in school time. The outcome is that meetings are often scheduled after school, where they compete both for time for other meetings (such as the PTA, governors or LEA) and for time set aside for management and administration.
Similarly schools that are a distance from other schools in their cluster experience a feeling of isolation. They also cite the cost of transport as being a significant block on cluster progress. Many schools simply lack the facilities to host other schools, even where an activity could be arranged and transport provided. Two other blocks are worth noting. Both pre and post OFSTED tasks detract from co-operative and collaborative activities and finally, as one headteacher noted:
'Some schools agree a particular action in theory but do little to act upon it.'