Report of NUT Leadership Convention 2008 Snapshot Survey

A total of 24 completed questionnaires were returned at the end of the Convention. Several respondents did not answer all of the questions posed or gave multiple answers, therefore some responses do not total 24.

Of those who completed the section which asked the name of the local authority in which they worked, 12 came from London or the South East and two were from North Yorkshire.

Government Policies and Initiatives

Participants mentioned a wide range of national and local initiatives which they had most welcomed recently, including developments in curriculum and assessment and professional development programmes. The most frequently named initiative was, however, Every Child Matters (ECM) and integrated multi-agency working and Common Assessment Framework (CAF)which were closely associated it. It is also notable that the second most common response was to stress that there were too many initiatives and what would be most welcome would be a limit, or moratorium on them.

  • “Every Child Matters – particularly the emphasis on inter agency working. It’s not as good as it could be but I am sure it will improve.”
  • “ECM – speaks for itself – works/dovetails as a dimension along with global and social/emotional aspects of learning – puts children at the centre of what we do.”
  • “Cannot think of any – would like a cap on initiatives.”
  • “Network Learning Communities – well funded, managed by the schools and responded to staff, pupils and parents.”

ECM/CAF/integrated working 7

None/Too many 3

Social and Emotional Aspects of Learning programme 2

Children's Care, Learning and Development (CCLD) transition work for EYFS/KS1 2

Revised Primary Framework 2

Assessment for Learning 2

Primary Modern Foreign Languages 1

Every Child a Readerprogramme 1

Creative Curriculum programme 1

Network Learning Communities 1

Leading from the Middle programme 1

Short OFSTED inspections 1 School Improvement Partners (SIPs) 1

Local inclusion forum 1

There was a slightly greater degree of consensus amongst respondents in terms of the national or local initiatives which had been least welcomed. Developments in OFSTED inspections were the most unpopular, closely followed by the introduction of the 14 – 19 Diplomas and Academies. League tables and National Curriculum tests were also unpopular. It is also interesting to note that initiatives which had been welcomed by some respondents, such as integrated working and the revised Primary Framework, also featured in the list of respondents’ dislikes.

  • “OFSTED – critical stance rather than celebrating.”
  • “OFSTED – it’s almost like violation.”
  • “Local schools being taken over and reinvented as Academies with head teachers being removed/side-lined.”
  • “The introduction of Diplomas as a means of institutionalising discrimination against disadvantaged children based on access to qualifications.”
  • “Increasing rates of progress: pressure on the student, staff, parents, head and gov body.”
  • “I welcome integrated locality working but have concerns about its local implementation – concerns re. speed, resourcing, communication, workforce development …”

OFSTED 5

Academies 3

14 – 19 Diplomas 3

League Tables and SATs 2

Integrated working/CAF 1

Extended schools 1

Revised Primary Framework 1

National Challenge 1

Greater emphasis on pupil progression 1

Greater responsibility/profile of governing body 1

Financial Management Standard in Schools scheme 1

There were mixed views about the extent to which respondents rated the supportiveness of their School Improvement Partner (SIP), with nine being broadly positive about their experiences and six broadly negative. Four respondents felt that it was too early to make an assessment, as they had only recently begun to work with a SIP.

  • “Extremely supportive: cares about our school and the progress of our students.”
  • “Not supportive, rather than addressing needs of school too focussed on “box ticking” tasks.”
  • “My SIP was previously the LA advisor – he has continued in much the same way – very supportive, helpful and encouraging.”
  • “She’s been helpful but is mainly concerned with target setting.”
  • “Only being implemented this term – no consultation with HTs.”
  • “Not especially supportive: high on platitude and accepted mantra, low on anything of substance helpful. Could depart for “script” re judgements on standards in area of high challenge. Complicated by being both SIP and our local authority advisor.”
  • “Only just started working with my SIP. As a primary head think the SIP/SIO role in our county will reduce the support for HTs.”

These findings are in line with the responses received at the 2006 Convention, where thirty-five per cent indicated that they expected the SIP would support the work of the head teacher and twenty five percent of respondents indicated that they were unsure whether it would and would depend to a large extent on the individual SIP.

Performance Management

There was significant variation in respondents’ satisfaction with performance management arrangements as they applied to them. Nine respondents were broadly content, six were broadly negative and seven expressed mixed views. This response pattern would suggest that the quality of the relationships head teachers and Leadership Group members have with their governing bodies and SIPs and, in the case of Leadership Group members, head teachers, was crucial in shaping perceptions of the process.

A number of head teachers also reported feeling unhappy with the need to emphasise their own, rather than the school’s achievements in order to meet performance management requirements and also noted that lack of funding limited the amount of professional development which should arise from the process.

  • “Fairly happy – I find it difficult to talk about my own achievements. You have to be able to “sell yourself” or justify things you have done. I find this part of the process uncomfortable.”
  • “Budget of school restricts opportunities for development.”
  • “I object to governors making decision and evaluating my performance. They also feel uncomfortable and rely heavily on me to present good detailed evidence (work load) and on the SIP to advise them.”
  • “Not nearly enough time for 1:1 PM meetings. Another task to do and try to find the time for.”
  • “Excellent working relationship with governors. SIP role unclear impact.”
  • “Unhappy for reason stated above (concerns about SIP) was challenged and supported under previous system.”

Workload

The majority of respondents (16) reported that their workload had increased compared to the same time last year, with only six believing that it had stayed the same. No one felt that there had been a reduction in workload over the past year.

A wide range of causes of this increased workload were suggested, which could be broadly grouped around accountability, staff management, bureaucracy and the demands of teaching as well as leading a school. For this latter group, the workload drivers reported correlated more closely to those expressed by NUT class teacher members than to head teacher members in previous surveys. It is also interesting to note that the most welcomed initiative was also cited by respondents as the joint most demanding in terms of workload.

  • “Marking – too much teaching!”
  • “Lack of time to complete demands of AHT role: ECM & behaviour.”
  • “Analysing data from an increasing range of MIS within and outside school.”
  • “Monitoring of the monitoring of the monitoring!!”
  • “More paper chasing to bin!”
  • “Addition of extended service and associated meetings and organisation.”
  • “Governing body – providing policies, briefings, information for them and ensuring they do what they need to legally.”
  • “As work with ICT and because technology races in so rapidly it is very difficult to keep up with leadership and classroom responsibilities as well as professional development with a wide range of ICT software and tools.”
  • “Accountability in relation to pupil tails e.g. SEN students with dyscalculia and EBD/ADMD students to be included after moving from school to school.”

Data management and analysis, linked to accountability 5

ECM/CAF/integrated working 5

Target setting and assessment 4

Meetings 4

Balancing teaching and management 4

Performance management reviews 4

Behaviour management 4

Bureaucracy/paperwork 4

School Evaluation Form (SEF) 3

Raising attainment 3

Marking and planning 2

Governing body 2

“Non distributed leadership”/excessive delegation by head 2

“Government initiatives” 2

Long term strategic planning 1

Post OFSTED development work 1

National Challenge 1

Federation 1

Rebuilding work 1

SENCO role 1

Subject co-ordinator role 1

Lack of non-contact time 1

There appears to have been little progress in reducing workload since the 2006 Leadership Convention, where eighty percent of respondents indicated that their workload had increased compared to the previous year and fifteen percent said that their workload had stayed about the same.

Professional Development and Support

An interesting range of suggestions were made by participants in terms of their personal priorities for CPD in 2008/09. These could be broadly grouped into personal career development, including gaining the National Professional Qualification for Headship, which is now a prerequisite for aspiring head teachers; the development of leadership and/or management skills; and curriculum or pedagogical development. A number of the responses are closely related to existing CPD and training courses offered by the NUT, which would suggest both that details about the content of current NUT provision could be more effectively communicated to members and that courses could be up-dated to reflect new issues suggested by respondents.

NPQH 4

Managing/developing a vision for large building projects 4

Performance management 4

RAISEonline 3

Developing/different styles of leadership skills 2

Developing pastoral staff and systems 2

Curriculum and pedagogy 2

Routes back into leadership after raising a family 1

Managed Learning Environments 1

Developing global dimension to the curriculum 1

Developing primary MFL partnership links 1

Integrated working 1

Research 1

IT systems 1

Staff and own well being 1

Developing gifted and talented provision 1

Respondents made a number of suggestions about further services the NUT could provide to support head teacher and Leadership Group members. A recurrent theme was facilitation of networking, in order that members could share ideas and good practice and events or other forms of communication specifically aimed at this section of the NUT membership. This may reflect the well-documented sense of isolation reported by many head teachers.

Ideas for one-off events aimed at head teacher and Leadership Group members included approaches to change management; global education; education psychologists; obtaining a leadership post (when over 50); managing staff; dealing with stress; target setting; behaviour management; and leadership styles or models. As noted above, there is some degree of overlap between this list and courses or training currently offered by the NUT. In addition, one member wrote “Headway” without further comment, therefore it was unclear this referred to receipt of this publication, its contents, frequency or something else.

Events on specific issues for head teacher and Leadership Group members 10

Regional or local networking meetings 5

Model policies, especially for annual employment issues 1

Regular issuing of advice specifically for heads and Leadership Group members 1

Facility to share ideas via “Headway” or Hearth 1

Headway 1

Other Concerns

Respondents were invited, in the final section of the survey, to note any other concerns they had. Of those who chose to comment, accountability (school performance tables, personal accountability and no notice OFSTED inspections) was the key issue.

Accountability 5

Inclusion (PRUs / untrained staff) 2

Initiatives 2

Amount of responsibility teacher must take on to cross the threshold 1

National Challenge 1

Dealing with parents 1

Dealing with staff 1

Early years funding 1

NCSL 1

ECM 1

  • “Pressure on children to get “good” SATs results because schools are judged on these”.
  • “The league tables only seem to value A*- C pupils, disaffecting others. The ridiculous SATs fiasco and managing to turn pupils off Shakespeare. An OFSTED that focused on data only.”
  • “Continued emphasis on SATs and fact that due to this emphasis some schools are unable to achieve outstanding due to VA scores.”
  • “Inclusion – particularly the role of untrained staff – they seem to have increasing responsibility for supporting children with most needs. Not sure how I can change this.”
  • “Demanding parents and all their problems – family break up etc.”
  • “The third class status attached to the role and work of PRUs, good – excellent PRUs, resources/funded effectively, should be critical to inclusion and the success of mainstream state education.”
  • “The sheer speed and volume of initiatives.”
  • “Stop changing everything – stick with what matters. Remember what the job is about – children!!”
  • “Bringing all staff with you without disturbing anyone.”
  • “Single formula for under 5s will slash full time nursery provision.”
  • “The ECM agenda is very important and very time consuming. Is there not a need to see the emergence of a new professional as a multi-agency co-ordinator who has had training/ sound grounding in all of the key agency professional areas in order to enhance and facilitate multi agency working. Also could the Union not lobby for each LEA/Council to have specific multi agency development funding?”

\\nut-hq-fs01\e&eo-home\knrn\Heads & Deputies\Leadership Conventio08 quest v ii AI.doc04/04/2019