The Impact of School Leadership on Pupil...

Research Report DCSF-RR018 -QR

Exploring Headteacher and Key StaffPerceptions of Leadership and SchoolImprovement:

A Quantitative Report –

Phase 1 Questionnaire Survey

The Impact of SchoolLeadership on PupilOutcomes

Pam Sammons, Qing Gu, and Daniel Robertson

School of Education, University of Nottingham

The Impact of School Leadership on Pupil Outcomes

Exploring Headteacher and Key Staff Perceptions of Leadership and School Improvement:

A Quantitative Report – Phase 1 Questionnaire Survey

Pam Sammons, Qing Gu, and Daniel Robertson

School of Education, University of Nottingham

The views expressed in this report are the authors’ and do not necessarily reflect those of the Department for Children, Schools and Families.

© University of Nottingham 2007 ISBN 978 1 84775 081 5

Research Report No DCSF-RR018 -QR

i

Contents

Chapter 1: Leadership In Improving And Effective Schools: Broadening Participation and Distributing Leadership ............................1

1.1 Introduction..................................................................................1 1.2 Changing Structures.......................................................................4

1.2.1 (Re)Structuring the organization: strengthening internal review, facilitating work ...................................................................4

1.2.2 School improvement: widening participation in decision making .8 1.3 Widening participation: Differences related to Heads’ Years of Experience

In School....................................................................................13 1.3.1 Clarifying reasons ..............................................................13

1.4 Engaging Parents.........................................................................14 1.4.1 Headteachers’ years of experience in school .......................... 15

1.5 Working With Other Schools .......................................................... 16 1.5.1 Differences by sector and socio-economic context................... 16

1.6 Building Community Support .........................................................18 1.6.1 Differences by sector, socio-economic context and years of

experience in school ........................................................... 18 1.7 Working With The Local Authority................................................... 20

1.7.1 Difference by sector and socio-economic context .................... 20 1.8 Integrating School Policies With National Policy Agendas ...................21

1.8.1 Differences by sector and socio-economic context................... 21 1.9 Working With The Governing Body ................................................. 23

1.9.1 Differences by sector.......................................................... 23 1.10 Working Collaboratively With The Senior Leadership/ Management Team

And Other Staff ...........................................................................24 1.10.1 Differences by headteacher experience in school .................... 25

1.11 Key Staff Perspectives on Collaborative Practice ............................... 26 1.11.1 The pivotal role of SLT: redefining the senior leadership team ..28 1.11.2 Distribution or delegation? .................................................. 28 1.11.3 Regularity of consultation between ‘tiers’............................... 28

1.12 Key Findings: ..............................................................................29 Chapter 2: Changing School Cultures...................................................31

2.1 Providing A Sense of Purpose: Raising Expectations.......................... 31 2.1.1 Providing a sense of purpose ............................................... 31 2.1.2 Differences by years of experience in school .......................... 32 2.1.3 High expectations for staff ..................................................33 2.1.4 High expectations for pupil behaviour ................................... 35

2.2 Shared Professional Beliefs And Values ........................................... 36

ii

2.3 Developing People .......................................................................37 2.3.1 CPD (Continuing Professional Development) .......................... 37 2.3.2 Developing care and trust ...................................................39 2.3.3 Modeling professional practice ............................................. 40

2.4 Discussion of Educational Issues: Differences By Sector, Socio-Economic Context And Years Of Experience In School ..................................... 42

2.5 Managing The Teaching And Learning Programme ............................ 45 2.5.1 Strengthening internal review: differences by sector and socio-

economic context...............................................................45 2.5.2 Redesigning the organisation: differences by sector and heads’

years of experience in school............................................... 46 2.6 Key Findings ...............................................................................47

Chapter 3: Changing Curriculum, Pedagogy And Assessment..............49 3.1 Curriculum And Pedagogy .............................................................49 3.2 Setting Goals ..............................................................................49

3.2.1 Differences by sector.......................................................... 49 3.2.2 Differences by years of experience in school .......................... 50

3.3 Encouraging New Ideas ................................................................52 3.4 Beyond The Academic Curriculum .................................................. 53

3.4.1 Differences by sector.......................................................... 53 3.5 Redesigning Resources For Teaching .............................................. 54

3.5.1 Differences by school sector, socio-economic context and headteacher years of experience in school ............................. 56

3.6 Coaching, Mentoring And Classroom Observation ............................. 58 3.6.1 Differences by sector.......................................................... 58 3.6.2 Differences by school socio-economic context and headteacher

years of experience in school............................................... 60 3.7 Assessment: Increasing The Use Of Pupil Attainment Data................. 61

3.7.1 Differences by sector.......................................................... 62 3.7.2 Differences by school level of disadvantage ........................... 63

3.8 Key Findings ...............................................................................67 Chapter 4: Leadership Characteristics And Practices In Schools With

Different Effectiveness And Improvement Profiles.............70 4.1 Introduction................................................................................70 4.2 Contexts Of Leadership And Improvement Group ............................. 71

4.2.1 School SES contexts and improvement groups ....................... 71 4.2.2 School SES contexts and heads’ experience ........................... 72 4.2.3 Experience of headteachers and improvement groups ............. 73 4.2.4 Age of headteachers and improvement groups ....................... 74 4.2.5 Stability of school leadership and improvement groups............ 75

iii

4.3 Leadership Distribution: Patterns Of External And Internal Participation.................................................................................................77 4.3.1 The way that leadership tasks were distributed or shared within

schools............................................................................. 77 4.3.2 The kinds of leadership practice provided by SMT/SLT in school 78 4.3.3 The extent to which leadership practice in school was provided by

other people or groups (Internal and External)....................... 80 4.4 Leadership Influence: Persuasion Tactics........................................ 85 4.5 School Conditions: Academic Press................................................. 89

4.5.1 School SES Contexts .......................................................... 90 4.5.2 School Improvement Groups ............................................... 92

4.6 School Conditions: Collaborative Cultures........................................ 95 4.6.1 School SES Contexts .......................................................... 96 4.6.2 School Improvement Groups ............................................... 98

4.7 Leader Self-Efficacy ................................................................... 101 4.7.1 School SES contexts......................................................... 102 Key Staff Perceptions ................................................................. 103 8.6.2 School Improvement Groups ............................................. 104

4.8 Classroom Conditions: Workload Volume And Complexity ................ 106 4.8.1 School SES contexts......................................................... 107 4.8.2 School improvement groups .............................................. 110

4.9 Building and Sustaining Improvement: The Extent of Change........... 115 4.9.1 Changes in school conditions over time: disciplinary climate... 115

4.10 Changes in school conditions over time: the school......................... 120 4.11 Changes in structures, culture, and curriculum, pedagogy and

assessment............................................................................... 124 4.11.1 Changes in structures....................................................... 125 4.11.2 Changes in culture ........................................................... 129 4.11.3 Changes in curriculum, pedagogy and assessment................ 131

4.12 Teaching Policies And Practices .................................................... 135 4.13 Extra Curricula Programmes........................................................ 136 4.14 Extended Services ..................................................................... 138

4.14.1 Type of services (headteacher perceptions only)................... 138 4.14.2 Management and provision of services (headteacher perceptions

only).............................................................................. 139 4.15 Summary ................................................................................. 141

4.15.1 Key findings:................................................................... 142 4.16 Key Messages ........................................................................... 145

1

Chapter 1: Leadership In Improving And Effective

Schools: Broadening Participation and Distributing

Leadership

1.1 Introduction

This three-year study, commissioned by the Department for Children, Schools

and Families, in conjunction with the National College of School Leadership,

focuses upon the critical relationship between school leadership, in particular

headteacher leadership, and improved pupil learning outcomes. Taking a review

and evaluation of the growing international evidence base as a point of departure,

the study investigates not only how successful school leaders impact on students’

learning outcomes but also how, in order to do so, they adapt their practices to

suit the many different contexts in which they carry out their work. For our

purposes, such contexts include: sectors of schooling (primary, secondary);

amounts of experience leaders bring to their work; socio-economic levels of their

school’s student intakes; and leadership in schools in three different

‘improvement’ groupings.

This quantitative technical report presents detailed findings from the initial phase

of the mixed method study based on a questionnaire survey of headteacher and

key staff perceptions of leadership and school improvement conducted in the first

year of the project (2006-2007). It is an accompanying document to the Project’s

Interim Report which was published by DCSF in January 2008 (Day et al., 20071).

In the Project’s Interim Report we linked emerging qualitative case study and

qualitative survey results. Both the case studies and the surveys provided a

wealth of complementary data relating to a number of key issues about the role,

characteristics and strategies of leadership in improving and effective schools,

and they have begun to point to associations between these and improvements in

pupils’ achievements. In this chapter we provide further illustration of the

quantitative findings concerning the indirect influence of headteachers’ and key

1 Day, C., Sammons, P., Gu, Q., Penlington, C., Kington, A., Hopkins, D., Mehta, P., Harris, A. & Leithwood, K. (2007) The Impact of School Leadership on Pupil Outcomes: Interim Report. DCSF (http://www.dfes.gov.uk/research/programmeofresearch/projectinformation.cfm?projectid=15339&resultspage=1)

2

staff leadership on improved pupil outcomes through reported changes which

they make in school structures. The survey questions were derived from the

review of the literature on successful headship; and the findings, by and large,

confirm these, though with interesting differences appearing between school

sectors (primary and secondary); between headteachers’ experience levels (years

in current post and total years of headship); and between school SES contexts

based upon level of social disadvantage of pupil intake (measured by the school

FSM band).

Begun in January 2006, the mixed method study links qualitative (case study)

and quantitative (survey) approaches, and is being conducted in three phases.

During the first, now-completed phase, a comprehensive review of literature was

conducted (Leithwood, Day, Sammons, Harris and Hopkins. 20062), national data

sets related to pupil attainment were analysed, and survey data were collected

from both headteachers and key staff3 in a nationally representative achieved

sample of high performing and improving primary (378) and secondary (362)

schools during 2006/2007. Based on three years (2002-2005) of national pupil

achievement data, schools in the sample were allocated to one of three groups

for comparison purposes: schools that had significantly improved from a low to a

moderate level, schools that had improved from a moderate to high level, and

schools that had demonstrated stable high achievement and effectiveness. These

schools were selected to represent the different levels of social disadvantage of

their pupil intake identified by the % of pupils eligible for Free School Meals (FSM

Band 1 to 4).

Table 1.1 below shows primary and secondary samples by FSM band.

2 Leithwood, K., Day, C., Sammons, P., Harris, A. & Hopkins, D. (2006) Seven strong claims about successful school leadership. Nottingham, DfES/NCSL 3 Key staff were defined as either (i) Key Stage managers/leaders in primary schools; and, (ii) Heads of Department (maths, English, science, arts and humanities) in secondary schools. Two Key Stage managers (primary) and five Heads of Departments (secondary) were invited to participate in the key staff survey.

3

Table 1.1: Primary and Secondary Samples by FSM Band

FSM Band Primary

Sample (N)

Percent

(%)

Secondary

Sample (N) Percent (%)

FSM1 (0-8%) 225 30 316 38

FSM2 (9-20%) 180 24 280 33

FSM3 (21-35%) 163 22 124 15

FSM4 (36%+) 184 24 119 14

Total 752 100 839 100

The initial questionnaire survey was conducted in summer 2006. The response

rate to the survey initially achieved was approximately 19% for both the primary

and secondary head teacher sample. A re-survey of non-respondents of the

original sample and other schools that met the criteria but were not included in

the original sample was carried out in January 2007. Strategies included:

personal telephone calls; emails; and postal contact with the offer of a visit if

preferred. Though time consuming, these proved very successful. The

headteacher response rate to the questionnaire survey increased from

approximately 19% for both the primary and secondary headteacher sample to

24% primary and 32% secondary of a larger group. The total sample size

surveyed is shown in Table 1.2 to Table 1.4 below. Additional questionnaires

received have been incorporated into subsequent analyses. Tables 1.2-1.4 also

summarise the response rates for headteacher and key Staff questionnaire

surveys.

Table 1.2: Survey response rate (Headteachers)

Sample Size

Surveyed N

Returned Headteacher Questionnaires

N

Response Rate %

Primary 1,550 378 24 Secondary 1,140 362 32

Table 1.3: Survey response rate (Key Staff at school level)

Sample Size

Surveyed N

Schools with Returned Key Staff Questionnaires

N

Response Rate %

Primary 1,550 409 26 Secondary 1,140 393 34

4

Table 1.4: Survey response rate (Key Staff at questionnaire level)

Sample Size Surveyed*

N

Returned Key Staff Questionnaires

N

Response Rate %

Primary 3,100 608 20 Secondary 5,700 1,167 20

The survey questions asked headteachers and key staff to report on the extent of

change in different features of school activity and practice over the last three

years. This period was chosen to coincide with the years for which the analysis of

improvement in pupil attainment had taken place. While surveys inevitably tap

into respondents’ perceptions (in line with the qualitative interviews reported in

the case study sections of the Interim Report) we also have a baseline of the

initial level of attainment for a school to relate to perceptions of change in the

quantitative analyses and these results are described in detail in Chapter 4.

This report is divided into four main chapters that focus on different aspects of

leadership and improvement.

1. Leadership in improving and effective schools: Broadening participation

and distributing leadership

2. Changing school cultures

3. Changing curriculum, pedagogy and assessment

4. Leadership characteristics and practices within schools with different

effectiveness and improvement profiles

1.2 Changing Structures

1.2.1 (Re)Structuring the organization: strengthening internal review,

facilitating work

More than half of primary heads (N=204, 54%) reported “a lot” or “very

significant” change in practice relating to improving internal review procedures

during the last three years. By contrast, more substantial change in this area was

reported by secondary heads. The majority of secondary heads reported “a lot” or

“very significant” change (N=251, 71%) in improving internal review procedures,

with almost a third who felt that the amount of change in practice in their schools

was “very significant” (N=105, 30%) over the past three years (the equivalent

was only N=43, 11% for primary heads, Table 1.5). In the primary sample heads

from high disadvantage schools were more likely to report a lot of change in

5

leadership practice relating to this area4 (Table 1.6). However, this was not the

case for secondary schools where responses did not differ by level of school

disadvantage.

Table 1.5: Headteacher responses to “To what extent do you believe your actions

have changed in relation to improving internal review procedures”

The extent to which headteachers believed their actions had changed in relation to improving internal review procedures

Sector Not at

all Very little

Little Partially A lot Very

significantly Total

Primary 9

(2.4%) 18

(4.8%) 20

(5.3%) 126

(33.4%) 161

(42.7%) 43

(11.4%) 377

(100.0%)

Secondary 11

(3.1%) 13

(3.7%) 20

(5.6%) 59

(16.7%) 146

(41.2%) 105

(29.7%) 354

(100.0%)

Total 20

(2.7%) 31

(4.2%) 40

(5.5%) 185

(25.3%) 307

(42.0%) 148

(20.2%) 731

(100.0%)

Table 1.6: Primary headteacher responses to “To what extent do you believe your

actions have changed in relation to improving internal review procedures” by

school FSM band

The extent to which headteachers believed their actions had changed in relation to improving internal review procedures School

FSM Band Not at all / Very

little Little Partially

A lot / Very

significantly Total

FSM 1 and 2

17 (7.3%)

7 (3.0%)

91 (38.9%)

119 (50.9%)

234 (100.0%)

FSM 3 and 4

10 (7.1%)

11 (7.8%)

35 (24.8%)

85 (60.3%)

141 (100.0%)

Total 27

(7.2%) 18

(4.8%) 126

(33.6%) 204

(54.4%) 375

(100.0%)

A greater degree of change in practice was reported by secondary than primary

heads in terms of structuring the organisation to facilitate work. More than half

(N=202, 58%) reported “a lot” or “very significant” change in practice, with one

in five (N=69, 20%) indicating their leadership practice in this areas had changed

“very significantly”. A somewhat lower proportion of primary heads (N=175,

47%) reported “a lot” or “very significant” change as can be seen in Table 1.7.

School disadvantage, however, was not related to the extent of reported change

in leadership practice in this area.

4 χ²=10.86, df=3, p<0.05

6


have changed in relation to structuring the organisation to facilitate work” by

sector

The extent to which headteachers believed their actions had changed in relation to structuring the organisation to facilitate work

Sector Not at

all Very little


significantly Total

Primary 14

(3.8%) 29

(7.8%) 35

(9.4%) 120

(32.2%) 124

(33.2%) 51

(13.7%) 373

(100.0%)

Secondary 20

(5.7%) 20

(5.7%) 19

(5.4%) 89

(25.4%) 133

(38.0%) 69

(19.7%) 350

(100.0%)

Total 34

(4.7%) 49

(6.8%) 54

(7.5%) 209

(28.9%) 257

(35.5%) 120

(16.6%) 723

(100.0%)

For secondary heads only, weak but statistically significant negative associations

were found between heads’ years of experience in their current schools and the

extent of reported change in relation to the two items on redesigning the

organisation. Those with more experience tended to report less change in practice

in their schools over the last three years. In particular:

i) 83% (N=75)of secondary heads with less than three years’ experience

reported a substantial amount of change in practice relating to improving

internal review procedures in their schools over the last three years,

whereas 60% (N=18) of those with more than 16 years’ experience did

so5 (Table 1.8)

ii) 68% of less experienced heads (0-3 years) reported a lot of change in

practice in relation to structuring the organisation to facilitate work; by

contrast, less than half (N=13, 43%) of their more experienced peers

(16+ years) reported such extent of change6 (Table 1.9)

5 Gamma=-0.23, p<0.05 6 Gamma=-0.19, p<0.05

7

Table 1.8: Secondary headteacher responses to “To what extent do you believe

your actions have changed in relation to improving internal review procedures”

by heads’ years of experience

The extent to which headteachers believed their actions had changed in relation to improving internal review procedures

Years of experience

as headteacher

Not at all

Very little Little Partially A lot Very

significantly Total

0-3 years 4

(4.3%) 4

(4.3%) 1

(1.1%) 10

(10.6%) 41

(43.6%) 34

(36.2%) 94

(100.0%)

4-7 years 1

(1.4%) 1

(1.4%) 5

(6.8%) 10

(13.5%) 28

(37.8%) 29

(39.2%) 97

(100.0%)

8-15 years 2

(2.9%) 1

(1.5%) 6

(8.8%) 13

(19.1%) 29

(42.6%) 17

(25.0%) 68

(100.0%)

16+ years 2

(6.7%) 3

(10.0%) 2

(6.7%) 5

(16.7%) 15

(50.0%) 3

(10.0%) 30

(100.0%)

Total 9

(3.4%) 9

(3.4%) 14

(5.3%) 38

(14.3%) 113

(42.5%) 83

(31.2%) 266

(100.0%)


your actions have changed in relation to structuring the organisation to facilitate

work” by heads’ years of experience

The extent to which headteachers believed their actions had changed in relation to structuring the organisation to facilitate work

Years of experience

as headteacher

Not at all

Very little


significantly Total

0-3 years 4

(4.4%) 3

(3.3%) 3

(3.3%) 19

(21.1%) 40

(44.4%) 21

(23.3%) 90

(100.0%)

4-7 years 2

(2.7%) 2

(2.7%) 8

(10.8%) 20

(27.0%) 25

(33.8%) 17

(23.0%) 74

(100.0%)

8-15 years 5

(7.4%) 4

(5.9%) 3

(4.4%) 15

(22.1%) 24

(35.3%) 17

(25.0%) 68

(100.0%)

16+ years 5

(16.7%) 1

(3.3%) 2

(6.7%) 9

(30.0%) 11

(36.7%) 2

(6.7%) 30

(100.0%)

Total 16

(6.1%) 10

(3.8%) 16

(6.1%) 63

(24.0%) 100

(38.2%) 57

(21.8%) 262

(100.0%)

Almost eight out of ten key staff agreed moderately/strongly that the

headteacher had improved the internal review procedures of their school over the

last three years. A greater degree of agreement was reported by primary

(N=506, 84%) than secondary key staff (N=881, 76%) and this difference was

statistically significant7.

7 χ²=21.1, df=3, p<0.001

8

The degree of agreement to this statement was not found to be related to years

of experience of key staff or the level of school disadvantage.

Similarly, a greater degree of agreement was reported by primary key staff

compared to those of secondary key staff concerning the structuring the

organization to facilitate work. Close to 94% of primary key stage managers

agreed moderately or strongly to the above statement, with almost a third

agreeing strongly. In all, 81% of secondary heads of departments agreed

moderately/strongly to it; but interestingly half of them reporting a strong

agreement compared with a third of primary key staff. This difference was

statistically significant8. It suggests that in secondary schools where

organisational restructuring occurred it was more likely to be deep seated (a half

versus a third showing strong agreement in the two sectors).

1.2.2 School improvement: widening participation in decision making

Over half of primary heads (N=192, 51%) reported “a lot” of change in their

response to the question on the extent that they had increased their actions

“helping clarify the reasons for their schools’ improvement initiatives" over the

past three years, whereas less than half of secondary heads (N=151, 42%) did

so. In only a small minority of cases the extent of change was identified as ‘very

significant’ in this area (here the proportions for primary and secondary heads

were similar at 14% and 16% respectively) (Table 1.10).

8 χ²=54.46, df=3, p<0.001

9

Table 1.10: Headteacher responses indicating a high degree of change in

widening participation in decision making over the past three years

Question Sector Not at

all Very little


significantly Total

Primary 17

(4.5%) 22

(5.8%) 22

(5.8%) 70

(18.6%) 192

(50.9%) 54

(14.3%) 377

(100.0%)

Helping clarify the reasons for our school’s improvement initiatives

Secondary 21

(5.8%) 32

(8.9%) 38

(10.5%) 63

(17.5%) 151

(41.8%) 56

(15.5%) 361

(100.0%)

Primary 20

(5.3%) 34

(9.0%) 34

(9.0%) 96

(25.4%) 143

(37.8%) 51

(13.5%) 378

(100.0%)

Ensuring wide participation in decisions about school improvement

Secondary 20

(5.6%) 32

(9.0%) 32

(9.0%) 113

(31.8%) 128

(36.1%) 30

(8.5%) 355

(100.0%)

Primary 4

(1.1%) 12

(3.2%) 39

(10.3%) 142

(37.6%) 153

(40.5%) 28

(7.4%) 378

(100.0%)

Increasing dialogue about school improvement between pupils and adults

Secondary 12

(3.4%) 11

(3.1%) 42

(11.9%) 134

(38.0%) 114

(32.3%) 40

(11.3%) 353

(100.0%)

Somewhat more primary than secondary heads felt that “a lot” or “ very

significant” change had occurred over the past three years in their leadership

practice in relation to widening participation in decisions about school

improvement (Primary: N=143, 38%; Secondary: N=128, 36% reported “a lot”,

while N=51, 14% primary and N=30, 9% reported “very significant” change in

widening participation). (Table 1.9).

A similar pattern was found in relation to the extent of reported change in

leadership practice in increasing dialogue about school improvement between

pupils and adults. In total, 48% (N=181) of primary heads and 44% (N=154) of

secondary heads reported “a lot” or “very significant” change in this area, in

contrast to only 4% (N=16) of primary heads (Table 1.9) and 7% (N=23) of

secondary heads who reported “not at all” or “very little” change.

More than 90% of key staff agreed moderately/strongly that their headteacher

helped clarify the reasons for their school’s improvement initiatives and primary

key staff (N=457, 75%) were more likely to agree strongly than secondary key

staff (N=698, 60%) to this item. This difference was statistically significant9.

9 χ²=48.6, df=5, p<0.001

10

The results for those survey items described above did not differ by years of

experience of key staff, but there were differences related to school

disadvantage. Staff from highly disadvantaged schools (FSM Band 4) were the

most likely to agree strongly (N=202, 73%) that their headteacher “helps clarify

reasons for their school’s improvement initiatives” and staff from the least

disadvantaged schools were the least likely to say so (N=351, 61%)10 (Table

1.11).

Table 1.11: Key staff responses to “To what extent do you agree that the

headteacher in your school helps clarify the reasons for our school’s

improvement initiatives” by FSM band

School FSM Band

Disagree strongly

Disagree moderately

Disagree slightly

Agree slightly

Agree moderately

Agree

strongly Total

1 4

(0.7%) 6

(1.0%) 11

(1.9%) 47

(8.2%) 156

(27.1%) 351

(61.0%) 575

(100.0%)

2 0

(0.0%) 6

(1.0%) 1

(0.2%) 47

(7.8%) 156

(25.9%) 392

(65.1%) 602

(100.0%)

3 0

(0.0%) 2

(0.7%) 2

(0.7%) 20

(6.6%) 81

(26.6%) 200

(65.6%) 305

(100.0%)

4 0

(0.0%) 1

(0.4%) 2

(0.7%) 7

(2.5%) 64

(23.2%) 202

(73.2%) 276

(100.0%)

Total 4

(0.2%) 15

(0.9%) 16

(0.9%) 121

(6.9%) 457

(26.0%) 1145

(65.1%) 1758

(100.0%)

A similar pattern was identified when key staff were asked whether their

headteacher ensures wide participation in decisions about school improvement.

Primary key staff were more likely (N=333, 55%) to agree moderately/strongly

than their secondary counterparts (N=433, 37%). This variation was also

statistically significant11 (Figure 1.1).

10 χ²=9.51, df=3, p<0.05 11 χ²=97.42, df=5, p<0.001

11

Figure 1.1: Differences between primary and secondary key staff perceptions of

headteacher leadership practice in relation to ensuring wide participation in

decisions about school improvement

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Primary 3% 7% 35% 55%

Secondary 12% 17% 33% 37%

Disagree strongly/moderately/slightl

Agree slightlyAgree

moderatelyAgree

strongly

Level of school disadvantage was also associated with the key staff agreement for

the above statement. In line with patterns noted for earlier items, key staff from

highly disadvantaged schools (FSM bands 3 and 4) were more likely to agree that

their headteacher ensures wide participation in decisions about school

improvement12. This difference was largely due to differences in responses

amongst key staff in secondary schools. Heads of department from highly

disadvantaged secondary schools were more likely to agree than those from less

disadvantaged schools13 (Table 1.12). However, the degree of agreement did not

differ according to years of experience of the key staff.

12 χ²=13.31, df=3, p<0.01 13 χ²=11.68, df=3,p<0.01

12


headteacher in your school ensures wide participation in decisions about school

improvement” by school FSM band

Sector School

FSM Band

Disagree strongly

Disagree moderately

Disagree slightly

Agree slightly

Agree moderately

Agree strongly

Total

FSM 1 and 2

0 (0.0%)

3 (0.8%)

6 (1.6%)

28 (7.5%)

138 (37.2%)

196 (52.8%)

371 (100.0%)

Primary FSM 3 and 4

1 (0.4%)

1 (0.4%)

6 (2.6%)

16 (7.0%)

72 (31.3%)

134 (58.3%)

230 (100.0%)

FSM 1 and 2

23 (2.9%)

35 (4.4%)

56 (7.0%)

142 (17.8%)

281 (35.2%)

262 (32.8%)

799 (100.0%)

Secondary FSM 3 and 4

7 (2.0%)

4 (1.1%)

17 (4.9%)

54 (15.5%)

101 (29.0%)

165 (47.4%)

348 (100.0%)

When key staff were asked whether the headteacher increases dialogue about

school improvement between pupils and adults, 78% of primary key stage

managers agreed moderately/strongly compared with 69% of secondary heads of

departments14. Neither school disadvantage nor staff years of experience were

associated with degree of agreement for this aspect of headteacher leadership.

Key staff were asked about the extent to which the headteacher in their school

“engages parents in the school’s improvement efforts”. Proportionally more key

stage managers from primary schools (N=487, 81%) were likely to agree

moderately/strongly; with almost 41% agreeing strongly to it. By contrast,

proportionately fewer secondary heads of department agreed (N=783, 68%);

with only 28% agreeing strongly. This difference was statistically significant15

(Table 1.13). School disadvantage and years of experience of the staff were not

factors related to key staff perceptions of this aspect of headteacher leadership.

14 χ²=30.53, df=3, p<0.001 15 χ²=36.61, df=3, p<0.001

13


headteacher in your school engages parents in the school’s improvement efforts”

by sector

Sector Disagree strongly

Disagree moderately

Disagree slightly

Agree slightly

Agree moderately

Agree strongly

Total

Primary 0

(0.0%) 4

(0.7%) 20

(3.3%) 91

(15.1%) 242

(40.2%) 245

(40.7%) 602

(100.0%)

Secondary 4

(0.3%) 25

(2.2%) 75

(6.5%) 268

(23.2%) 456

(39.5%) 327

(28.3%) 1155

(100.0%)

Total 4

(0.2%) 29

(1.7%) 95

(5.4%) 359

(20.4%) 698

(39.7%) 572

(32.6%) 1757

(100.0%)

1.3 Widening participation: Differences related to Heads’

Years of Experience In School

1.3.1 Clarifying reasons

There were several differences identified in heads’ responses to the survey items

that related to their length of experience as a head in the current school for the

secondary sample. These included responses to the item on changes in the

emphasis they gave to ‘helping clarify the reasons for their schools’ improvement

initiatives’ 16 (p<0.05) and ‘ensuring wide participation in decisions about school

improvement’17 (p<0.05). We found that more experienced heads tended to

report less change in their emphasis on these two areas over last three years

(Figure 1.2 and Figure 1.3). This activity received more attention from less

experienced heads however. Experienced heads may have effected more change

earlier in their time in the school, and, having achieved improvements, may have

been more likely to seek to embed the changes made and perhaps focus on other

areas of activity.

From our survey data it appears that an emphasis on clarifying the reasons for

school improvement initiatives and on ensuring wide participation in decision

making are particularly important activities for heads in the early phases of a new

headship. This may be linked with setting new directions to effect rapid and

positive change in pupil outcomes.

16 χ²=21.03, df=9, p<0.05; Gamma=-0.30, p<0.001 17 χ²=19.70, df=9, p<0.05; Gamma=-0.27, p<0.001

14

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0-3 years 4-7 years 8-15 years 16+years

A lot/ Verysignif icantly

Partially

Little

Not at all/Very little

(N=95) (N=31)(N=69)(N=76)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%



Partially

Little


(N=95) (N=30)(N=68)(N=74)

Figure 1.2: Secondary heads’ experience in school and the extent of reported

change in helping clarify the reasons for their schools’ improvement initiatives


change in ensuring wide participation in decisions about school improvement

1.4 Engaging Parents

In total 44% (N=166) of primary heads and 42% (N=149) of secondary heads

felt that the actions they had taken to engage parents in their schools’

15

improvement had changed “partially” over the past three years, while a

substantial minority reported “a lot” or “very significant” change in this area

(35% of Primary, 28% of secondary heads). For the primary sample only, a weak

but statistically significant negative association was found between level of school

disadvantage and the extent of reported change in engaging parents in their

improvement efforts. This indicates that heads in low disadvantage schools (FSM

1 and 2) in our sample were more likely to report positive change in the extent of

parental engagement over the last three years than heads in schools serving

more disadvantaged (FSM 3 and 4) intakes (p<0.05).18 (Table 1.14).

Table 1.14: Primary key staff responses to “To what extent do you agree that the

headteacher in your school engages parents in the school’s improvement efforts”

by school FSM band

School FSM Band

Disagree strongly

Disagree moderately

Disagree slightly

Agree slightly

Agree moderately

Agree strongly

Total

FSM 1 and 2

0 (0.0%)

1 (0.3%)

11 (3.0%)

59 (15.9%)

141 (38.0%)

159 (42.9%)

371 (100.0%)

FSM 3 and 4

0 (0.0%)

3 (1.3%)

9 (3.9%)

32 (14.0%)

100 (43.9%)

84 (36.8%)

228 (100.0%)

Total 0

(0.0%) 4

(0.7%) 20

(3.3%) 91

(15.2%) 241

(40.2%) 243

(40.6%) 599

(100.0%)

1.4.1 Headteachers’ years of experience in school

For the primary sample less experienced heads reported more change in the last

three years in relation to all the four items relating to school improvement. In

particular:

i) The only moderate, statistically highly significant negative association was

found between heads’ length of service in their current schools and the

extent of reported change in relation to helping clarify the reason for their

schools’ improvement19. Eighty per cent of the less experienced heads

(N=56), compared to 51% of the most experienced heads (N=25),

reported a lot of change in leadership practice in their schools;

ii) There was a marked difference in heads’ responses to the extent of

change in engaging parents in the school’s improvement efforts20 (Figure

1.4). Half of the heads (N=36, 51%) with no more than three years’

18 Gamma=-0.18, p<0.05 19 χ²=21.36, df=3, p<0.05; Gamma=-0.32, p<0.001 20 χ²=21.36, df=3, p<0.05; Gamma=-0.32, p<0.001

16

experience in their schools reported a substantial amount of change in

practice in this area, in contrast to only 22% (N=11) of those who had

served their schools for 16 years or more.

Figure 1.4: Primary heads’ experience in school and the extent of reported

change in engaging parents in the school’s improvement efforts

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%



Partially

Little


(N=71) (N=49)(N=74)(N=64)

1.5 Working With Other Schools

1.5.1 Differences by sector and socio-economic context

Compared to primary heads (N=105, 28%), a relatively greater proportion of

secondary heads (N=125, 35%) reported “a lot” of change in this area (working

with other schools) of leadership practice over the last three years. However, only

a few heads reported “very significant” change in the extent to which they were

now working in collaboration with other schools and this was more often reported

by secondary heads (N=65, 18%) than their primary peers (N=50, 13%).

17

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%



Partially

Little


(N=69) (N=49)(N=73)(N=64)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%



Partially

Little


(N=96) (N=31)(N=69)(N=75)


change in working collaboratively with the Governing Body


change in working collaboratively with the Governing Body

In contrast to headteachers’ reports, key staff perceptions of their schools’ levels

of collaboration with other schools tended to be rather more favourable (Table

1.15). A greater proportion of primary key stage managers agreed strongly that

their headteacher works in collaboration with other schools (N=339, 56%) than

their secondary peers (N=525, 46%). However, a somewhat higher proportion of

18

secondary heads of department (N=402, 35%) agreed moderately to the above

statement than their primary peers (N=193, 32%).


headteacher in your school works in collaboration with other schools” by sector


Disagree moderately

Disagree slightly

Agree slightly

Agree moderately

Agree strongly

Total

Primary 2

(0.3%) 1

(0.2%) 5

(0.8%) 65

(10.7%) 193

(31.9%) 339

(56.0%) 605

(100.0%)

Secondary 4

(0.3%) 11

(1.0%) 39

(3.4%) 162

(14.2%) 402

(35.2%) 525

(45.9%) 1143

(100.0%)

Total 6

(0.3%) 12

(0.7%) 44

(2.5%) 227

(13.0%) 595

(34.0%) 864

(49.4%) 1748

(100.0%)

Key staff from highly disadvantaged secondary schools (N=294, 85%) were more

likely to agree strongly compared to their counterparts in less disadvantaged

contexts (N=624, 79%), that their head worked collaboratively with other schools

(p<0.05). These findings suggest that cross school collaboration may have been a

more important strategy for improvement in disadvantaged contexts, especially in

the secondary sector 21 (Table 1.16).

Table 1.16: Secondary key staff responses to “To what extent do you agree that

the headteacher in your school works in collaboration with other schools” by

school FSM band

School FSM Band

Disagree strongly

Disagree moderately

Disagree slightly

Agree slightly

Agree moderately

Agree strongly

Total

FSM 1 and 2

3 (0.4%)

10 (1.3%)

34 (4.3%)

116 (14.7%)

290 (36.8%)

334 (42.4%)

787 (100.0%)

FSM 3 and 4

1 (0.3%)

1 (0.3%)

5 (1.4%)

44 (12.8%)

112 (32.5%)

182 (52.8%)

345 (100.0%)

1.6 Building Community Support

1.6.1 Differences by sector, socio-economic context and years of

experience in school

Headteachers’ views on the extent of change in building community support for

their school’s improvement efforts mirrored the pattern found for the item on

collaboration with other schools described above (Table 1.17). For both primary

21 χ²=9.53, df=3. p<0.05

19

and secondary heads, around one in four reported “a lot” of change, with only a

few reporting “very significant” change (Primary: N=23, 6%; Secondary: N=25,

7%). In relation to school context, primary heads in highly disadvantaged schools

were more likely to report change. This was not the case for secondary schools.

For both primary and secondary heads, those with more experience tended to

report less change in practice in their schools in this aspect over the last three

years.

Table 1.17: Headteacher responses to “To what extent do you believe your

actions have changed in relation to building community support for the school’s

improvement efforts over the past three years?” by sector

Sector Not at

all Very little


significantly Total

Primary 11

(2.9%) 37

(9.8%) 46

(12.2%) 164

(43.5%) 96

(25.5%) 23

(6.1%) 377

(100.0%)

Secondary 22

(6.2%) 39

(11.0%) 57

(16.1%) 119

(33.7%) 91

(25.8%) 25

(7.1%) 353

(100.0%)

Total 33

(4.5%) 76

(10.4%) 103

(14.1%) 283

(38.8%) 187

(25.6%) 48

(6.6%) 730

(100.0%)

Evidence of sector differences was also found when key staff were asked about

the extent to which their head emphasized building community support for the

school’s improvement efforts. A slightly larger proportion of primary staff

(N=487, 81%) than those of secondary (N=851, 74%) agreed

moderately/strongly to it (Table 1.18). Again, the school disadvantage factor was

found to be related to responses to this item. A larger proportion of staff from

school FSM bands 3 and 4 (N=465, 81%) agreed moderately/strongly that their

heads emphasised building community support than those from school FSM bands

1 and 2 (N=864, 74%). The difference was statistically significant at p<0.01

across all key staff and was also noted within both primary22 and secondary23

samples (p<0.05).

22 χ²=8.35, df=3, p<0.05 23 χ²=7.94, df=3, p<0.05

20


headteacher in your school builds community support for the school’s

improvement efforts” by sector

The extent to which key staff agreed that the headteacher builds community support for the school’s improvement efforts


Disagree moderately

Disagree slightly

Agree slightly

Agree moderately

Agree

strongly Total

Primary 1

(0.2%) 3

(0.5%) 17

(2.8%) 93

(15.5%) 235

(39.1%) 252

(41.9%) 601

(100.0%)

Secondary 8

(0.7%) 20

(1.7%) 56

(4.9%) 217

(18.8%) 445

(38.6%) 406

(35.2%) 1152

(100.0%)

Total 9

(0.5%) 23

(1.3%) 73

(4.2%) 310

(17.7%) 680

(38.8%) 658

(37.5%) 1753

(100.0%)

1.7 Working With The Local Authority

1.7.1 Difference by sector and socio-economic context

One in five primary heads (N=76, 20%) reported “not at all” or “very little”

change over the last three years in the extent of working collaboratively with the

Local Authority (LA), with slightly over a third indicating “a lot” or “very

significant” change in this area (N=129, 35%) (Table 1.19). When comparing the

responses by FSM band, the evidence suggests that working collaboratively with

the LA has been a relatively more important factor emphasised by disadvantaged

primary schools that had improved. However, this does not seem to be the case

for secondary schools were there was little difference in the extent of LA

involvement reported. In interpreting this we noted that many secondaries had

become specialist schools during the last three years. At least one in four (N=97,

27%) felt that there was “not at all” or “very little” change in their collaboration

with the LA whereas almost a third (N=115, 32%) reported “a lot” or “very

significant” change over the last three years.

21

Table 1.19: Headteacher responses to “To what extent do you believe that your

leadership practice and actions have changed in relation to working

collaboratively with the Local Authority (LA)” by sector

The extent to which headteachers believed that their actions had changed in relation to working collaboratively with the LA

Sector Not at

all Very little


significantly Total

Primary 30

(8.0%) 46

(12.3%) 66

(17.7%) 102

(27.3%) 85

(22.8%) 44

(11.8%) 373

(100.0%)

Secondary 37

(10.3%) 60

(16.7%) 54

(15.0%) 94

(26.1%) 70

(19.4%) 45

(12.5%) 360

(100.0%)

Total 67

(9.1%) 106

(14.5%) 120

(16.4%) 196

(26.7%) 155

(21.1%) 89

(12.1%) 733

(100.0%)

When key staff were asked to indicate their agreement as to whether the

headteacher in their school works collaboratively with the Local Authority a far

greater level of agreement was reported overall. Just over 90% agreed

moderately or strongly to it (N=1,577); out of which 63% agreed strongly to it

(N=1,093). Higher proportions of primary key staff agreed moderately/strongly

than those from the secondary sample. In addition, primary key stage managers

(N= 434, 72%) were more like to give strong agreement to this item than their

peers in secondary schools (N=659, 59%)24.

Neither length of key staff experience nor the school disadvantage factor was

related to perceptions of this aspect of headteacher leadership.

1.8 Integrating School Policies With National Policy

Agendas

1.8.1 Differences by sector and socio-economic context

Variations were also found in responses to the question about the extent of

change in priorities relating to the National Government’s policy agenda, with

more primary heads (N=141, 39%) describing the amount of change in the past

three years as “a lot” or “very significant” and a much lower proportion (N=50,

13%) who reported “not at all” or “very little” change. At the secondary level,

more change was reported by heads of highly disadvantaged schools (Table

1.20). In common with the primary heads, over half of secondary heads (N=53,

24 χ²=38.86, df=5, p<0.001

22

52%) felt that their leadership practice in relation to integrating school priorities

with the National Government’s policy agenda had changed “a lot” or “very

significantly” over the past three years whereas a much lower proportion (16%,

N=56) reported “not at all” or “very little” change. For heads in low disadvantage

schools (FSM 1 and 2) only 30% (N=76) reported a lot or very significant change

in this aspect.


your leadership practice and actions have changed in relation to integrating

school priorities with the National Government’s policy agenda?”

School FSM Band

Not at all / Very little

Little Partially A lot / Very

significantly Total

FSM 1 and 2 42

(16.5%) 44

(17.3%) 92

(36.2%) 76

(29.9%) 254

(100.0%)

FSM 3 and 4 14

(13.7%) 7

(6.9%) 28

(27.5%) 53

(52.0%) 102

(100.0%)

Total 56

(15.7%) 51

(14.3%) 120

(33.7%) 129

(36.2%) 356

(100.0%)

A far greater number of key staff agreed moderately/strongly that their

headteacher integrates school priorities with the National Government’s policy

agenda (N=1,612, 92%). Variations were also found within the two sectors and

between schools in different socio-economic settings. Primary key stage

managers (N=399, 66%) were more likely to agree moderately/strongly than

secondary heads of departments (N=667, 58%)25. These responses also varied

based on the FSM bands of the schools. Those from FSM band 1 schools (N=298,

53%) were the least likely and key staff from schools in FSM band 4 (N=183,

66%) were the most likely to agree moderately/strongly to above statement26

(Table 1.21).

25 χ²=16.56, df=5, p<0.01 26 χ²=34.44, df=15, p<0.01

23


headteacher in your school integrates school priorities with the National

Government’s policy agenda” by FSM band

The extent to which key staff agreed that their headteacher integrates school priorities with the National Government’s policy agenda

FSM band Disagree

strongly Disagree

moderately Disagree slightly

Agree slightly

Agree moderately

Agree

strongly Total

1 1

(0.2%) 3

(0.5%) 5

(0.9%) 55

(9.7%) 204

(36.0%) 298

(52.7%) 566

(100.0%)

2 1

(0.2%) 0

(0.0%) 3

(0.5%) 34

(5.7%) 176

(29.5%) 383

(64.1%) 597

(100.0%)

3 1

(0.3%) 1

(0.3%) 1

(0.3%) 21

(7.0%) 81

(27.1%) 194

(64.9%) 299

(100.0%)

4 0

(0.0%) 0

(0.0%) 3

(1.1%) 9

(3.2%) 81

(29.2%) 183

(66.4%) 276

(100.0%)

Total 3

(0.2%) 4

(0.2%) 12

(0.7%) 119

(6.8%) 542

(31.2%) 1058

(60.9%) 1738

(100.0%)

The results suggest that integration of schools’ priorities with the National

Government Policy agenda is perceived to have been a major area of change by

key staff, especially at the secondary level, whereas this is less evident for

headteachers.

1.9 Working With The Governing Body

1.9.1 Differences by sector

In both sectors there were variations in heads’ reports on the extent of change in

the extent to which they worked collaboratively with the Governing Body. More

primary (N=209, 56%) than secondary heads (N=174, 48%) reported ‘some or a

lot of change’ in practice over the last three years. In secondary schools one in

five (N=77, 21%) reported “not at all” or “very little” change whereas

proportionately fewer primary heads reported this (N=61, 16%).

A substantial amount of agreement was noted when (N=1,665, 95%) key staff

were asked whether the headteacher in their school works collaboratively with

the Governing body. Nearly 75% agreed strongly to it with 21% agreeing

moderately. A slight sector difference was evident here with higher proportions of

primary key staff agreeing strongly to it (N=498, 82%) compared to less number

24

of those from secondary schools to say so (N=805, 71%)27. No variation was

noted based on staff’s length of experience or school disadvantage factor.

1.10 Working Collaboratively With The Senior Leadership/

Management Team And Other Staff

For both primary and secondary heads a large amount of change in their actions

was reported for the item related to working collaboratively with their Senior

Management Team (SMT) or Senior Leadership Team (SLT) over the last three

years. Almost one in three (N=113, 31%) of the secondary heads felt that change

in this area was “very significant”, compared with a slightly lower figure of nearly

one in four of the primary heads (N=88, 23%). In addition “a lot” of change was

reported by 39% (N=145) of primary heads and 21% (N=77) of secondary heads

(Table 1.22).

Table 1.22: Headteacher responses indicating degree of change in working with

the SMT/SLT


all Very little


significantly Total

Primary 18

(4.8%) 31

(8.2%) 23

(6.1%) 71

(18.9%) 145

(38.6%) 88

(23.4%) 376

(100.0%) Working collaboratively with the SMT/SLT Secondary

45 (12.5%)

29 (8.0%)

33 (9.1%)

64 (17.7%)

77 (21.3%)

113 (31.3%)

361 (100.0%)

Primary 25

(6.6%) 32

(8.5%) 49

(13.0%) 96

(25.4%) 140

(37.0%) 36

(9.5%) 378

(100.0%) Encouraging collaborative work among staff Secondary

27 (7.6%)

30 (8.5%)

28 (7.9%)

80 (22.6%)

157 (44.4%)

32 (9.0%)

354 (100.0%)

A similar proportion of primary (N=96, 25%) and secondary heads (N=80, 23%)

reported that their actions had changed “partially” in relation to collaboration with

other staff. However, almost half of secondary heads (N=157, 44%), compared

to over a third of primary heads (N=140, 37%), reported “a lot” of change in

leadership practice in working with the SMT over the last three years (Table

1.22).

In the primary sample there was greater variation in responses concerning extent

of change in collaborative working with the SLT. Less change was reported for

27 χ²=31.16, df=4, p<0.001

25

high disadvantage schools28 (Table 1.23). Twenty-three percent of primary heads

(N=32) leading FSM 3 and 4 schools, compared to 16% of their peers in FSM 1

and 2 schools (N=38), reported “not at all”, “very little” or “little” change in

leadership practice in relation to working collaboratively with their SMT/SLT.

However, more change was also reported by other primary heads (65% in FSM 3

and 4 compared with 61% in FSM 1 and 2).

Table 1.23: Primary headteacher responses to “To what extent do you believe

your leadership practice and actions have changed in relation to working

collaboratively with the SMT/SLT?” by school FSM band

School FSM Band


Little Partially A lot / Very

significantly Total

FSM 1 and 2 26

(11.2%) 12

(5.2%) 53

(22.7%) 142

(60.9%) 233

(100.0%)

FSM 3 and 4 22

(15.6%) 10

(7.1%) 18

(12.8%) 91

(64.5%) 141

(100.0%)

Total 48

(12.8%) 22

(5.9%) 71

(19.0%) 233

(62.3%) 374

(100.0%)

1.10.1 Differences by headteacher experience in school

There is a marked difference in the extent of reported change for a range of

survey items between less experienced and more experienced heads in the

sample, particularly in the primary sector. In both sectors, heads’ length of

service in their current schools is related to the extent of reported change in

terms of working collaboratively with the Governing Body, the Local Authority and

the SMT/SLT, and encouraging collaborative work amongst staff (Table 1.24). In

all cases, more experienced heads reported less change in leadership practice in

their schools over the last three years. Moderate, statistically highly significant

negative associations were found between heads’ experience in their current

school and the degree of reported change in relation to working collaboratively

with the Governing Body for both the primary29 and the secondary sample30. This

points to the priority given by heads during their first years as head of a school in

taking actions that promote wider participation and collaboration in leadership

practice in our sample of improving and effective schools.

28 Gamma=-0.17, p<0.05 29 Gamma=-0.40, p<0.001 30 Gamma=-0.31, p<0.001

26

Table 1.24: Headteacher responses indicating the degree of change in

collaborative practice by years of experience as a headteacher

Question Years of

experience


Little Partially A lot / Very significantly

Total

0-3 years 10

(8.0%) 8

(6.4%) 24

(19.2%) 83

(66.4%) 125

(100.0%)

4-7 years 30

(17.2%) 18

(10.3%) 42

(24.1%) 84

(45.0%) 174

(100.0%)

8-15 years 54

(22.1%) 35

(14.3%) 82

(33.6%) 73

(29.9%) 244

(100.0%)

Working collaboratively with the Governing Body

16 years+ 28

(24.3%) 26

(22.6%) 35

(30.4%) 31

(27.0%) 120

(100.0%)

0-3 years 13

(10.4%) 10

(8.0%) 39

(31.2%) 63

(50.4%) 125

(100.0%)

4-7 years 33

(19.0%) 27

(15.5%) 47

(27.0%) 67

(38.5%) 174

(100.0%)

8-15 years 81

(33.2%) 41

(16.8%) 61

(25.0%) 61

(25.0%) 244

(100.0%)

Working collaboratively with the Local Authority (LA)

16 years+ 31

(27.2%) 25

(21.9%) 31

(27.2%) 27

(23.7%) 114

(100.0%)

0-3 years 11

(8.7%) 10

(7.9%) 15

(11.9%) 90

(71.4%) 126

(100.0%)

4-7 years 23

(13.2%) 11

(6.3%) 31

(17.8%) 107

(61.5%) 172

(100.0%)

8-15 years 45

(18.4%) 12

(4.9%) 49

(20.0%) 139

(56.7%) 245

(100.0%)

Working collaboratively with the SMT/SLT

16 years+ 27

(23.5%) 16

(13.9%) 22

(19.1%) 50

(43.5%) 115

(100.0%)

0-3 years 9

(7.2%) 8

(6.4%) 31

(24.8%) 77

(61.6%) 125

(100.0%)

4-7 years 23

(13.2%) 17

(9.8%) 41

(23.6%) 93

(53.4%) 174

(100.0%)

8-15 years 39

(16.0%) 35

(14.3%) 53

(21.7%) 117

(48.0%) 244

(100.0%)

Encouraging

collaborative work

among staff

16 years+ 29

(25.4%) 11

(9.6%) 36

(31.6%) 38

(33.3%) 114

(100.0%)

1.11 Key Staff Perspectives on Collaborative Practice

Key staff were asked about the extent to which the headteacher works

collaboratively with the SMT/SLT, a high degree of agreement was reported by

primary (N=582, 95%) and secondary respondents (N=1,055, 92%)31 (Table

31 P<0.001

27

1.25). This pattern was similar to the ones found for external collaborations. Also,

key staff from high disadvantage schools were found to be more likely to agree

moderately/strongly32. No significant variations were found between the primary

or secondary sectors.

Table 1.25: Key staff responses to “The extent to which the headteacher works

collaboratively with SMT/SLT” by sector


Disagree moderately

Disagree slightly

Agree slightly

Agree moderately

Agree strongly

Total

Primary 0

(0.0%) 2

(0.3%) 2

(0.3%) 15

(2.5%) 104

(17.3%) 478

(79.5%) 601

(100.0%)

Secondary 8

(0.7%) 9

(0.8%) 18

(1.6%) 63

(5.5%) 226

(19.6%) 829

(71.9%) 1153

(100.0%)

Total 8

(0.5%) 11

(0.6%) 20

(1.1%) 78

(4.4%) 330

(18.8%) 1307

(74.5%) 1754

(100.0%)

When asked about the extent to which their headteacher encourages

collaborative work among staff, variations were found in the way key staff

responded to the item. Over half agreed strongly (N=983, 56%), 30% agreed

moderately (N=523) and 11% agreed slightly (N=200) (Table 1.26). There was a

large difference across sectors in the way key staff reported strong agreement.

Significantly more primary staff (N=427, 71%) compared with a smaller

proportion of secondary staff (N=556, 48%) agreed strongly that their head

encouraged collaborative work33.

Table 1.26: Key staff responses to “The extent to which the headteacher

encourages collaborative work amongst staff” by sector

The extent to which the headteacher encourages collaborative work amongst staff


Disagree moderately

Disagree slightly

Agree slightly

Agree moderately

Agree strongly

Total

Primary 1

(0.2%) 2

(0.3%) 6

(1.0%) 26

(4.3%) 142

(23.5%) 427

(70.7%) 604

(100.0%)

Secondary 3

(0.3%) 12

(1.0%) 30

(2.6%) 174

(15.1%) 381

(33.0%) 556

(48.1%) 1156

(100.0%)

Total 4

(0.2%) 14

(0.8%) 36

(2.0%) 200

(11.4%) 523

(29.7%) 983

(55.9%) 1760

(100.0%)

School disadvantage was positively related to the way staff responded to this

aspect of headteacher leadership. A greater degree of strong agreement was

32 χ²=8.14, df=3, p<0.05 33 χ²=96.14, df=5, p<0.001

28

identified by key staff from school FSM band 4 (N=163, 60%) than by their

counterparts from school FSM band 1 (N=290, 51%)34 indicating that

collaboration is an important feature for improving schools in disadvantaged

contexts.

A similar pattern of difference was found between sectors, when key staff were

asked the extent to which they agreed that their headteacher promoted

leadership development among teachers. Higher proportions of primary key staff

(N=445, 73%) than their secondary peers (N=674, 60%) agreed strongly that

their head emphasised this. However, there were no significant differences in

responses to this item related to school context measured by level of

disadvantage (school FSM band).

1.11.1 The pivotal role of SLT: redefining the senior leadership team

Overall, 54% of secondary heads thought their leadership practice had changed

very significantly or a lot during the last three years and the figure for primary

heads was higher at 63%. Over 60% of secondary but only 31% of primary heads

reported that leadership in their school was exercised ‘all the time’ by their SLT.

Turning to key staff perceptions we find that 72% of secondary and 80 per cent

of primary key staff strongly agreed that their headteacher worked collaboratively

with the SMT/SLT in their school.

1.11.2 Distribution or delegation?

Overall 38% of primary key staff felt that leadership tasks were delegated by the

headteacher or SLT in their school very significantly and another 40% said this

happened a lot. For secondaries the picture was very similar for key staff with

33% saying delegation was very significant and another 45% saying that this

happened a lot.

1.11.3 Regularity of consultation between ‘tiers’

Overall, 37% of secondary key staff felt that their headteacher ensured wide

participation in decisions about school improvement and another third (33%) felt

this happened a lot. For primary key staff the responses are notably more

positive with 55% thinking that wide participation was very significant and

another 35% that this happened a lot. This may reflect differences in school size

34 χ²=27.16, df=15, p<0.05

29

and organizational complexity between the two sectors rather than differences in

the mind sets of headteachers.

1.12 Key Findings:

i) Effective leadership relies upon an increasingly close and

collaborative relationship between headteachers and the SLT.

• Of the heads surveyed, 23% of primary headteachers and 31% of

secondary heads reported an increase in collaborative work between

heads and the SLT, over the last three years.

ii) Level of leadership experience of the headteacher has an association

with the level of change implementation to structures in the school.

• In all 80% of secondary heads with 0-3 years of experience reported

some change in internal review procedures, compared with 60% of

secondary heads with more that sixteen years of experience.

• Over two thirds (68%) of secondary heads with 0-3 years of

experience reported changes in structuring the organisation to

facilitate work, compared with 43% for secondary heads with more

than sixteen years of experience.

iii) Broadening participation in and communication about change needed

to promote improvement is a key leadership strategy

• Around one-half of all heads surveyed reported some or a lot of change

in practice in relation to working collaboratively with their governing

body, over the last three years.

iv) Changes in efforts to engage parents in school improvement were

more likely to be reported by headteachers with less experience at

their current school, and by headteachers in more disadvantaged

contexts (FSM 3 and 4 schools).

• Around a quarter of all primary and secondary heads surveyed

reported a lot, or very significant changes, in building community

support for school improvement. The group most likely to report these

changes were primary heads in FSM 3 and 4 schools.

This chapter has highlighted the survey evidence on the extent to which heads of

improving and effective schools in the research had placed emphasis on changing

organisational and decision-making structures during the last three years. It has

30

shown how the extent of change varies by sector, level of school disadvantage

and headteachers’ time in current post.

31

Chapter 2: Changing School Cultures

The analyses of the results from respondents in the surveys highlight a number of

key features which focus on leadership actions in relation to school culture. The

results suggest that changing school culture can be an important feature of

strategies to create favourable conditions for school improvement.

2.1 Providing A Sense of Purpose: Raising Expectations

2.1.1 Providing a sense of purpose

The majority of primary and secondary heads reported some or ‘a lot’ of change

in practice over the last three years in relation to giving staff a sense of overall

purpose. In all, 52% of primary heads (N=194) and 46% of secondary heads

(N=166) thought their leadership practice and actions had changed “very

significantly” or “a lot” in relation to giving staff an overall sense of purpose

during this period. In particular, 10% (N=36) of primary heads and 15% (N=54)

of secondary heads indicated “very significant” change in their leadership practice

in this aspect. In contrast, 27% of secondaries (N=98) and 25% of primaries

(N=97) felt they had made little change in terms of giving staff an overall sense

of purpose. This may reflect different perceived needs in these schools related to

attainment and improvement groups, a topic investigated in Chapter 4.

Key staff views showed some sector differences. A significantly greater proportion

of primary key staff (N=439, 72%) than secondary (N=713, 61%) agreed

strongly that they felt their headteacher gave staff an overall sense of purpose35

(Table 2.1). Moreover, higher proportions of key staff from highly disadvantaged

contexts (FSM bands 3 and 4, N=404, 70%) agreed strongly that their

headteacher showed this quality of leadership than their counterparts from less

disadvantaged schools (FSM bands 1 and 2, N=737, 63%). This difference was

statistically significant36. It is clear that staff generally had a very positive view of

the way their headteacher gave them an overall sense of purpose in both sectors,

pointing to the importance of this attribute for leadership in improving and

effective schools.

35 χ²=29.07, df=5, p<0.001 36 χ²=13.95, df=5, p<0.05

32


headteacher in your school gives staff a sense of overall purpose?”


Disagree moderately

Disagree slightly

Agree slightly

Agree moderately

Agree strongly

Total

Primary 1

(0.2%) 0

(0.0%) 6

(1.0%) 23

(3.8%) 137

(22.6%) 439

(72.4%) 606

(100.0%)

Secondary 6

(0.5%) 13

(1.1%) 23

(2.0%) 76

(6.5%) 335

(28.7%) 713

(61.1%) 1166

(100.0%)

Total 7

(0.4%) 13

(0.8%) 29

(1.6%) 99

(5.6%) 472

(26.6%) 1152

(65.0%) 1772

(100.0%)

A similar pattern was also noted within the secondary school sample. Slightly

higher proportions of heads of department from high disadvantage schools

(N=233, 67%) agreed strongly to the above statement than their counterpart

from less disadvantaged schools (N=472, 59%)37 (Table 2.2). This suggests that

this may be a particularly important attribute for successful leadership of schools

in disadvantaged areas.

Table 2.2: Secondary key staff responses to “To what extent do you agree that

the headteacher in your school gives staff a sense of overall purpose?” by school

FSM band

School FSM Band

Disagree strongly

Disagree moderately

Disagree slightly

Agree slightly

Agree moderately

Agree strongly

Total

FSM 1 and 2

5 (0.6%)

11 (1.4%)

20 (2.5%)

60 (7.4%)

238 (29.5%)

472 (58.6%)

806 (100.0%)

FSM 3 and 4

0 (0.0%)

2 (0.6%)

2 (0.6%)

16 (4.6%)

96 (27.5%)

233 (66.8%)

349 (100.0%)

Total 5

(0.4%) 13

(1.1%) 22

(1.9%) 76

(6.6%) 334

(28.9%) 705

(61.0%) 1155

(100.0%)

2.1.2 Differences by years of experience in school

For primary heads only, a moderate, statistically highly significant negative

association was found between experience and the extent of reported change in

leadership practice in giving staff a sense of overall purpose38. As Figure 2.1

shows, there was a marked difference between the extent of change reported by

less experienced heads and their more experienced peers: 73% of heads (N=51)

with less than three years’ experience in their current schools reported a

37 χ²=14.23, df=5, p<0.05 38 χ²=36.06, df=9, p<0.001; Gamma=-0.38, p<0.001

33

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%



Partially

Little


(N=70) (N=49)(N=74)(N=64)

substantial amount of change in their schools over the last three years, a

proportion that was three times the figure for more experienced (16+ years)

heads (N=13, 27%). It thus seems, perhaps not surprisingly, that in the early

stages of headship in a new school heads in our sample of highly effective/highly

improved schools gave particular attention to raising expectations and setting

directions.


change in giving staff a sense of overall purpose

2.1.3 High expectations for staff

For both primary and secondary heads, different degrees of change over the last

three years in their leadership practice were reported which related to the item on

demonstrating high expectations for staff’s work with pupils. In all, 50% of

secondary heads and 46% of primary heads thought this had changed “a lot” or

“very significantly”. In both sectors, approximately a third of headteachers

(Primary: N=124, 33%; Secondary: N=116, 32%) reported “a lot” of change in

this area. However, nearly another third reported “not at all” or a fairly small

amount of change (“very little” or “little”) in practice (Primary: N=106, 29%;

Secondary: N=115, 31%). Overall 92% of key staff agreed moderately/strongly

that the headteacher in their school demonstrated high expectations for staff’s

work with pupils. The proportion of key staff agreeing strongly was slightly higher

within the primary (N=456, 75%) than the secondary sector (N=813, 70%) and

the difference, though small, was statistically significant (p<0.05) (Table 2.3).

These results suggest that creating a climate of high expectations was perceived

34

to be a strong feature of heads’ activity in most of this sample of improving and

effective schools.


headteacher in your school demonstrates high expectations for staff’s work with

pupils?”


Disagree moderately

Disagree slightly

Agree slightly

Agree moderately

Agree strongly

Total

Primary 1

(0.2%) 1

(0.2%) 6

(1.0%) 23

(3.8%) 119

(19.6%) 456

(75.0%) 606

(100.0%)

Secondary 8

(0.7%) 7

(0.6%) 15

(1.3%) 79

(6.8%) 245

(21.0%) 813

(69.7%) 1167

(100.0%)

Total 9

(0.5%) 8

(0.5%) 21

(1.2%) 102

(5.8%) 364

(20.5%) 1269

(71.6%) 1773

(100.0%)

There was greater variation in responses to this item by heads in the primary

sample in disadvantaged contexts. They were more likely to report a lot of very

significant change in demonstrating high expectations (49.6%, N=70) than those

in low disadvantage contexts (44.7%, N=104)39 (Table 2.4), but this was not the

case in the secondary group. However, thirty-five percent of primary heads in

FSM 3 and 4 schools (N=49), compared to 27% of those leading FSM 1 and 2

schools (N=64), reported little change (“not at all/very little” and “little”) in their

leadership practice in relation to demonstrating high expectations for staff’s work

with pupils.

Table 2.4: Primary headteacher responses to “To what extent do you believe your

leadership practice and actions have changed in relation to demonstrating high

expectations for staff’s work with pupils in the last three years?” by school FSM

band

School FSM Band

Not at all

Very Little


significantly Total

FSM 1 and 2

15 (6.4%)

20 (8.6%)

29 (12.4%)

65 (27.9%)

81 (34.8%)

23 (9.9%)

233 (100.0%)

FSM 3 and 4

17 (12.1%)

13 (9.2%)

19 (13.57%)

22 (15.6%)

43 (30.5%)

27 (19.1%)

141 (100.0%)

Total 32

(8.6%) 33

(8.8%) 48

(12.8%) 87

(23.3%) 124

(33.2%) 50

(13.4%) 374

(100.0%)

39 χ²=8.23, df=3, p<0.05

35

2.1.4 High expectations for pupil behaviour

Similar proportions of primary and secondary heads reported change in relation to

demonstrating high expectations for pupil behaviour. In both sectors, almost one

in five (Primary: N=63, 17%; Secondary: N=69, 19%) reported “very significant”

change in this area in their schools over the last three years. In addition, 28% of

primary heads and 25% of secondary heads reported “a lot” of change in

demonstrating high expectations for pupil behaviour. However, at least one in five

(Primary: N=85, 23%; Secondary: N=76, 21%) heads reported otherwise (“not

at all” or “very little”).

Heads were more likely to indicate “a lot” or “very significant” change relating to

demonstrating high expectations for pupil achievement (over half of both primary

and secondary heads reported this). “Very significant” change in this area was

more commonly reported by secondary (N=91, 25%) than primary heads (N=65,

17%) (see Appendices XVI and XVII).

Figure 2.2 shows that the vast majority of key staff agreed strongly when asked

whether the headteacher in their school demonstrated high expectations for pupil

behaviour. (N=1,498, 85%). However, a sector difference was evident here.

Close to 74% of primary key staff (N=446) compared with only 52% secondary

key staff (N=609) agreed strongly to this item and this difference was statistically

significant40 (Figure 2.2). This may reflect greater difficulties in pupil behaviour

management across the two sectors. No variations in response were found based

on staff length of experience or school disadvantage.

When asked if pupils felt safe in their school, 82% of headteachers and 84% of

key staff in primary schools strongly agreed. In contrast, 57% of secondary heads

and but only 44% of secondary key staff strongly agreed that this was the case in

their school. It is clear that pupil behaviour management is perceived to be more

problematic by key staff in secondary than those in primary schools for this

sample.

40 χ²=92.64, df=5, p<0.001; Gamma=-0.43, p<0.001

36

Figure 2.2: Differences between primary and secondary school key staff’s

perceptions in relation to demonstrating high expectations for pupil behaviour

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Primary 2% 5% 20% 74%

Secondary 9% 11% 28% 52%

Disagree strongly/moderately/slightly

Agree slightlyAgree

moderatelyAgree

strongly

2.2 Shared Professional Beliefs And Values

The item, ‘most teachers in our school share a similar set of values, beliefs and

attitudes related to teaching and learning’, can be seen as an indicator of school

culture. The survey results suggest that most heads and key staff in both sectors

had positive views about the extent to which this statement characterised their

school.

There were some sector differences however (Table 2.5). In all, 68% of primary

heads (N=259) and 67% of primary key staff (N=402) strongly agreed with this

item as a description of their school, and another 27% of primary heads (N=100)

and 27% of primary staff (N=164) agreed moderately. In contrast, for secondary

schools 47% of heads (N=170) and 45% of key staff (N=522) showed strong

agreement, with 43% of heads (N=157) and 36% of key staff (N=421) indicating

moderate agreement. This may reflect school size and the stronger role of

departmental and subject differences. These differences were statistically

significant.

37

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%



Partially

Little


(N=69) (N=49)(N=74)(N=63)

Table 2.5: Headteacher and key staff responses to “Indicate the extent to which

you agree that most tecachers in our school share a similar set of values, beliefs

and attitudes related to teaching and learning” by sector

Sector Respondents Disagree strongly

Disagree moderately

Disagree slightly

Agree slightly

Agree moderately

Agree

strongly Total

Headteachers 0

(0.0%) 1

(0.3%) 2

(0.5%) 15

(4.0%) 100

(26.5%) 259

(68.7%) 377

(100.0%) Primary

Key staff 0

(0.0%) 3

(0.5%) 6

(1.0%) 32

(5.3%) 191

(31.7%) 370

(61.5%) 602

(100.0%)

Headteachers 0

(0.0%) 3

(0.8%) 3

(0.8%) 28

(7.8%) 157

(43.5%) 170

(47.1%) 361

(100.0%) Secondary

Key staff 4

(0.3%) 16

(1.4%) 43

(3.7%) 192

(16.6%) 533

(45.9%) 372

(32.1%) 1160

(100.0%)

2.3 Developing People

2.3.1 CPD (Continuing Professional Development)

Most primary (N=226, 60%) and secondary (N=217, 60%) heads reported a

moderate or a substantial amount of change over the three year period in relation

to promoting a range of CPD experience among all staff. “Very significant” change

in practice in this area was reported by a minority of 16% of primary heads

(N=58) and a similar proportion of secondary heads (N=54, 15%). Less

experienced primary heads were more likely to report change in terms of

promoting a range of CPD experiences41 (Figure 2.3), but this was not the case

for the secondary heads.

Figure 2.3:

Primary heads’

experience in

school and the

extent of

reported change

in promoting a

range of CPD

among all staff

41 χ²=25.1, df=9, p<0.01; Gamma=-0.26, p<0.001

38

Similarly, just over half key staff agreed strongly that their headteacher promoted

a range of CPD experiences among all staff (N=921, 52%) and close to one third

agreed moderately to it (N=549, 31%).

Once again, the sector difference was evident in key staff responses concerning

the extent that the head was perceived to promote a range of CPD experiences

for staff in their school. More primary key staff (N=388, 64%) agreed that this

was the case (“very significantly”) than was the case for their secondary school

peers (N=533, 46%) (p<0.001). 42. In addition, a greater degree of strong

agreement was reported by those from high disadvantage schools (N=339, 58%)

than their counterparts from less disadvantaged schools (N=573, 49%)43 (Table

2.6).


headteacher in your school promotes a range of CPD experiences among all

staff?” by school FSM band

School FSM Band

Disagree strongly

Disagree moderately

Disagree slightly

Agree slightly

Agree moderately

Agree strongly

Total

FSM 1 and 2

6 (0.5%)

23 (2.0%)

32 (2.7%)

157 (13.5%)

374 (32.1%)

573 (49.2%)

1165 (100.0%)

FSM 3 and 4

3 (0.5%)

5 (0.9%)

13 (2.2%)

49 (8.4%)

172 (29.6%)

339 (58.3%)

581 (100.0%)

Total 9

(0.5%) 28

(1.6%) 45

(2.6%) 206

(11.8%) 546

(31.4%) 912

(52.2%) 1746

(100.0%)

Within primary schools, those key staff from low disadvantaged school contexts

(N=226, 61%) were less likely to agree strongly that their headteacher promoted

a range of CPD experiences in comparison with their peers from high

disadvantage schools (N=159, 69%) (p<0.05). This suggests that CPD may have

been used more extensively as part of an improvement strategy in high

disadvantage contexts.44 (Table 2.7).

42 χ²=68.94, df=5, p<0.001; Gamma=-0.35, p<0.001 43 χ²=18.75, df=5, p<0.01 44 χ²=9.54, df=4, p<0.05

39

Table 2.7: Primary key staff responses to “To what extent do you agree that the

headteacher in your school promotes a range of CPD experiences among all

staff?” by school FSM band

School FSM Band

Disagree strongly

Disagree moderately

Disagree slightly

Agree slightly

Agree moderately

Agree strongly

Total

FSM 1 and 2

0 (0.0%)

3 (0.8%)

3 (0.8%)

36 (9.8%)

100 (27.2%)

226 (60.8%)

368 (100.0%)

FSM 3 and 4

0 (0.0%)

1 (0.4%)

1 (0.4%)

8 (3.4%)

63 (27.2%)

159 (68.5%)

232 (100.0%)

Total 0

(0.0%) 4

(0.7%) 4

(0.7%) 44

(7.3%) 163

(27.2%) 421

(70.2%) 600

(100.0%)

2.3.2 Developing care and trust

In both sectors there were variations in the extent of reported change in

leadership practice in terms of developing an atmosphere of caring and trust.

Although one in four (Primary: N=96, 26%; Secondary: N=91, 25%) reported

“not at all” or “very little” change in this area in their schools, another quarter of

heads (Primary: N=96, 26%; Secondary: N=101, 28%) felt that their leadership

practice in this area had changed “a lot” over the last three years. “Very

significant” change in practice was reported by fifteen per cent of primary heads

(N=58) and 14% of secondary heads (N=51) (Appendices XVI and XVII).

When key staff were asked whether the headteacher in their school develops an

atmosphere of caring and trust, 57% agreed strongly (N=1,013) with 24%

indicating moderately strong agreement. A noticeable difference was found

between the responses of staff from both sectors (Figure 2.4). Primary key staff

(N=426, 71%) were significantly more likely to agree moderately/strongly than

their peers in secondary schools (N=587, 51%)45. The smaller organizational size

of primary schools may facilitate the development of such care and trust.

45 χ²=78.35, df=5, p<0.001; Gamma=-0.39, p<0.001

40

Figure 2.4: Differences between primary and secondary school key staffs’

perceptions of their headteachers’ leadership style in relation to developing an

atmosphere of caring and trust

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Primary 3% 7% 20% 71%

Secondary 9% 14% 26% 51%

Disagree strongly/modera

tely/slightlyAgree slightly

Agree moderately Agree strongly

2.3.3 Modeling professional practice

Nearly two thirds of key staff reported strong agreement when they were asked

whether their head modelled a high level of professional practice (N=1,108,

63%). A substantial number of them agreed moderately/strongly to it (N=1,522,

86%). Weak but statistically significant variations existed between primary and

secondary staff agreements; with higher numbers of primary key staff than those

of secondary schools agreeing (p<0.05)46 (Table 2.8). Taken together with

findings on the atmosphere of caring and trust noted above, these results suggest

that the professional climate of secondary and primary schools is likely to differ

also.

46 χ²=8.67, df=3, p<0.05; Gamma=-0.204, p<0.01

41


headteacher in your school models a high level of professional practice?” by

sector


Disagree moderately

Disagree slightly

Agree slightly

Agree moderately

Agree strongly

Total

Primary 4

(0.7%) 7

(1.2%) 16

(2.7%) 37

(6.1%) 144

(23.9%) 395

(65.5%) 603

(100.0%)

Secondary 15

(1.3%) 20

(1.7%) 35

(3.0%) 110

(9.5%) 270

(23.2%) 713

(61.1%) 1163

(100.0%)

Total 19

(1.1%) 27

(1.5%) 51

(2.9%) 147

(8.3%) 414

(23.4%) 1108

(62.7%) 1766

(100.0%)

Also in both sectors, one in five headteachers reported very little, if any, change

(“not at all” or “very little”) in relation to modelling a high level of professional

practice in their schools (Primary: N=78, 21%; Secondary: N=79, 22%). A

quarter of primary heads (N=97, 26%) and almost a third of secondary heads

(N=112, 31%), by contrast, reported “a lot” of change in this area over the last

three years. However, for the secondary sample, heads in high disadvantage

schools were more likely to report a substantial amount of change in leadership

practice relating to modelling a high level of professional practice47 (Table 2.9).


that your actions have changed in relation to modelling a high level of

professional practice over the past three years?” by school FSM band

School FSM Band

Not at all / Very little Little Partially A lot / Very significantly Total

FSM 1 and 2

62 (24.6%)

32 (12.7%)

62 (24.6%)

96 (38.1%)

252 (100.0%)

FSM 3 and 4

17 (16.7%)

7 (6.9%)

24 (23.5%)

54 (52.9%)

102 (100.0%)

Total 79

(22.3%) 39

(11.0%) 86

(24.3%) 150

(42.4%) 354

(100.0%)

For both the primary and the secondary sample, weak but statistically highly

significant associations were found between heads’ experience, in their current

school, and the extent of reported change on these two items relating to

developing people (Appendix II). Again, less experienced heads were more likely

47 χ²=8.11, df=3, p<0.05; Gamma=0.25, p<0.01

42

to report change in these areas in their schools over the last three years

indicating that this is an important area of focus when heads first take up post in

a school.

2.4 Discussion of Educational Issues: Differences By Sector,

Socio-Economic Context And Years Of Experience In

School

A fair degree of change in practice was reported by both primary and secondary

heads in relation to frequently discussing educational issues with staff. In both

sectors, one in three (Primary: N=124, 33%; Secondary: N=118, 33%) reported

“a lot” of change and almost a third “partial” change (Primary: N=110, 29%;

Secondary: N=102; 29%) (Table 2.10). A very similar pattern was found in

relation to the extent of reported change in practice in terms of buffering teachers

from distractions to their teaching. In both sectors “partial” and “a lot” of change

in practice in this area was reported by a third of heads.

Table 2.10: Headteacher responses indicating the degree of change in frequently

discussing educational issues with staff and buffering teachers from distractions

to their teaching over the past three years


all Very little


significantly Total

Primary 32

(8.5%) 31

(8.2%) 50

(13.3%) 110

(29.2%) 124

(32.9%) 30

(8.0%) 377

(100.0%) Frequently discussing educational issues with staff Secondary

27 (7.6%)

32 (9.1%)

44 (12.5%)

102 (28.9%)

118 (33.4%)

30 (8.5%)

353 (100.0%)

Primary 26

(6.9%) 28

(7.4%) 44

(11.7%) 125

(33.2%) 123

(32.7%) 30

(8.0%) 376

(100.0%) Buffering teachers from distractions to their teaching Secondary

30 (8.5%)

17 (4.8%)

35 (9.9%)

117 (33.1%)

119 (33.6%)

36 (10.2%)

354 (100.0%)

For the secondary sample, heads of high disadvantage school contexts were more

likely to report a substantial amount of change in these two areas relating to

managing the teaching programme (Discussing educational issues48 and buffering

teachers from distractions49). This was not the case for primary schools.

48 χ²=10.06, df=3, p<0.05; Gamma=0.27, p<0.01 49 χ²=9.4, df=3, p<0.05; Gamma=0.25, p<0.01

43

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

FSM 1&2 (0-20%) 4% 6% 15% 75%

FSM 3&4 (21%+) 2% 4% 11% 84%

Disagree strongly/moderate

lyDisagree slightly Agree slightly

Agree moderately/strong

ly

Turning to key staff, seven out of ten agreed moderately/strongly that their

headteacher frequently discussed educational issues with them (N=1,375, 78%);

with half of them reported a strong agreement (N=881, 50%). Higher proportions

of primary key stage managers (N=532, 82%) than their counterparts in

secondary schools (N=843, 73%) agreed to this statement. This association was

statistically significant50 (Table 2.11).

Table 2.11: Key staff responses indicating the extent to which the headteacher

discusses educational issues, and buffers teachers from distractions

Question Sector Disagree strongly

Disagree moderately

Disagree slightly

Agree slightly

Agree moderately

Agree strongly

Total

Primary 0

(0.0%) 6

(1.0%) 11

(1.8%) 55

(9.1%) 139

(23.0%) 393

(65.1%) 604

(100.0%) Frequently discussing educational issues with staff Secondary

16 (1.4%)

35 (3.0%)

75 (6.5%)

186 (16.1%)

355 (30.7%)

488 (42.3%)

1155 (100.0%)

Primary 5

(0.8%) 8

(1.4%) 20

(3.4%) 81

(13.7%) 212

(35.8%) 266

(44.9%) 592

(100.0%)

Buffering teachers from distractions to their teaching

Secondary 33

(2.9%) 47

(4.1%) 127

(11.1%) 229

(20.1%) 364

(31.9%) 341

(29.9%) 1141

(100.0%)

A weak but significant relationship was found between school disadvantage and

the key staff agreement that their headteacher frequently discusses educational

issues with them (Figure 2.5). Key staff in high disadvantage schools (N=481,

84%) were more likely to agree than their peers in low disadvantage schools

(N=882, 75%)51. This variation was also evident within the secondary sample

(Table 2.12).

Figure 2.5:

Differences between

key staff levels of

agreement when

asked whether the

headteacher

discusses

educational issues

with staff frequently

by school FSM band

50 χ²=57.76, df=3, p<0.001; Gamma=-0.46, p<0.001 51 χ²=15.20, df=3, p<0.01; Gamma=0.24, p<0.001

44

Table 2.12: Secondary key staff responses to the question “To what extent do

you agree that the headteacher in your school frequently discusses educational

issues with staff?” by school FSM band

School FSM Band

Disagree strongly

Disagree moderately

Disagree slightly

Agree slightly

Agree moderately

Agree strongly

Total

FSM 1 and 2

13 (1.6%)

27 (3.4%)

56 (7.0%)

141 (17.7%)

250 (31.4%)

310 (38.9%)

797 (100.0%)

FSM 3 and 4

3 (0.9%)

7 (2.0%)

18 (5.2%)

45 (13.0%)

102 (29.4%)

172 (49.6%)

347 (100.0%)

Total 16

(1.4%) 34

(3.0%) 74

(6.5%) 186

(16.3%) 352

(30.8%) 482

(42.1%) 1144

(100.0%)

In both primary52 and secondary53 sectors, heads’ experience in their current

schools was related to the extent of reported change in discussing educational

issues with staff (Table 2.13). Once again, more experienced heads reported less

change in this aspect of their practice over the last three years.

Table 2.13: Headteacher responses to the question “To what extent do you

believe your actions have changed in relation to frequently discussing

educational issues with staff over the past three years?” by years of experience

Sector Years of

experience Not at

all Very little


significantly Total

0-3 years 2

(4.3%) 1

(2.2%) 6

(13.0%) 15

(32.6%) 16

(34.8%) 6

(13.0%) 46

(100.0%)

4-7 years 5

(6.5%) 8

(10.4%) 12

(15.6%) 18

(23.4%) 27

(35.1%) 7

(9.1%) 77

(100.0%)

8-15 years 8

(6.3%) 11

(8.6%) 22

(17.2%) 34

(26.6%) 44

(34.4%) 9

(7.0%) 128

(100.0%)

Primary

16+ years 12

(15.4%) 7

(9.0%) 6

(7.7%) 31

(39.7%) 19

(24.4%) 3

(3.8%) 78

(100.0%)

0-3 years 2

(2.6%) 6

(7.8%) 6

(7.8%) 23

(29.9%) 30

(39.0%) 10

(13.0%) 77

(100.0%)

4-7 years 6

(6.1%) 5

(5.1%) 11

(11.2%) 27

(27.6%) 41

(41.8%) 8

(8.2%) 98

(100.0%)

8-15 years 11

(9.6%) 14

(12.2%) 18

(15.7%) 36

(31.3%) 30

(26.1%) 6

(5.2%) 115

(100.0%)

Secondary

16+ years 3

(10.0%) 5

(16.7%) 4

(13.3%) 7

(23.3%) 7

(23.3%) 2

(6.7%) 28

(100.0%)

52 Gamma=-0.18, p<0.05 53 Gamma=-0.22, p<0.01

45

2.5 Managing The Teaching And Learning Programme

2.5.1 Strengthening internal review: differences by sector and socio-

economic context

More than half of primary heads (N=204, 54%) reported “a lot” or “very

significant” change in practice relating to improving internal review procedures.

Nonetheless, more substantial change in this area was reported by secondary

heads. The majority of secondary heads reported “a lot” or “very significant”

change (N=251, 71%) in improving internal review procedures, with almost a

third who felt that the amount of change in practice in their schools was “very

significant” (N=105, 30%) over the past three years (Table 2.14). In the primary

sample heads from high disadvantage schools were more likely to report a lot of

change in leadership practice relating to this area54 (Table 2.15). However, this

was not the case for secondary schools. It seems that strengthening internal

review procedures has been an important feature of activity over the last 3 years

for the majority of heads, but especially those in the secondary sector, and for

heads of high disadvantage primary schools.


actions have changed in relation to improving internal review procedures?” by

sector

Sector Not at

all Very little


significantly Total

Primary 9

(2.4%) 18

(4.8%) 20

(5.3%) 126

(33.4%) 161

(42.7%) 43

(11.4%) 377

(100.0%)

Secondary 11

(3.1%) 13

(3.7%) 20

(5.6%) 59

(16.7%) 146

(41.2%) 105

(29.7%) 354

(100.0%)

Total 20

(2.7%) 31

(4.2%) 40

(5.5%) 185

(25.3%) 307

(42.0%) 148

(20.2%) 731

(100.0%)

54 χ²=10.86, df=3, p<0.05

46

Table 2.15: Primary headteacher responses to “To what extent do you believe

your actions have changed in relation to improving internal review procedures?”

by school FSM band

School FSM Band



Total

FSM 1 and 2

17 (7.3%)

7 (3.0%)

91 (38.9%)

119 (50.9%)

234 (100.0%)

FSM 3 and 4

10 (7.1%)

11 (7.8%)

35 (24.8%)

85 (60.3%)

141 (100.0%)

Total 27

(7.2%) 18

(4.8%) 126

(33.6%) 204

(54.4%) 375

(100.0%)

Almost eight out of ten key staff agreed moderately/strongly that the

headteacher had improved the internal review procedures of their school over the

last three years. A greater degree of agreement was reported by primary

(N=506, 84%) than secondary key staff (N=881, 76%) and this difference was

statistically significant55 (Table 2.16). The degree of agreement to this statement

was not found to be related to years of experience of key staff or the level of

school disadvantage.


headteacher in your school improves internal review procedures?”


Disagree moderately

Disagree slightly

Agree slightly

Agree moderately

Agree strongly

Total

Primary 1

(0.2%) 2

(0.3%) 21

(3.5%) 70

(11.7%) 233

(38.8%) 273

(45.5%) 600

(100.0%)

Secondary 11

(1.0%) 18

(1.6%) 39

(3.4%) 204

(17.7%) 421

(36.5%) 460

(39.9%) 1153

(100.0%)

Total 12

(0.7%) 20

(1.1%) 60

(3.4%) 274

(15.6%) 754

(43.0%) 733

(41.8%) 1753

(100.0%)

2.5.2 Redesigning the organisation: differences by sector and heads’

years of experience in school

A greater degree of change in practice was reported by secondary (N=202, 58%)

than primary heads (N=175, 47%) in terms of restructuring the organisation to

facilitate work. For secondary heads, weak but statistically significantly negative

associations were found between heads’ years of experience in their current

55 χ²=21.1, df=3, p<0.001

47

schools and the extent of reported change in relation to redesigning the

organisation. Those with more experience tended to report less change in practice

in their schools over the last three years. In particular:

• Eighty percent of secondary heads with less than three years’ experience

reported a substantial amount of change in practice relating to improving

internal review procedures in their schools (N=75), whereas 60% (N=18) of

those with more than 16 years’ experience did so (Gamma=-0.23, p<0.05)

• Sixty-eight percent of less experienced heads (0-3 years) reported a lot of

change in practice in relation to structuring the organisation to facilitate work;

by contrast, less than half (N=13, 43%) of their more experienced peers (16+

years) reported such extent of change (Gamma=-0.19, p<0.05).

• Years of experience were not related to primary heads responses on these

items.

2.6 Key Findings

i) The setting of high expectations for staff and students was a central

strategy in developing the teaching and learning programmes

• One-third (33%) of all primary and secondary headteachers surveyed

reported a fair degree of change in practice in relation to discussing

educational issues with staff. Of the key staff surveyed, 82% primary

sample and 73% of the secondary sample agreed moderately or strongly

that their headteacher frequently discussed educational issues with them.

• Around one-third of the headteachers surveyed (33% primary and 32%

secondary) reported a lot of change in relation to demonstrating high

expectations for staff. In responding to a similar question, 92% of all key

staff surveyed (75% primary and 70% secondary) reported that their

headteacher demonstrated high expectations for staff work with pupils.

ii) The establishment of high achievement focussed school cultures in

which care and trust are predominant features received considerable

emphasis in the sample schools.

• Around 40% of all headteachers surveyed reported a lot or very significant

changes in relation to developing a culture of trust and caring.

• Of the key staff surveyed, overall 57% agreed strongly that their

headteachers developed a culture of care and trust in the school. However,

there were sector differences with strong agreement from 71% of primary

48

key staff, and 51% secondary key staff, suggesting that primary heads

may be more successful than their secondary counterparts in establishing

this culture of care and trust perhaps due to smaller organisational size.

iii) The headteacher in highly improved and effective schools seek to

model the professional practice for staff.

• Twenty six percent of primary headteachers and 31% of secondary

headteachers reported a change in their practice in relation to modelling a

high level of professional practice for staff. Secondary headteachers in FSM

3 and 4 schools were most likely to report a substantial amount of change

in relation to this area of practice. Key staff results corroborate

headteacher reports. Eighty-six percent of all key staff surveyed

moderately-strongly agreed that their headteacher modelled a high level

of professional practice.

49

Chapter 3: Changing Curriculum, Pedagogy And

Assessment

In this chapter we examine the extent of reported changes over the last three

years related to curriculum, pedagogy and assessment.

3.1 Curriculum And Pedagogy

The survey results provide strong evidence that headteachers and key staff of

effective schools placed a great emphasis on improving curriculum, pedagogy and

assessment, with a particular focus on the use of performance data.

3.2 Setting Goals


A similar proportion of primary (N=158, 42%) and secondary (N=149, 41%)

heads who responded to the survey reported “a lot” of change in practice in

relation to providing assistance to staff in setting short-term goals for teaching

and learning, although the category “very significant” change was somewhat

more likely to be reported by primary heads (N=50, 13%) than their secondary

peers (N=25, 7%). This was confirmed by survey data from key staff

respondents.

When asked whether the headteacher provided assistance to staff in setting

short-term goals for teaching and learning, three quarters of key staff agreed

moderately/strongly (N=1,315, 75%) and roughly one in five agreed slightly

(N=306, 17%) (Table 3.1). There was a considerable sector difference: with 50%

primary key stage managers agreeing strongly to it (N=301) but only 31% of

their secondary peers (N=358). This was a moderate and significant difference56

indicating that primary heads of effective and improving schools are particularly

likely to support goal setting as a strategy to improve teaching and learning. This

may reflect the smaller size of primaries and differences in the level of day to day

contact with headteachers as well as the important role of departments in relation

to subject teaching and social setting in secondary schools.

56 χ²=88.26, df=5, p<0.001; Gamma=-0.37, p<0.001

50


headteacher in your school provides assistance to staff in setting short-term

goals for teaching and learning?”


Disagree moderately

Disagree slightly

Agree slightly

Agree moderately

Agree strongly

Total

Primary 1

(0.2%) 8

(1.3%) 12

(2.0%) 63

(10.4%) 221

(36.3%) 301

(49.5%) 606

(100.0%)

Secondary 18

(1.6%) 41

(3.5%) 62

(5.4%) 243

(21.0%) 435

(37.6%) 358

(30.9%) 1157

(100.0%)

Total 19

(1.1%) 49

(2.8%) 74

(4.2%) 306

(17.4%) 656

(37.2%) 659

(37.4%) 1763

(100.0%)

In the secondary sample, heads from high disadvantage schools were more likely

to report change in practice in relation to assisting staff to set short-term

teaching goals, giving them individual support to improve their teaching and

encouraging them to think of learning beyond the academic curriculum (p<0.01).

A greater proportion of key staff from highly disadvantaged primary schools

(N=238, 41%) showed strong agreement to the item on goal setting than their

counterparts in low disadvantage schools (N=414, 35%, p<0.05). This was also

true for the secondary school sample. Key staff from schools in FSM band 4

(N=54, 38%) were also the most likely to agree strongly and those from school

FSM band 1 (N=108, 27%) were the least likely to agree strongly to this item

(p<0.05). This was, however, not the case for the primary heads and key staff.

These results reveal that headteachers and key staff in highly effective/improved

high disadvantage secondary schools are more likely to have given particular

emphasis to providing specific, focussed support to improve the quality of

teaching than their counterparts in low disadvantage secondary schools.

3.2.2 Differences by years of experience in school

As shown in Table 3.2, heads’ experience is significantly associated with the

degree of reported change in relation to setting short-term goals for both the

primary57 and the secondary samples58. Sixty-two percent of less experienced

secondary heads (0-3 years) (N=59) reported a lot of change in this area in

contrast to only 32% of most experienced heads (16+ years) (N=10) who did so.

For example, in the primary sample, 66% (N=46) of less experienced heads and

45% (N=22) of most experienced heads reported such change over the last three

years. Less experienced primary heads were more likely to report change in

57 χ²=18.57, df=3, p<0.05; Gamma=-0.24, p<0.01 58 χ²=23.29, df=3, p<0.01; Gamma=-0.31, p<0.001

51

terms of giving staff individual support59 and encouraging them to consider new

ideas for teaching60 (Table 3.3), but this pattern was not the case for secondary

schools. This confirms other findings in this report that more recently appointed

heads are more likely to focus upon improvements in teaching and learning than

more experienced heads, and that primary heads may exercise more direct

influence on this instance than their secondary colleagues.


leadership practice and actions have changed in relation to providing assistance

to staff in setting short-term goals for teaching and learning?” by experience

Sector Experience Not at

all Very little


significantly Total

0-3 years 0

(0.0%) 2

(4.3%) 2

(4.3%) 12

(26.1%) 23

(50.0%) 7

(15.2%) 46

(100.0%)

4-7 years 0

(0.0%) 6

(8.0%) 3

(3.9%) 17

(22.7%) 33

(44.0%) 16

(21.3%) 75

(100.0%)

8-15 years 5

(3.9%) 8

(6.3%) 9

(7.0%) 39

(30.5%) 48

(37.5%) 19

(14.8%) 128

(100.0%)

Primary

16+ years 6

(7.7%) 4

(5.1%) 9

(11.5%) 20

(25.6%) 35

(44.9%) 4

(5.1%) 78

(100.0%)

0-3 years 1

(1.3%) 3

(3.8%) 4

(5.0%) 20

(25.0%) 44

(55.0%) 8

(10.0%) 80

(100.0%)

4-7 years 5

(5.2%) 7

(7.2%) 8

(8.2%) 29

(29.9%) 41

(41.8%) 7

(7.2%) 97

(100.0%)

8-15 years 4

(3.4%) 14

(12.0%) 18

(15.4%) 33

(28.2%) 42

(35.9%) 6

(5.1%) 117

(100.0%)

Secondary

16+ years 1

(3.3%) 4

(13.3%) 4

(13.3%) 11

(36.7%) 9

(30.0%) 1

(3.3%) 30

(100.0%)

59 χ²=18.11, df=3, p<0.05; Gamma=-0.21, p<0.01 60 Gamma=-0.20, p<0.05

52

Table 3.3: Primary headteacher responses concerning changes in giving staff

individual support and encouraging them to consider new ideas for teaching by

experience

Question Experience Not at

all Very little


significantly Total

0-3 years 0

(0.0%) 3

(6.7%) 2

(4.4%) 18

(40.0%) 17

(37.8%) 5

(11.1%) 45

(100.0%)

4-7 years 2

(2.6%) 6

(7.9%) 6

(7.9%) 27

(35.5%) 24

(31.6%) 11

(14.5%) 76

(100.0%)

8-15 years 8

(6.3%) 9

(7.0%) 19

(14.8%) 41

(32.0%) 46

(35.9%) 5

(3.9%) 128

(100.0%)

Giving staff individual support to help them improve their teaching

16+ years 8

(10.3%) 8

(10.3%) 12

(15.4%) 31

(39.7%) 16

(20.5%) 3

(3.8%) 78

(100.0%)

0-3 years 0

(0.0%) 3

(6.5%) 2

(4.3%) 9

(19.6%) 25

(54.3%) 7

(15.2%) 46

(100.0%)

4-7 years 2

(2.6%) 2

(2.6%) 7

(9.2%) 21

(27.6%) 29

(38.2%) 15

(19.7%) 76

(100.0%)

8-15 years 5

(3.9%) 9

(7.0%) 9

(7.0%) 28

(21.9%) 64

(50.0%) 13

(10.2%) 128

(100.0%)

Encouraging them to consider new ideas for their teaching

16+ years 4

(5.1%) 4

(5.1%) 8

(10.3%) 26

(33.3%) 33

(42.3%) 3

(3.8%) 78

(100.0%)

3.3 Encouraging New Ideas

Most primary and secondary heads reported a substantial amount of change (“a

lot” or “very significantly”) in relation to encouraging teachers to consider new

ideas for their teaching (Primary: N=213, 57%; Secondary: N=196, 55%). In

both sectors a minority also reported substantial change in practice relating to

giving staff individual support to help them improve their teaching practices

(Primary: N=148, 39%; Secondary: N=152, 42%) (see Appendices XVI and

XVII). A moderate amount of change (“partially”) was also reported by roughly a

third of primary and secondary heads (Primary: N=129, 34%; Secondary:

N=110, 31%).

A moderate degree of agreement was noted when key staff were asked whether

their headteacher encouraged them to consider new ideas for their teaching.

Under half agreed strongly to this item and roughly one-third agreed moderately;

with about 15% agreeing only slightly. Figure 3.1 shows a clear sector difference.

In all, 60% primary key staff (N=361) agreed strongly, compared with 43% of

their secondary peers (N=496)61.

61 χ²=71.53, df=5, p<0.001; Gamma=-0.34, p<0.001

53

Figure 3.1: Differences between primary and secondary key staff perceptions of

the extent of their headteacher’s encouragement to consider new ideas for their

teaching

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Primary 2% 8% 30% 60%

Secondary 7% 18% 32% 43%

Disagree strongly/moderat

ely/slightlyAgree slightly


3.4 Beyond The Academic Curriculum


A substantial amount of change was reported by many primary heads (N=210,

56%) in relation to encouraging staff to think of learning beyond the academic

curriculum, whereas the figure was somewhat lower at 38% of secondary heads

(N=138) (Table 3.4). Almost a third of secondary heads (N=116, 32%) reported

partial change in practice in their schools for this item.

Table 3.4: Headteacher responses to the question “To what extent do you believe

your actions have changed in relation to encouraging staff to think of learning

beyond the academic curriculum in the past three years?” by sector

Sector Not at

all Very little


significantly Total

Primary 24

(6.4%) 19

(5.1%) 32

(8.5%) 91

(24.2%) 158

(42.0%) 52

(13.8%) 376

(100.0%)

Secondary 22

(6.1%) 32

(8.9%) 52

(14.4%) 116

(32.2%) 104

(28.9%) 34

(9.4%) 360

(100.0%)

Total 46

(6.3%) 51

(6.9%) 84

(11.4%) 207

(28.1%) 262

(35.6%) 86

(11.7%) 736

(100.0%)

54

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Primary 1% 6% 23% 70%

Secondary 7% 16% 33% 44%

Disagree strongly/moderat

ely/slightlyAgree slightly


Over half of key staff agreed strongly that their headteacher encouraged them to

think of learning beyond the academic curriculum (N=933, 53%). Significant

associations were found between sector and leaders’ responses. Primary key

stage managers (N=423, 70%) were more likely than secondary heads of

departments (N=510, 44%) to agree strongly that their head encouraged this62 (

Figure 3.2).Taken together, these findings suggest that a focus upon raising the

quality of classroom teaching and learning was perceived by heads to be a key

part of their strategic role. However, there were differences between heads

according to level of school disadvantage and their years of experience in the

school.

Figure 3.2: Differences between primary and secondary staff perceptions

of headteacher encouragement to think of learning beyond the academic

curriculum

3.5 Redesigning Resources For Teaching

In both sectors over a quarter of heads reported “very significant” change in

terms of utilising support staff skills for the benefit of pupil learning (Primary:

N=102, 27%; Secondary: N=90, 26%). In addition, the majority of primary

(N=225, 60%) and secondary heads (N=225, 64%) reported a moderate or a

substantial amount of change in this area over the last three years (Table 3.5).

Similarly, most primary (N=237, 63%) and secondary heads (N=220, 63%)

reported some or a lot of change in practice relating to allocating resources

strategically based on pupil needs. Around one in ten of both primary (N=39,

62 χ²=127.52, df=5, p<0.001; Gamma=-0.49, p<0.001

55

10%) and secondary heads (N=36, 10%), around one in ten reported “very

significant” change in this area during the last three years. Likewise, a fair degree

of change was reported in relation to providing or locating resources to help staff

improve their teaching by 64% of primary heads (N=240) and 66% of secondary

heads (N=233).


have changed in relation to utilising support staff skills for the benefit of pupil

learning?” by sector

Sector Not at

all Very little


significantly Total

Primary 8

(2.1%) 18

(4.8%) 23

(6.1%) 68

(18.1%) 157

(41.8%) 102

(27.1%) 376

(100.0%)

Secondary 8

(2.3%) 11

(3.1%) 19

(5.4%) 58

(16.4%) 167

(47.3%) 90

(25.5%) 353

(100.0%)

Total 16

(2.2%) 29

(4.0%) 42

(5.8%) 126

(17.3%) 324

(44.4%) 192

(26.3%) 729

(100.0%)

Around half of key staff agreed strongly that their headteacher allocated

resources strategically based on pupils needs (N=839, 48%) and one-third

agreed moderately (N=585, 33%). In total 14% agreed only slightly (N=240)

with this statement. Primary key stage managers (N=381, 63%) were more

likely to agree strongly than their counterparts from secondary schools (N=458,

40%)63 (Table 3.6). Those from low disadvantage schools were somewhat less

likely to agree with this statement64 (

Table 3.7) suggesting that the strategic use of resources was seen as a stronger

feature in more disadvantaged contexts.


headteacher in your school allocates resources strategically based on pupil

needs?” by sector


Disagree moderately

Disagree slightly

Agree slightly

Agree moderately

Agree strongly

Total

Primary 1

(0.2%) 1

(0.2%) 4

(0.7%) 44

(7.3%) 173

(28.6%) 381

(63.1%) 604

(100.0%)

Secondary 13

(1.1%) 24

(2.1%) 41

(3.6%) 196

(17.1%) 412

(36.0%) 458

(40.0%) 1144

(100.0%)

Total 14

(0.8%) 25

(1.4%) 45

(2.6%) 240

(13.7%) 585

(33.5%) 839

(48.0) 1748

(100.0%)

63 χ²=106.16, df=5, p<0.001; Gamma=-0.43, p<0.001 64 χ²=21.96, df=5, p<0.01

56


headteacher in your school allocates resources strategically based on pupil

needs?” by school FSM band

School FSM Band

Disagree strongly

Disagree moderately

Disagree slightly

Agree slightly

Agree moderately

Agree strongly

Total

FSM 1 and 2

13 (1.1%)

15 (1.3%)

31 (2.7%)

175 (15.1%)

411 (35.5%)

514 (44.3%)

1159 (100.0%)

FSM 3 and 4

1 (0.2%)

9 (1.6%)

13 (2.3%)

64 (11.1%)

172 (29.9%)

317 (55.0%)

576 (100.0%)

Total 14

(0.8%) 24

(1.4%) 44

(2.5%) 239

(13.8%) 583

(33.6%) 831

(47.9%) 1735

(100.0%)

3.5.1 Differences by school sector, socio-economic context and

headteacher years of experience in school

Secondary heads in high disadvantage schools were more likely to report change

in all the three areas related to redesigning resources for teaching (Table 3.8).

However, no statistically significant associations were found for the primary

sample by school context. Results suggest that more emphasis on specific

targeted actions in relation to improving teaching had been given in the

secondary sector and that this was particularly the case in schools in more

disadvantaged contexts. In both sectors less experienced heads were more likely

to report change in relation to allocating resources strategically based on pupil

needs over the last three years. Figures 3.3 and 3.4 show that the difference was

slightly stronger for secondary heads65 than primary heads66.

65 Gamma=-0.24, p<0.01 66 Gamma=-0.19, p<0.05

57

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%



Partially

Little


(N=71) (N=49)(N=74)(N=64)

Table 3.8: Secondary headteacher responses relating to questions about change

in redesigning resources for teaching over the past three years by school FSM

band

Question School

FSM Band

Not at all

Very little


significantly Total

FSM 1 and 2

6 (0.8%)

16 (2.0%)

26 (3.3%)

132 (16.6%)

299 (37.7%)

315 (39.7%)

794 (100.0%)

Utilising support staff skills for the benefit of pupil learning

FSM 3 and 4

2 (0.6%)

3 (0.9%)

15 (4.3%)

43 (12.4%)

106 (30.5%)

178 (51.3%)

347 (100.0%)

FSM 1 and 2

13 (1.7%)

15 (1.9%)

29 (3.7%)

144 (18.3%)

296 (37.6%)

290 (36.8%)

787 (100.0%)

Allocating resources strategically based on pupil needs

FSM 3 and 4

0 (0.0%)

8 (2.3%)

11 (3.2%)

51 (14.7%)

114 (32.9%)

162 (46.8%)

346 (100.0%)

FSM 1 and 2

6 (0.8%)

15 (1.9%)

40 (5.0%)

149 (18.6%)

292 (36.5%)

297 (37.2%)

799 (100.0%)

Providing or locating resources to help staff improve their teaching

FSM 3 and 4

5 (1.4%)

5 (1.4%)

10 (2.9%)

52 (15.1%)

109 (31.6%)

164 (47.5%)

345 (100.0%)

Figure 3.3: Primary heads’ years of experience in school and the extent of

reported change in allocating resources strategically based on pupil needs

58

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%



Partially

Little


(N=93) (N=30)(N=68)(N=74)

Figure 3.4: Secondary heads’ years of experience in school and the extent of

reported change in allocating resources strategically based on pupil needs

3.6 Coaching, Mentoring And Classroom Observation

In both sectors some or a lot of change (increase) during the three year period

was noted by the majority of heads for the three items related to: regularly

observing classroom activities; working with teachers to improve their teaching

after classroom observation; and using coaching and mentoring to improve the

quality of teaching (Table 6.9).


For secondary heads, relatively more change was reported in relation to regularly

observing classroom activities and using coaching and mentoring to support

teachers in developing their practice. Sixteen per cent (N=58) and 10% (N=36)

of secondary heads reported “very significant” change in relation to these two

items respectively, compared to 10% (N=39) and 6% (N=23) of primary heads.

In addition, 40% of secondary heads (N=142), in contrast to 28% of primary

heads (N=106), reported that “a lot” of change in practice had occurred in regular

classroom observation (Table 3.9). In total over half (58%) of secondary and

more than a third (38%) of primary heads reported substantial change in relation

to the use of lesson observation. When school key staff were asked whether the

headteacher in their school regularly observed classroom activities, worked with

teachers to improve teaching after the observation and used coaching and

mentoring to improve quality of teaching, most staff from both sectors agreed a

59

lot or very significantly that this was the case (Table 3.10). As evident in previous

items, the sector difference was significant here also. Primary key stage

managers were more likely to agree to this than their secondary peers: in all 73%

of primary compared with 60% of secondary key staff agreed.

Table 3.9: Headteacher responses to items relating to the degree of change in

observation and mentoring over the past three years by sector


all Very little


significantly Total

Primary 21

(5.6%) 34

(9.0%) 62

(16.5%) 114

(30.3%) 106

(28.2%) 39

(10.4%) 376

(100.0%) Regularly observing classroom activities

Secondary 21

(5.9%) 24

(6.8%) 40

(11.3%) 70

(19.7%) 142

(40.0%) 58

(16.3%) 355

(100.0%)

Primary 23

(6.1%) 32

(8.5%) 68

(18.0%) 129

(34.2%) 99

(26.3%) 26

(6.9%) 377

(100.0%) After observing classroom activities, working with teachers to improve their teaching Secondary

20 (5.6%)

22 (6.2%)

50 (14.1%)

117 (33.1%)

114 (32.2%)

31 (8.8%)

354 (100.0%)

Primary 25

(6.7%) 30

(8.0%) 52

(13.9%) 131

(34.9%) 114

(30.4%) 23

(6.1%) 375

(100.0%) Using coaching and mentoring to improve quality of teaching Secondary

14 (4.0%)

23 (6.5%)

38 (10.7%)

116 (32.8%)

127 (35.9%)

36 (10.2%)

354 (100.0%)

Table 3.10: Key staff responses to items relating to the perceived use of

observation and mentoring by sector


all Very little


significantly Total

Primary 4

(0.7%) 9

(1.5%) 25

(4.1%) 83

(13.7%) 185

(30.6%) 298

(49.3%) 604

(100.0%) Regularly observing classroom activities

Secondary 54

(4.7%) 60

(5.2%) 121

(10.5%) 214

(18.5%) 329

(28.5%) 376

(32.6%) 1154

(100.0%)

Primary 8

(1.3%) 10

(1.7%) 28

(4.6%) 103

(17.1%) 196

(32.5%) 259

(42.9%) 604

(100.0%) After observing classroom activities, working with teachers to improve their teaching Secondary

70 (6.1%)

83 (7.2%)

151 (13.2%)

268 (23.3%)

330 (28.7%)

246 (21.4%)

1148 (100.0%)

Primary 7

(1.2%) 12

(2.0%) 42

(7.0%) 103

(17.1%) 195

(32.3%) 244

(40.5%) 603

(100.0%) Using coaching and mentoring to improve quality of teaching Secondary

37 (3.2%)

51 (4.4%)

108 (9.4%)

259 (22.5%)

381 (33.1%)

316 (27.4%)

1152 (100.0%)

60

3.6.2 Differences by school socio-economic context and headteacher

years of experience in school

In the primary sample, heads from high disadvantage schools were more likely to

report a lot of change in relation to coaching and mentoring67. Also, less

experienced primary heads were more likely to report change in the extent to

which there was regular observation of classrooms activities68 and working with

teachers after class observation69 (Table 3.11). However, there were no

significant differences for the secondary sample related to headteacher

experience or school context for these items. More key staff from high

disadvantage schools (N=207, 36%) agreed that the use of mentoring and

coaching to improve the quality of teaching was a strong feature than those from

low disadvantage schools (N=348, 30%)70 (Table 3.12). Once more results

indicated a greater emphasis in high disadvantaged schools on the use of specific

support strategies to improve teaching.

Table 3.11: Primary headteacher responses to items relating to the degree of

change in observation and mentoring over the past three years by school FSM

band

Question School

FSM Band



Total

FSM 1 and 2

31 (13.4%)

43 (18.5%)

74 (31.9%)

84 (36.2%)

232 (100.0%) Regularly observing

classroom activities FSM 3 and 4

23 (16.2%)

18 (12.7%)

40 (28.2%)

61 (43.0%)

142 (100.0%)

FSM 1 and 2

30 (12.9%)

48 (20.6%)

86 (36.9%)

69 (29.6%)

233 (100.0%)

After observing classroom activities, working with teachers to improve their teaching

FSM 3 and 4

24 (16.9%)

19 (13.4%)

43 (30.3%)

56 (39.4%)

142 (100.0%)

FSM 1 and 2

30 (13.0%)

37 (16.0%)

90 (39.0%)

74 (32.0%)

231 (100.0%) Using coaching and

mentoring to improve quality of teaching FSM 3

and 4 24

(16.9%) 15

(10.6%) 41

(28.9%) 62

(43.7%) 142

(100.0%)

67 p<0.05 68 p<0.01 69 p<0.05 70 χ²=14.23, df=5, p<0.05

61


headteacher in your school uses coaching and mentoring to improve quality of

teaching?” by school FSM band

SES Disagree strongly

Disagree moderately

Disagree slightly

Agree slightly

Agree moderately

Agree strongly

Total

FSM 1 and 2

30 (2.6%)

38 (3.3%)

112 (9.6%)

260 (22.2%)

381 (32.6%)

348 (29.8%)

1169 (100.0%)

FSM 3 and 4

14 (2.4%)

24 (4.2%)

37 (6.5%)

101 (17.6%)

190 (33.2%)

207 (36.1%)

573 (100.0%)

Total 44

(2.5%) 62

(3.6%) 149

(8.6%) 361

(20.7%) 571

(32.8%) 555

(31.9%) 1742

(100.0%)

3.7 Assessment: Increasing The Use Of Pupil Attainment

Data

For both sectors, heads’ responses to the three items that related to encouraging

staff to use data in their work, to identify pupil needs and for decisions about

improvement showed much change in repeated practice during the last three

years (Table 3.13). The majority of heads (over 64%) reported “a lot” or “very

significant” change in these three areas in their schools. Roughly a quarter of

primary (N=93, 25%) and secondary heads (N=84, 24%) reported “very

significant” change in the use of pupil achievement data to make most decisions

about school improvement.

Close to two-thirds of key staff agreed strongly that the headteacher encouraged

them to use data in their work to plan for individual pupil needs and to make

most decisions about school improvement. However, only about 43% strongly

agreed that their headteacher incorporated research evidence into his/her

decision making to inform practice (Table 3.14).

62

Table 3.13: Headteacher responses indicating a degree of change relating to use

of data over the past three years


all Very little


significantly Total

Primary 8

(2.1%) 12

(3.2%) 19

(5.0%) 66

(17.5%) 193

(51.2%) 79

(21.0%) 377

(100.0%) Encouraging staff to use data in their work Secondary

18 (5.1%)

6 (1.7%)

15 (4.2%)

46 (13.0%)

147 (41.6%)

121 (34.3%)

353 (100.0%)

Primary 8

(2.1%) 17

(4.5%) 20

(5.3%) 73

(19.4%) 187

(49.7%) 71

(18.9%) 376

(100.0%)

Encouraging staff to use data in planning for individual pupil needs

Secondary 17

(4.8%) 7

(2.0%) 14

(4.0%) 64

(18.1%) 147

(41.6%) 104

(29.5) 353

(100.0%)

Primary 13

(3.5%) 23

(6.1%) 20

(5.3%) 67

(17.9%) 159

(42.4%) 93

(24.8%) 375

(100.0%)

Using pupil achievement data to make most decisions about school improvement

Secondary 19

(5.4%) 17

(4.8%) 24

(6.8%) 69

(19.5%) 141

(39.8%) 84

(23.7%) 354

(100.0%)

Table 3.14: Key staff responses indicating the degree of emphasis relating to the

use of data by the headteacher

Question Disagree strongly

Disagree moderately

Disagree slightly

Agree slightly

Agree moderately

Agree strongly

Total

Encourages staff to use data in their work

5 (0.3%)

5 (0.3%)

27 (1.5%)

126 (7.1%)

423 (24.0%)

1158 (65.6%)

1764 (100.0%)

Encourages staff to use data in planning for individual pupil needs

5 (0.3%)

5 (0.3%)

37 (2.1%)

166 (9.4%)

479 (27.3%)

1065 (60.6%)

1757 (100.0%)

Incorporates research evidence into his/her decision making to inform practice

10 (0.6%)

16 (0.9%)

57 (3.3%)

307 (17.6%)

608 (34.9%)

743 (42.7%)

1741 (100.0%)

Uses pupil achievement data to make most decisions about school improvement

2 (0.1%)

5 (0.3%)

21 (1.2%)

144 (8.2%)

451 (25.7%)

1134 (64.5%)

1757 (100.0%)


For secondary heads relatively more substantial change was reported for the two

items relating to encouraging staff to use data in their work and to identify pupil

needs (Table 3.13). Approximately one in three reported “very significant” change

in practice in these two areas in contrast to only one in five of the primary heads

63

who did so. This suggests that a greater emphasis on using performance data is

seen, most recently, as a particular lever for improvement in the secondary

sector.

Most primary (N=237, 63%) and secondary heads (N=198, 56%) reported partial

or a lot of change in relation to incorporating research evidence into their decision

making to inform practice (Table 3.15). However, there were 15% of primary

heads (N=55) and 17% of secondary heads (N=60) who reported “not at all” or

“very little” change in this area in the last three years.


actions have changed in relation to incorporating research evidence into your

decision making to inform practice in the last three years?” by sector

Sector Not at

all Very little


significantly Total

Primary 16

(4.2%) 39

(10.3%) 69

(18.3%) 154

(40.8%) 83

(22.0%) 16

(4.2%) 377

(100.0%)

Secondary 29

(8.2%) 31

(8.8%) 65

(18.4%) 123

(34.7%) 75

(21.2%) 31

(8.8%) 354

(100.0%)

Total 45

(6.2%) 70

(9.6%) 134

(18.3%) 277

(37.9%) 158

(21.6%) 47

(6.4%) 731

(100.0%)

3.7.2 Differences by school level of disadvantage

School FSM band was not associated with any differences in responses in the

primary sample. However, in the secondary sector, heads in high disadvantage

contexts were more likely to report a substantial amount of change in their

practice in relation to the four listed items below than secondary heads in low

disadvantage schools (Table 3.16):

• Encouraging staff to use data in their work71

• Encouraging to use data in planning for individual pupil needs72

• Incorporating research evidence into my decision making to inform practice73

• Using pupil achievement data to make most decisions about school

improvement74.

71 p<0.05 72 p<0.01 73 p<0.05 74 p<0.001

64

Table 3.16: Secondary headteacher responses indicating a degree of change

relating to use of data over the past three years by school FSM band

Question School

FSM Band



Total

FSM bands 1 and 2

19 (7.6%)

12 (4.8%)

37 (14.9%)

181 (72.7%)

249 (100.0%)

Encouraging staff to use data in their work FSM

bands 3 and 4

5 (5.0%)

3 (3.0%)

8 (8.0%)

84 (84.0%)

100 (100.0%)

FSM bands 1 and 2

18 (7.3%)

13 (5.3%)

51 (20.6%)

165 (66.8%)

247 (100.0%) Encouraging staff to

use data in planning for individual pupil needs FSM

bands 3 and 4

6 (5.9%)

1 (1.0%)

11 (10.8%)

84 (82.4%)

102 (100.0%)

FSM bands 1 and 2

49 (19.7%)

49 (19.7%)

82 (32.9%)

69 (27.7%)

249 (100.0%)

Incorporating research evidence into my decision making to inform practice

FSM bands 3 and 4

11 (10.9%)

14 (13.9%)

40 (39.6%)

36 (35.6%)

101 (100.0%)

FSM bands 1 and 2

29 (11.7%)

20 (8.1%)

55 (22.2%)

144 (58.1%)

248 (100.0%)

Using pupil achievement data to make most decisions about school improvement

FSM bands 3 and 4

7 (6.9%)

3 (2.9%)

13 (12.7%)

79 (77.5%)

102 (100.0%)

For example, 84% (N=84) of secondary heads in FSM 3 and 4 schools, compared

with 73% (N= 181) of those in FSM 1 and 2 schools, reported ‘a lot’ or ‘very

significant’ change in encouraging staff to use data in their work. Over 80%

(N=84, 83%) of secondary heads leading high disadvantaged schools indicated a

substantial amount of change in leadership practice in terms of encouraging all

staff to use data in planning for individual pupil needs. In contrast, 67% of those

leading low disadvantage schools reported that they did so. In addition, more

than three in four (N=79, 78%) of those in high disadvantage schools, in contrast

to slightly over half (N=144, 58%) in low disadvantage schools, indicated a

substantial amount of change in using pupil achievement data to make most

decisions about school improvement.

Again, therefore, the results suggest that in secondary schools a stronger focus

over the recent period was made on the use of assessment data and this was

particularly evident for those in more disadvantaged schools, suggesting that the

use of data had a particular role to play in their improvement efforts. This point is

supported by case study data reported elsewhere75 and in the written comments

on the survey forms.

75 Day, C., et al. 2008. The Impact of School Leadership on Pupil Outcomes. School Leadership & Management 28, no. 1.

65

Length of experience and level of school disadvantage factors were also

associated with the way secondary key staff perceived the level of monitoring and

target setting in their school. More experienced key staff and those from more

disadvantaged contexts (FSM bands 3 and 4) reported higher levels of agreement

that these characterised their work (Table 3.17). For example, 52% of key staff in

highly disadvantaged secondary schools indicated that they strongly agreed that

monitoring and target setting were features of teachers’ work with 31% agreeing

moderately. For key staff in low disadvantage schools, 38% showed strong and

36% moderate agreement to this statement.

Table 3.17: Secondary key staff responses indicating the extent of agreement

with the statement ‘the performance of subject areas is regularly monitored and

targets for improvement are regularly set’ by school FSM band

SES Disagree strongly

Disagree moderately

Disagree slightly

Agree slightly

Agree moderately

Agree strongly

Total

FSM 1 and 2

4 (0.5%)

12 (1.5%)

24 (3.0%)

170 (21.2%)

287 (35.7%)

306 (38.1%)

803 (100.0%)

FSM 3 and 4

0 (0.0%)

2 (0.6%)

10 (2.9%)

48 (13.9%)

106 (30.7%)

179 (51.9%)

345 (100.0%)

Total 4

(0.3%) 14

(1.2%) 34

(3.0%) 218

(19.0%) 393

(34.2%) 485

(42.2%) 1148

(100.0%)

In addition, key staff from high disadvantage schools were more likely to report

that their headteacher incorporated research evidence into decision making. No

significant differences in degree of agreement were found between primary or

secondary school key staff according to their years of experience (see Table 3.18

for secondary key staff) but secondary key staff from disadvantaged schools were

more likely to report encouragement from the headteacher to use data in

planning for individual pupil needs. Secondary key staff with longer service were

also likely to perceive more encouragement to use data in their work (Table

3.19). It may be that headteachers see the use of data as helpful to encourage

longer serving staff to review their teaching approaches and that those in

disadvantaged contexts also find it especially useful to challenge existing

practices. In addition, long serving staff may have additional responsibilities that

involve the use of data.

66


you agree that the headteacher in your school incorporates research evidence

into his/her decision making to inform practice?” by experience in teaching

Years as a

leader

Disagree strongly

Disagree moderately

Disagree slightly

Agree slightly

Agree moderately

Agree strongly

Total

0-3 years

2 (0.6%)

1 (0.3%)

12 (3.9%)

64 (20.8%)

108 (35.1%)

121 (39.3%)

308 (100.0%)

4-7 years

1 (0.4%)

2 (0.8%)

7 (2.9%)

54 (22.4%)

69 (28.6%)

108 (44.8%)

241 (100.0%)

8-15 years

1 (0.8%)

0 (0.0%)

0 (0.0%)

30 (23.6%)

44 (34.6%)

52 (40.9%)

127 (100.0%)

16+ years

0 (0.0%)

1 (1.2%)

4 (4.8%)

14 (16.7%)

29 (34.5%)

36 (42.9%)

84 (100.0%)

Total 4

(0.5%) 4

(0.5%) 23

(3.0%) 162

(21.3%) 250

(32.9%) 317

(41.7%) 760

(100.0%)


you agree that the headteacher in your school encourages staff to use data in

their work?” by experience in teaching

Years as a

leader

Disagree strongly

Disagree moderately

Disagree slightly

Agree slightly

Agree moderately

Agree strongly

Total

0-3 years

0 (0.0%)

1 (0.3%)

5 (1.6%)

35 (11.1%)

79 (25.1%)

195 (61.9%)

315 (100.0%)

4-7 years

0 (0.0%)

0 (0.0%)

5 (2.0%)

21 (8.6%)

59 (24.1%)

160 (65.3%)

245 (100.0%)

8-15 years

0 (0.0%)

0 (0.0%)

0 (0.0%)

8 (6.3%)

22 (17.2%)

98 (76.6%)

128 (100.0%)

16+ years

0 (0.0%)

2 (2.4%)

1 (1.2%)

3 (3.5%)

18 (21.2%)

61 (71.8%)

85 (100.0%)

Total 0

(0.0%) 3

(0.4%) 11

(1.4%) 67

(8.7%) 178

(23.0%) 514

(66.5%) 773

(100.0%)

When key staff were asked whether the headteacher utilised support staff skills

for the benefit of pupil learning, over half agreed strongly (N=915, 52%) and

roughly one-third agreed moderately (N=553, 31%). As seen in previous

questions, Primary staff (N=417, 69%) were more likely to agree strongly than

their secondary peers (N=498, 43%)76 (Table 3.20).

76 χ²=119.33, df=5, p<0.001; Gamma=-0.47, p<0.001

67


headteacher in your school utilises support staff skills for the benefit of pupil

learning”


Disagree moderately

Disagree slightly

Agree slightly

Agree moderately

Agree strongly

Total

Primary 0

(0.0%) 0

(0.0%) 7

(1.2%) 36

(6.0%) 144

(23.8%) 417

(69.0%) 604

(100.0%)

Secondary 8

(0.7%) 20

(1.7%) 42

(3.6%) 175

(15.2%) 409

(35.5%) 498

(43.2%) 1152

(100.0%)

Total 8

(0.5%) 20

(1.1%) 49

(2.8%) 211

(12.0%) 553

(31.5%) 915

(52.1) 1756

(100.0%)

3.8 Key Findings

i) Headteachers and other leaders in effective and improving schools

had promoted change in the curriculum and in teaching approaches

and practice.

• 56% of primary heads and 38% of secondary heads surveyed reported

substantial change in their practice in relation to encouraging to think of

student learning beyond the traditional curriculum. The heads most likely

to report this change were secondary heads in high disadvantage schools

(FSM 3 and 4).

ii) A key leadership strategy in the effective schools was that of placing

a high priority and consistent emphasis upon improving classroom

teaching across the school.

• More than half of heads surveyed (57% primary and 55% secondary)

reported substantial change in relation to getting teachers to consider new

ideas for their teaching. Of the key staff who responded to the survey,

nearly all agreed (slightly-strongly) that their head encouraged them to

consider new ideas for their teaching (98% primary key staff and 93%

secondary key staff).

• Strategies aimed at getting staff to change and improve their teaching

practice were also noted as a focus for heads in the effective schools that

were surveyed. Areas of leadership practice that had changed significantly

in surveyed schools included a marked focus on the provision of relevant

professional development and the use of classroom observations to

identify personal targets for staff development.

o 39% of primary heads and 42% of secondary heads reported

substantial change in giving staff individual support so that they

68

could improve their teaching practice.

o 60% of primary and secondary heads surveyed reported moderate-

substantial change in relation to the promotion of CPD for staff.

This was corroborated by key staff responses, with 52% agreeing

that their head promoted CPD for staff.

o 38% of primary heads and 56% of secondary heads reported

substantial change in practice in their use of classroom observation.

Most key staff agreed that their head regularly observed classroom

practice.

iii) Allocating and distributing personnel and resources appropriately so

as to foster student achievement was a focus for a significant

number of headteachers and other leaders in the schools

• 87% of primary heads and 90% of secondary heads who were surveyed

reported a very significant change in the way that they utilised support

staff skills to benefit pupil learning, over the past three years.

• 73% of heads surveyed reported a moderate-significant change in how

resources were allocated strategically, based on pupil needs.

• 64% of primary heads and 62% of secondary heads reported change in

their practice of allocating resources to help staff to improve their

teaching.

iv) Headteachers and staff in the schools were using increasingly

detailed analyses of student progress and achievement data to

inform their teaching.

• Participants across all 20 case study schools commented that they relied

upon a close analysis of pupil achievement data to inform changes in

teaching and leadership practice in the school.

• One-quarter of the heads who were surveyed (25% primary heads and

24% secondary heads) reported very significant change in their practice of

using pupil achievement data to make change. Nearly all key staff

surveyed (90%) agreed that their headteacher encouraged the use of

pupil achievement data to inform practice.

v) The use of performance data was reported to have a stronger

emphasis by secondary schools improving in disadvantaged

contexts.

• 84% (N=84) of secondary heads in FSM 3 and 4 schools, compared with

69

73% of those in FSM 1 and 2 schools, reported ‘a lot’ or ‘very significant’

change in encouraging staff to use data in their work.

• Over 80% (N=84, 83%) of secondary heads leading high disadvantaged

schools indicated a substantial amount of change in leadership practice in

terms of encouraging all staff to use data in planning for individual pupil

needs. In contrast, 67% of those leading low disadvantage schools

reported that they did so.

• In addition, more than three in four (N=79, 78%) of those in high

disadvantage schools, in contrast to slightly over half (N=144, 58%) in

low disadvantage schools, indicated a substantial amount of change in

using pupil achievement data to make most decisions about school

improvement.

The survey results indicate that heads and key staff had used a variety of

strategies to enhance the quality of teaching and learning and develop the

curriculum as part of their improvement strategies and had also paid a lot of

attention to the use of performance data.

70

Chapter 4: Leadership Characteristics And

Practices In Schools With Different Effectiveness

And Improvement Profiles

4.1 Introduction

This chapter focuses on the relationships between leadership characteristics and

practices in schools identified as having different effectiveness and improvement

profiles over a three year period (2003-2005). It compares the characteristics of

leadership practices of these improving and effective schools in terms of

responses to the survey of head teachers and key staff and discusses in detail

similarities and differences between the three improvement groups in leadership

strategies in establishing foundations, and building and sustaining improvement.

It also extends earlier discussion (chapter 1-3) of differences by sector and level

of disadvantage, where appropriate, to set the findings on differences between

school improvement groups in a broader context.

The three sub-groups of schools were identified based on analyses of national

assessment and examination data and value added indicators identifying trends

across three years as described in Chapter 2 of the main Interim Report. The

groups were: 1) improving from low to moderate or low to high in attainment and

highly effective in value added, 2) improving from moderate to higher moderate

or high in attainment and highly effective in value added and 3) stable high

attainment and highly effective in value added. Proportionately more schools

responding to the survey were in the low to moderate/high group i.e. those that

had made rapid recent improvement (Table 4.1). For the purpose of this chapter,

we label the Low to Moderate or Low to High Group as the Low Start Group, the

Moderate to Higher Moderate or High Group as the Moderate Start Group and the

Stable High and High to Higher Group as the High Start Group.

71

Table 4.1: Responses to the Headteacher Survey by School Improvement Groups

School Improvement Group

Primary Schools

Secondary Schools

2003-2005

N % N %

Low Start

160 42 167 47

Moderate Start

94 25 76 21

High Start

123 33 115 32

Total

37777 100 35878 100

4.2 Contexts Of Leadership And Improvement Group

We found significant associations between the improvement groupings and a

range of influences relating to headteachers’ years of experience in total and in

their current schools, the number of headteachers in the last ten years, school

education sector and school socio-economic contexts.

4.2.1 School SES contexts and improvement groups

We found statistically significant negative associations between the level of socio-

economic disadvantage of the pupil intake (measured by the FSM band of the

school) and the three improvement groups for both the primary79 and secondary

samples. In both education sectors the High Improvement Group were relatively

more likely to serve low disadvantage communities (FSM 1&2) whereas the Low

Improvement Group were more likely to serve high disadvantage communities

(FSM 3&4).

Table 4.2 shows that nearly two thirds (N= 105, 65.6%) of primary schools in the

Low Start Group, compared with under one in 10 (N= 10, 8%) of the High Start

Group were in high disadvantage contexts (FSM Bands 3 and 4). As Table 4.3

shows, over half (N=84, 50.3%) of secondary schools in the Low Start Group,

compared with around one in 20 (N=6, 5.2%) in the High Start Group, were in

high disadvantage contexts. Although 71% of schools responding to the survey

were in low disadvantage contexts (FSM 1 and 2) only around a half (49.7%)

77 One school changed DCSF number but did not supply their DCSF number, so could not be allocated to an improvement group. 78 Four schools changed DCSF numbers and could not be allocated to improvement groups. 79 Primary: Gamma=-0.78, p<0.001; χ²=101.49, p<0.001; and secondary: Gamma=-0.78, p<0.001; χ²=73.95, p<0.001.

72

were in the Low Start improvement group. These results point to the importance

of school context in interpreting differences in school performance results and

trajectories.

Table 4.2: School context (FSM Band) and primary school improvement group

School Context (FSM Band) Improvement Groups

FSM 1 and 2 FSM 3 and 4 Total

Low to Moderate/High 55

(34.4%) 105

(65.6%) 160

(100%)

Moderate to Higher Moderate/ High 67

(71.3%) 27

(28.7%) 94

(100%)

Stable High/ High to Higher 112

(91.8%) 10

(8.2%) 122

(100%)

Total 234

(62%) 142

(38%) 376

(100%)

Table 4.3: School context (FSM Band) and secondary school improvement group

School Context (FSM Band) Improvement Groups FSM 1 and 2 FSM 3 and 4 Total


(49.7%) 84

(50.3%) 167

(100%)

Moderate to Higher Moderate/ High 63

(82.9%) 13

(17.1%) 76

(100%)

Stable High/ High to Higher 109

(94.8%) 6

(5.2%) 115

(100%)

Total 255

(71%) 103

(29%) 358

(100%)

4.2.2 School SES contexts and heads’ experience

• Heads’ years of experience in total

For the secondary sample, heads with less experience tended to be more likely to

serve high disadvantage schools80, but this pattern was not identified for primary

heads. Only 20% of secondary heads leading low disadvantage schools (FSM 1

and 2) had been a headteacher for three years or less whereas proportionately

almost twice as many headteachers (37%) with similar amount of experience

were leading high disadvantage schools (FSM 3 and 4) (Table 4.4). In contrast,

nearly half (48%) of FSM 1 and 2 heads had more than eight years of experience

whereas the proportion was somewhat lower at 38% of FSM 3 and 4 heads with a

80 χ²=10.16, df=3, p<0.05; Gamma=-0.24, p<0.05.

73

similar longer length of experience as a headteacher.

Table 4.4: School disadvantage (FSM Band) and headteachers’ total years of

experience (secondary)

How long have you been a headteacher in total? School Context (FSM Band)

0-3 years 4-7 years 8-15 years 16+ years Total

FSM1 and 2 46

(20%) 73

(31.7%) 87

(37.8%)

24

(10.4%)

230

(100%)

FSM 3 and 4 34

(37%) 23

(25%) 28

(30.4%)

7

(7.6%)

92

(100%)

Total 80

(25%) 96

(30%) 115

(36%)

31

(10%)

322

(100%)

• Heads’ years of experience in school

Also only for the secondary sample, heads in high disadvantage schools were

proportionately more likely to have worked in their current schools for a shorter

period of time (0-3 years: FMS 1 and 2=31% versus FSM 3 and 4=45%) (Table

4.5). Those in low disadvantage schools were relatively more likely to have been

in their current schools for a longer period of time (16+ years: FSM 1 and 2=14%

versus FSM 3 and 4=7%).

Table 4.5: School disadvantage (FSM Band) and headteachers’ years of

experience in their current school (secondary)

How long have you been a headteacher in this school? School Context (FSM Band)

0-3 years 4-7 years 8-15 years 16+ years Total

FSM 1 and 2 57

(30.8%) 55

(29.7%) 48

(25.9%) 25

(13.5%) 185

(100.0%)

FSM 3 and 4 38

(45.2%) 19

(22.6%) 21

(25.0%) 6

(7.1%) 84

(100.0%)

Total 95

(35.3%) 74

(27.5%) 69

(25.7%) 31

(11.5%) 269

(100%)

4.2.3 Experience of headteachers and improvement groups

There were significant associations between the three school improvement groups

in terms of the total years of experience of the headteacher. For both the primary

and secondary samples, less experienced heads were proportionately more likely

to be in post in schools from the Low Start Group whereas schools in the High

Start Group were relatively more likely to have an experienced headteacher in

74

post81. As shown in Figures A and B in Appendix II, this tendency is particularly

striking for secondary schools.

In total 47% of heads of the Low Start Group of primary schools had seven or

fewer years of experience as a headteacher in contrast to 25% of those in the

High Start Group of schools. At the secondary level, 62% of heads of the Low

Start Group had the same amount of experience (7 or below) as a headteacher

compared with 49% of those in the High Start Group.

Table 4.6 below shows that secondary heads with less than seven years of

experience in their current schools were significantly more likely to be in post in

the Low Start Group of improving schools (72.2% versus 56.5% of the High Start

Group)82.

Table 4.6: Heads’ length of service in current school by school improvement

group (secondary heads)

How long have you been a headteacher in this school? Improvement Groups 0-3 years 4-7 years 8-15 years 16+ years Total


(42.1%) 40

(30.1%) 29

(21.8%) 8

(6.0%)

133

(100%)

Moderate to Higher Moderate/ High

13 (25.5%)

12 (23.5%)

18 (35.5%)

8 (15.7%)

51

(100%)

Stable High/ High to Higher

26 (30.6%)

22 (25.9%)

22 (25.9%)

15 (17.6%)

85

(100%)

Total 95

(35%) 74

(28%) 69

(26%) 31

(12%)

269

(100%)

4.2.4 Age of headteachers and improvement groups

A similar pattern was identified when the relationship between the school

improvement group and headteachers’ age group was investigated and this held

for both the primary and the secondary samples. Younger primary and secondary

heads were proportionately more likely to be in post in schools that had made

rapid improvement from low to moderate or moderate to high. Overall 51% of

primary and 53% of secondary heads aged 45 or under were in the Low Start

Group whereas only around a third (31% primary, 36% secondary) aged 56 or

over were in the same improvement group (see Tables A and B in Appendix III).

81 (Primary: χ²=17.59, df=6, p<0.01; Gamma=0.21, p<0.01; Secondary: χ²=14.01, df=6, p<0.05; Gamma=0.23, p<0.01). 82 (χ²=14.01, df=6, p<0.05; Gamma=0.23, p<0.01)

75

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0-1 heads 2 heads 3-10 heads

StableHigh/High-HigherMod-HigherMod/High

Low -Mod/High

(N=139) (N=108)(N=125)

For younger and less experienced heads, the challenges of improving a school

with a low attainment profile may be particularly motivating. It may also be

somewhat easier to obtain a headship of a low attaining school at a relatively

young age. It is possible that younger heads may be better placed to effect

radical change in schools with a history of low attainment, because their problems

are widely recognised. It is also possible that the longer years of experience and

a longer time in post of heads in the Stable High effective category may help to

account for their sustained good results over a number of years.

4.2.5 Stability of school leadership and improvement groups

In both sectors statistically significant associations were found between the three

school improvement groups in terms of number of headteachers in post over the

last decade. Schools in the High Start Group were less likely to have experienced

headteacher change and the association was stronger for the secondary sample83

than for the primary sample84 (Figure 4.1 and Figure 4.2).

Figure 4.1: Stability of heads’ service in school and three improvement groups

(Primary)

83 Gamma=-0.38, p<0.001 84 Gamma=-0.19, p<0.01

76

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0-1 heads 2 heads 3-10 heads


Low -Mod/High

(N=94) (N=90)(N=172)

Figure 4.2: Stability of heads’ service in school and three improvement groups

(Secondary)

A change of headteacher can be a catalyst for school improvement. This has been

noted in a number of studies of improving schools and is also evident in

inspection evidence (see Matthews & Sammons 2005). The survey results suggest

that changing the headteacher may have contributed to the rapid improvement of

schools with an initial low attainment profile. However, many changes in headship

over a decade can be a symptom of a school experiencing many difficulties and

this is likely to inhibit the creation of a school culture focussed on improvement.

The number of headteachers in post in the past ten years is also significantly

related to school context for the secondary sample85. High disadvantage schools

were relatively more likely to have experienced several changes of heads

compared with less disadvantage schools (Table 4.7). Again, this may be seen as

a symptom as much as a possible cause of difficulties.

For example, only a fifth (19.8%) of schools in low disadvantage contexts (FSM 1

and 2) had experienced 3 or more changes of head in the last ten years but this

was found for nearly double this proportion in high disadvantage schools (FSM 3

and 4) (38.8%). It seems that secondary schools in challenging (high

disadvantaged) contexts have greater difficulties in recruiting/retaining

headteachers who have the qualities necessary to effect significant improvement.

The need for attention to be given to ways of attracting high calibre applicants for

85 χ²=14.34, df=2, p<0.01; Gamma=0.62, p<0.01.

77

headships in such schools is suggested by this finding.

Table 4.7: School SES contexts (FSM Band) and changes of headteacher

(secondary)

Including yourself, how many headteachers has your current school had in the past 10 years?

School Context

(FSM Band) 0-1 heads 2 heads 3-10 heads Total

FSM 1 and 2 70

(27.7%) 133

(52.6%) 50

(19.8%)

253

(100%)

FSM 3 and 4 24

(23.3%) 39

(37.9%) 40

(38.8%)

103

(100%)

Total 94

(26%) 172

(48%) 90

(25%)

356

(100%)

4.3 Leadership Distribution: Patterns Of External And

Internal Participation

Overall there were more similarities than differences between the three

improvement groups in relation to perceptions of:

i) The way that leadership tasks were distributed or shared within schools;

ii) The kinds of leadership practice provided by SMT/SLT in school.

iii) The extent to which leadership practice in school was provided by other

people or groups (e.g. Deputy Head(s) and SMT/SLT);

This was the case for both the primary and secondary headteachers samples. This

suggests similar patterns of leadership distribution between the three

improvement groups in terms of the way that leadership tasks were reported to

be organised within schools and the provision of leadership practice by SMT/SLT

in school.

4.3.1 The way that leadership tasks were distributed or shared within

schools

For both the primary and the secondary samples, most heads indicated that

leadership tasks were delegated or distributed by the Head or the SMT/SLT, and

that collective planning was a strong feature of their school organisation. In

contrast, very few thought leadership distribution was spontaneous or that very

few others took on leadership tasks in their schools.

78

Overall most headteachers agreed to some (“partially”) or a fairly large (“a lot”)

extent agreed that most leadership tasks were carried out by themselves and

SMT/SLT, although rather more primary (N=43, 12%) than secondary (N=6, 2%)

heads indicated that to a “very significant” extent, this was the case within their

schools. This suggests a minority of primary schools (just over 1 in 10)

headteachers and their SLT did not distribute or delegate leadership widely.

There was a considerable sector difference found for some items relating to the

way that leadership tasks were perceived to be distributed within schools

according to the key staff survey (Table 4.8). For example, a greater proportion

of primary than secondary staff reported that they agreed “a lot” or “very

significantly” with the following statements:

• They collectively plan which individual or group(s) will carry out which

leadership tasks (Primary: N=325, 55%; Secondary: N=393, 35%);

• Most leadership tasks in their school are carried out by the Head and

SMT/SLT (Primary: N=408, 68%; Secondary: N=530, 46%).

This suggests that more collective approaches may characterise the work of

highly improved or high effective primary schools.

Table 4.8: Key staff responses indicating the extent to which they agreed with

statements concerning distribution of leadership in their schools


all Very little


significantly Total

Primary 13

(2.2%) 39

(6.5%) 52

(8.7%) 171

(28.5%) 207

(34.5%) 118

(19.7%) 600

(100.0%)

We collectively plan which individual or group(s) will carry out which leadership tasks

Secondary 87

(7.6%) 153

(13.4%) 188

(16.4%) 325

(28.4%) 283

(24.7%) 110

(9.6%) 1146

(100.0%)

Primary 6

(1.0%) 15

(2.5%) 23

(3.8%) 146

(24.4%) 270

(45.2%) 138

(23.1%) 598

(100.0%)

Most leadership tasks in this school are carried out by the Head and SMT/SLT

Secondary 27

(2.3%) 48

(4.2%) 127

(11.0%) 424

(36.7%) 402

(34.8%) 128

(11.1%) 1156

(100.0%)

4.3.2 The kinds of leadership practice provided by SMT/SLT in school

For both the primary and the secondary sample, the large majority of heads

strongly agreed that the members of the SMT/SLT in their schools share a similar

79

set of values, beliefs and attitudes related to teaching and learning, participate in

ongoing collaborative work, have a role in a range of activities and the

development of policies relating to teaching and learning, and have a positive

impact on standards of teaching and raising levels of pupil attainment (see Tables

A and B in Appendix XII).

In particular, a greater proportion of secondary than primary heads strongly

agreed that their SMT/SLT have a role or involvement in:

i) School-wide decision making (Secondary: N=311, 86%; Primary: N=266,

71%);

ii) The development of pupil behaviour policies (Secondary: N=293, 81%;

Primary: N=280, 75%);

iii) The school evaluation and review process (Secondary: N=325, 90%;

Primary: N=274, 73%);

iv) Determining the direction of the school (Secondary: N=279, 77%;

Primary: N=237, 63%).

Some sector difference was found for the key staff sample in terms of the kinds of

leadership practice provided by SMT/SLT in their schools, particularly in relation

to items on teaching and learning. This is in contrast to headteachers’ responses

where no marked differences were found relating to the same items. As Table 4.9

shows, higher proportions of primary Key Stage Managers compared to secondary

Heads of Department tended to agree moderately/strongly to all the above items

on the leadership of SMT/SLT in relation to teaching and learning.

Table 4.9: Key staff responses to the kinds of leadership provided by SMT/SLT

relating to teaching and learning (agree “moderately” or “strongly”)

Primary Key Stage Managers

Secondary Heads of Department

The Kinds of Leadership Practice Provided by SMT/SLT

N % N % Share a similar set of values, beliefs and attitudes related to teaching and learning

566 95 943 81

Participate in ongoing, collaborative work 554 92 902 78 Have a role in the development of policies on lesson planning

538 90 863 75

Have a positive impact on standards of teaching 557 93 874 75 Have a positive impact on raising levels of pupil attainment

562 94 883 76

Difference in the key staff responses was also found between the improvement

groups, but for the secondary sample only (Table 4.10). Key staff from schools in

the Low Start Group were the most likely to agree that members of the SMT/SLT

80

in their school participate in ongoing, collaborative work86 and that they had a

role in the development of policies on lesson planning87. This is, again, in contrast

to the headteachers’ responses where no significant difference was found

between improvement groups. It appears that key staff in schools that made

rapid sustained development in academic outcomes from a low start reported

greater SLT involvement in these aspects suggesting a more proactive ‘hands on’

approach.

Table 4.10: Secondary key staff responses to the kinds of leadership provided by

SMT/SLT relating to teaching and learning (agree “moderately” or “strongly”) by

improvement group

The Kinds of Leadership Practice Provided by SMT/SLT

Low Start Group

Moderate Start Group

High Start Group

N % N % N % Share a similar set of values, beliefs and attitudes related to teaching and learning

422 83 180 80 285 81

Participate in ongoing, collaborative work 405 79 176 69 268 76 Have a role in the development of policies on lesson planning

466 91 197 88 312 89

Have a positive impact on standards of teaching 389 76 169 74 265 75 Have a positive impact on raising levels of pupil attainment

395 77 164 72 272 72

4.3.3 The extent to which leadership practice in school was provided

by other people or groups (Internal and External)

Headteacher Perceptions

More secondary than primary heads tended to report that leadership practice was

provided “all the time” by Deputy Head(s) and SMT/SLT. In secondary schools the

majority of heads reported that leadership practice was provided “all the time” by

Deputy Head(s) (N=242, 67%) and SMT/SLT (N=213, 59%). In contrast, in

primary schools only slightly over half (N=182, 51%) reported that leadership

practice was provided by Deputy Head(s) “all the time” and less than half

(N=173, 47%) reported that SMT/SLT provided “a great deal” of leadership

practice in their schools.

In addition, over half of secondary heads reported that leadership practice was

provided “a great deal” by Heads of Faculty (N=139, 52%). In contrast, less than

half of primary heads (45%, N=138) reported that Key Stage Managers provided

“a great deal” of leadership practice in their schools.

86 χ²=20.81, df=10, p<0.05; Gamma=-0.12, p<0.01 87 χ²=28.88, df=12, p<0.01

81

External participation in leadership

Compared to primary heads (N=79, 21%), almost twice as many secondary

heads reported that their LA (N=152, 43%) provided little leadership practice in

their schools. Also, more secondary heads (N=142, 40%) than their primary

peers (N=101, 27%) reported very little leadership practice from parents.

School SES contexts

Secondary heads leading high disadvantage schools were more likely than their

colleagues in low disadvantage schools to report leadership by the LA (13%

versus 8% FSM1 and 2), School Improvement Partners (SIPs) (23% versus 18%

FSM1 and 2) and parents88 (10% versus 3% FSM1 and 2) (Table 4.11).

Table 4.11: Secondary headteacher responses concerning the extent to which

leadership practice in their schools was provided by various groups

Group School

FSM Band

Rarely/never / Infrequently

Some Moderate amount

A great deal / All the time

Total

FSM 1 and 2

81 (38.9%)

47 (22.6%)

42 (20.2%)

38 (18.3%)

208 (100.0%) School

Improvement Partners (SIPS) FSM 3

and 4 21

(23.1%) 19

(20.9%) 30

(33.0%) 21

(23.1%) 91

(100.0%)

FSM 1 and 2

125 (49.8%)

58 (23.1%)

47 (18.7%)

21 (8.4%)

251 (100.0%) Local Authority

(LA) FSM 3 and 4

24 (23.5%)

24 (23.5%)

41 (40.2%)

13 (12.7%)

102 (100.0%)

FSM 1 and 2

108 (43.0%)

84 (33.5%)

52 (20.7%)

7 (2.8%)

251 (100.0%)

Parents FSM 3 and 4

32 (31.1%)

41 (39.8%)

20 (19.4%)

10 (9.7%)

103 (100.0%)

88 LA: χ²=26.72, df=3, p<0.001; Gamma=0.42, p<0.001; SIPs: χ²=9.79, df=3, p<0.05; Gamma=0.25, p<0.01; parents: χ²=10.82, df=3, p<0.05; Gamma=0.20, p<0.05.

82

School improvement groups

In relationship to the three improvement groupings, primary heads in the High

Start Group were somewhat more likely to report that pupils in their schools

provided a moderate (N=51, 42%) or a substantial amount (N=41, 33%) of

leadership practice, compared to those serving in the Low Start and Moderate

Start Groups (p<0.05) (Figure 4.3). This was, however, not the case for the

secondary sample.

Figure 4.3: Leadership distribution by pupils and the three improvement groups

(Primary)

In the secondary sample, heads of schools in the Low Start Group were more

likely to report that leadership practice in their schools was provided “a great

deal” or “all the time” by i) groups of teachers, ii) individual teachers with

formally assigned tasks (e.g. KS3 co-ordinators) and iii) the LA89.

In particular, only one in three heads of the Low Start Group (N=55, 33%)

indicated that their LA rarely or infrequently contributed to the provision of

leadership in their schools in contrast to two in three of the High Group (N=64,

67%) who indicated so (Table 4.12). This is likely to reflect LA targeting and

priorities to assist the improvement of low attaining schools, while those in the

High Start Group may not need or wish for LA involvement, and indeed may be

89 i) groups of teachers: Gamma=-0.18, p<0.05, ii) individual teachers with formally assigned tasks: Gamma=-0.18, p<0.05; and iii) the LA: χ²=19.30, df=6, p<0.01; Gamma=-0.29, p<0.001.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Low -Mod/High Mod-HigherMod/High

Stable High/High-Higher

a great deal/all the time

moderateamount

some

Rarely/infrequently

(N=158) (N=123)(N=93)

83

acting in a supportive capacity for other schools as a SIP, for example.

Table 4.12: School improvement group and secondary headteachers’ responses

concerning the extent to which leadership is provided by different people and

groups

Group Improveme

nt group

Rarely / Never /

Infrequently Some Moderate


Total

Low Start Group

5 (3.1%)

20 (12.3%)

64 (39.5%)

73 (45.1%)

162 (100.0%)


2 (2.7%)

16 (21.3%)

33 (44.0%)

24 (32.0%)

75 (100.0%)

Groups of teachers

High Start Group

2 (1.8%)

25 (22.1%)

50 (44.2%)

36 (31.9%)

113 (100.0%)

Low Start Group

1 (0.6%)

14 (8.6%)

54 (33.1%)

94 (57.7%)

163 (100.0%)


1 (1.4%)

12 (16.2%)

21 (28.4%)

40 (54.1%)

74 (100.0%)

Individual teachers

with formally assigned

tasks High Start Group

1 (0.9%)

22 (19.5%)

38 (33.6%)

52 (46.0%)

113 (100.0%)

Low Start Group

55 (33.3%)

40 (24.2%)

49 (29.7%)

21 (12.7%)

165 (100.0%)


30 (40.0%)

16 (21.3%)

21 (28.0%)

8 (10.7%)

75 (100.0%)

Local Authority

(LA) High Start

Group 64

(56.6%) 26

(23.0%) 18

(15.9%) 5

(4.4%) 113

(100.0%)

Key Staff Perceptions

The evidence from the Key staff survey indicated that there was a fairly strong

degree of correspondence in general views on leadership between headteachers

and other key staff. Significant differences were noted only with regards to

leadership practice by the School Improvement Partners (SIPs) and the LA.

Secondary key staff from the High Start Group were the most likely to report

“infrequently” and least likely to report “a great deal” of leadership practice by

SIPs.

Internal participation in leadership

Differences between headteachers’ and key staff’s responses were found

particularly in relation to the reported provision of leadership practice by senior

managers. For the headteacher sample, more secondary than primary heads

reported that leadership practice was provided “all the time” or “a great deal” by

Deputy Heads and SMT/SLT. However, for the Key Staff sample more primary

Key Staff than their secondary peers indicated that this was the case.

Forty-four per cent (N=246) of primary key staff compared to 38% of secondary

84

key staff (N=432) reported that Deputy Head(s) provided leadership practice “all

the time” in their schools, although, this difference was not statistically

significant. Primary staff (N=267, 46%) were also more likely than those of

secondary (N=473, 41%) to report that “a great deal” of leadership was provided

by SMT/SLT.

In addition, more primary (N=418, 69%) than secondary (N=603, 52%) key staff

reported that the leadership was provided by the headteacher “all the time”.

External participation in leadership

Key staff’s responses were broadly in line with headteachers’ reports on the

extent of leadership practice provided by LA and parents. Primary key staff were

more likely to indicate that a “moderate amount” (N=203, 35%) or “a great deal”

(N=117, 20%) of leadership was provided by their LA than their counterparts in

secondary schools (N=117, 20% and N=150, 14%). Secondary staff (N=326,

29%) were relatively more likely than their Primary (N=122, 21%) counterparts

to report that parents “infrequently” provided leadership practice in their schools.


Significant differences were noted only with regards to leadership practice by the

School Improvement Partners (SIPs) and the LA. Secondary Key Staff from the

High Group were the most likely to report “infrequently” and least likely to report

“a great deal” of leadership practice by SIPs90 (see Figure A in Appendix IV).

When asked about the leadership practice by the LA, both primary and secondary

staff in the High Group schools were the most likely to report “Infrequently” 91

(see Figures B and C in Appendix IV). For the headteacher sample however, a

similar pattern of association relating to the LA was found only in secondary

schools.

These results indicate that external agents (SIPs and LA) are perceived to play a

lesser role in secondary schools with a longer history of success (with stable high

effective performance over several years).

90 χ²=33.69, df=10, p<0.001 91 Primary: χ²=19.61, df=10, p<0.05; Secondary: χ²=51.92, df=10, p<0.001 respectively

85

4.4 Leadership Influence: Persuasion Tactics


As noted in Chaper 1, there was considerable variation in heads’ responses to

items concerning persuasion tactics for both the primary and the secondary

samples. Some tactics were much more widely reported than others.

Table 4.13: Comparisons of heads’ responses (“Very Significantly” ) to items on

persuasion tactics

Primary Headteachers Secondary Headteachers

“Very significantly” “Very significantly” To what extent do you feel able to use:

N % N %

Rational persuasion 94 25 132 36

Consultation 92 25 97 27

Inspirational appeals 45 12 60 17

Personal support 46 12 40 11

Apprising 37 10 58 16

Ingratiation 12 3 19 5

Coalition building 10 3 19 5

Legitimating tactics 8 2 14 4

Personal appeals 4 1 10 3

Exchange 5 1 8 2

Pressure 1 .3 9 2

Rational persuasion and consultation were the strategies most commonly

reported by both primary and secondary heads to influence and persuade others,

followed by inspirational appeals (appeals to persons’ values, ideals or emotions),

apprising (explaining how something would be beneficial to the person) and

personal support (Table 4.13).

In particular, more than one in three secondary heads (N=132, 37%) indicated

that to a “very significant” extent they used rational persuasion to influence

others, in contrast to one in four primary heads (N=94, 25%) who reported this.

It is possible that the use of rational persuasion may be related to the larger size

of secondary schools which may limit some other strategies.

Also, secondary heads (“a lot” and “very significantly”: N=201, 56%) were

somewhat more likely to report the use of inspirational appeals than their primary

colleagues (“a lot” and “very significantly”: N=165, 44%).

Exchange (offering something with the expectation of reciprocity at a later time),

personal appeals (appealing to personal friendship of favours) and pressure (the

86

use of demands, persistent checking etc) were least often reported tactics for

both groups, followed by legitimating tactics (efforts to establish the legitimacy of

a course of action or to verify the authority to carry out the action). (Tables A and

B in Appendix V)

School SES contexts

Pressure was somewhat less commonly reported as a tactic used by heads in low

disadvantage primary schools92, but it was not the case at the secondary level.

Over half (N=123, 53%) of primary heads in FSM1 and 2 schools indicated they

hardly used pressure as a tactic, in contrast to 41% (N=58) of primary heads

serving high disadvantage schools who reported doing so.


In the primary sample pressure was found to be somewhat more commonly

reported by heads in the Low Group (N=51, 32%) than those in the Moderate

(N=21, 23%) and High (N=23, 19%) improvement groups93. However, this was

not found to be case for the secondary sample.

For the secondary sample statistically significant differences were found between

the three improvement groups in relation to heads’ reported use of inspirational

appeals94 and personal support95 (Table 4.14) as tactics to influence and persuade

others. These two tactics were somewhat less commonly reported by heads

serving schools in the High Start Group (Inspirational Appeals: N=53, 47%;

Personal Support: N=40, 35%). By contrast, there was no marked difference

between the Low Start and the Moderate Start groups in terms of the use of

inspirational appeals. In both groups the majority of heads (the Low Start Group:

N=100, 60%; the Moderate Start Group: N=47, 62%) reported using

inspirational appeals as tactics to influence others in their school. Heads in the

Moderate Group were somewhat more likely to report using personal support

(N=44, 58%) to influence others in their schools.

92 Gamma=0.19, p<0.05 93 Gamma=-0.18, p<0.05 94 χ²=15.54, df=6, p<0.05 95 χ²=16.57, df=6, p<0.05

87

Table 4.14: School improvement group and secondary headteachers’ responses

concerning the extent to which they feel able to use different tactics to influence

and persuade others

To what extent do you feel able to use:

School improvement

group

Rarely / Never /

Infrequently Some Moderate


Total

Low Start Group

3 (1.8%)

18 (10.8%)

45 (27.1%)

100 (60.2%)

166 (100.0%)


3 (3.9%)

8 (10.5%)

18 (23.7%)

47 (61.8%)

76 (100.0%)

Inspirational appeals

High Start Group

7 (6.1%)

6 (5.3%)

48 (42.1%)

53 (46.5%)

114 (100.0%)

Low Start Group

15 (9.0%)

25 (15.0%)

46 (27.5%)

81 (48.5%)

167 (100.0%)


10 (13.2%)

5 (6.6%)

17 (22.4%)

44 (57.9%)

76 (100.0%)

Personal support

High Start Group

15 (13.2%)

12 (10.5%)

47 (41.2%)

40 (35.1%)

114 (100.0%)

These findings suggest that the headteachers in schools that are making more

rapid improvement from a lower starting point may be making greater use of a

range of strategies, particularly those that have an emotional component (offers

of personal support, inspirational appeals) that are likely to affect the mind set

and emotional climate of the school. In contrast, schools that are already highly

effective appear to make less use of these approaches.


Overall key staff’s perceptions varied when asked about their headteachers’

persuasion tactics.

In line with headteachers’ responses, the greatest proportion of key staff reported

that the headteacher in their schools tended to use rational persuasion and

consultation “very significantly” to persuade and influence others (N=655, 37%

and N=609, 35% respectively).

Personal appeals, exchange, and pressure were reported as the least commonly

used tactics by the headteacher – which is also in line with results of the

headteacher sample. Around 20% of key staff indicated that the headteacher in

their schools did not use these persuasion tactics at all to influence others.

Education sector

88

Within the headteacher sample, more secondary than primary heads reported the

use of rational persuasion and inspirational appeals to persuade and influence

others.

For the key staff sample, equal proportions of primary and secondary staff

reported the use of most of the listed persuasion tactics by their headteacher,

except for consultation, legitimating tactics and pressure (Table 4.15).

• Primary staff were more likely than their secondary colleagues to report

that the headteacher used consultation a lot/very significantly (Primary:

N=486, 81% and Secondary: N=813, 70%) to influence others;

• However, compared to primary key staff, secondary key staff were more

likely to report that their headteacher used legitimating tactics (Primary:

N=113, 20% and Secondary: N=266, 24%) and pressure (Primary: N=47,

8% and Secondary: N=171, 15%) a lot or very significantly.

Table 4.15: Key staff responses concerning the extent to which they felt their

headteacher uses different tactics to influence and persuade others

To what extent do you feel

able to use:

Sector Not at

all Very little

Little Partially A lot Ver y

significantly Total

Primary 3

(0.5%) 5

(0.8%) 20

(3.3%) 86

(14.1%) 263

(43.3%) 223

(36.7%) 600

(100.0%) Consultation

Secondary 14

(1.2%) 36

(3.1%) 68

(5.9%) 225

(19.5%) 427

(36.9%) 386

(33.4%) 1156

(100.0%)

Primary 84

(14.7%) 93

(16.3%) 116

(20.4%) 164

(28.8%) 80

(14.0%) 33

(5.8%) 570

(100.0%) Legitimating tactics

Secondary 104

(9.4%) 149

(13.4%) 216

(19.4%) 376

(33.8%) 206

(18.5%) 60

(5.4%) 1111

(100.0%)

Primary 170

(28.2%) 191

(31.7%) 124

(20.6%) 70

(11.6%) 39

(6.5%) 8

(1.3%) 602

(100.0%) Pressure

Secondary 200

(17.4%) 299

(26.0%) 241

(21.0%) 237

(20.6%) 124

(10.8%) 47

(4.1%) 1148

(100.0%)

School SES contexts

School disadvantage was not associated with the way key staff perceived their

headteacher’s persuasion tactics except with regards to the use of ingratiation

within secondary schools. Heads of departments from high disadvantage schools

(N=107, 31%) were more likely than their counterparts from low disadvantage

schools (N=200, 25%) to indicate that the headteacher used Ingratiation “a

89

lot/very significantly” to influence or persuade others96.


Key staff responses concerning the headteachers’ use of persuasion tactics did

not differ based on the three improvement groups within the primary key staff

sample. However, differences were found for the secondary sample. Heads of

Department from schools in the High Start Group were slightly less likely than

their counterparts in other improvement groups to report that the headteacher

used inspirational appeals97 and ingratiation98. This is broadly in line with the

findings from the headteacher survey.

4.5 School Conditions: Academic Press


Heads’ responses were fairly positive for all the items relating to academic

standards and expectations in their schools and this might be expected given the

focus of the sample on highly improved/ highly effective schools. Primary heads

were relatively more likely to report improvement in most items related to

academic aspects over the last three years than their secondary peers.

Nonetheless, a relatively greater proportion of secondary (N=225, 62%) than

primary heads (N=176, 47%) tended to “agree strongly” that the performance of

department/subject areas was regularly monitored and targets for improvement

were regularly set in their schools.


A large majority of key staff agreed moderately/strongly to the items relating to

academic standards and expectations set in their schools. For example, when

they were asked whether their school sets high standards for academic

performance, more than 90% agreed moderately/strongly to it. This is broadly in

line with findings from the headteacher sample.

96 χ²=8.64, df=3, p<0.05 97 χ²=22.90, df=10, p<0.05; Gamma=-0.12, p<0.01 98 χ²=33.03, df=10, p<0.001; Gamma=-0.11, p<0.01

90

Nonetheless, there were a few items to which a substantial proportion of key staff

showed relatively lower levels of agreement. For example:

• Only 57% agreed moderately/strongly that the lessons plans are regularly

discussed and monitored;

• 67% agreed moderately/strongly that pupils respect others who get good

marks/grades.

Overall, there was a considerable sector difference, with higher proportions of

positive responses from primary key stage managers than their peers in

secondary schools for most items for this section. This is, again, broadly in line

with findings from the headteacher survey.

4.5.1 School SES Contexts


School socio-economic contexts were related to both primary and secondary

heads’ responses in this section. For both the primary and secondary sample

those in high disadvantage schools were more likely to agree that lesson plans

were regularly discussed and monitored99.

In addition, for primaries those in high disadvantage schools (FSM 3 and 4:

N=118, 84% versus FSM 1 and 2: N=175, 75%) were somewhat more likely to

agree moderately or strongly that the performance of subject areas was regularly

monitored and targets for improvement were regularly set (p<0.05). Those in low

disadvantage schools (FSM 1 and 2: N=196, 84% versus FSM 3 and 4: N=104,

73%), were proportionately more likely to agree that pupils were regularly

involved in assessment for learning in their schools100 (Table 4.16).

For secondaries, heads in low disadvantage schools (FSM 1 and 2: N=200, 79%

versus FSM 3 and 4: N=91, 88%) were slightly less likely to agree strongly that

teachers regularly use pupil assessment data to set individual pupil achievement

targets (Gamma=0.34, p<0.05). However, pupil assessment data were clearly

highly used in all schools.

99 Primary: χ²=9.1, df=3, p<0.05; Gamma=0.33, p<0.01; Secondary: Gamma=0.28, p<0.01 100 χ²=7.8, df=3, [email protected]; Gamma=-0.32, p<0.05

91

Table 4.16: School socio-economic status and primary headteachers’ responses

concerning academic standards and expectations

Question School

FSM Band

Disagree strongly /

moderately

Disagree slightly

Agree slightly

Agree moderately / strongly

Total

FSM1 and 2

4 (1.7%)

10 (4.3%)

44 (18.9%)

175 (75.1%)

233 (100.0%)

The performance of subject areas is regularly monitored and targets for improvement are regularly set

FSM3 and 4

0 (0.0%)

3 (2.1%)

20 (14.1%)

118 (83.7%)

141 (100.0%)

FSM1 and 2

1 (0.4%)

3 (1.3%)

33 (14.2%)

196 (84.1%)

233 (100.0%)

Pupils are regularly involved in assessment for learning FSM3

and 4 3

(2.1%) 4

(2.8%) 31

(21.8%) 104

(73.2%) 173

(100.0%)


Similar patterns of associations were found within the key staff sample. Key staff

from high disadvantage schools were more likely to agree with specific items

related to the use of performance data and monitoring:

• Primary key staff in high disadvantage schools were relatively more likely

than their peers in low disadvantage schools to agree that the

performance of subject areas was regularly monitored and targets for

improvement were regularly set101 (Table 4.17). This is in line with primary

headteachers’ responses. This is in line with primary headteachers’

responses.

• Also in line with secondary headteachers’ responses, secondary key staff

in high disadvantage schools were more likely to agree that lesson plans

were regularly discussed and monitored102 in their schools and that class

teachers regularly use pupil assessment data to set individual pupil

achievement targets103 (Table 4.17).

101 χ²=10.27, df=4, p<0.05 102 χ²=11.33, df=5, p<0.05 103 χ²=22.69, df=5, p<0.001;Gamma=0.24, p<0.001

92

Table 4.17: Key staff responses indicating agreement with the statement “The

performance of subject areas is regularly monitored and targets for improvement

are regularly set”

Sector School

FSM Band

Disagree strongly

Disagree moderately

Disagree slightly

Agree slightly

Agree moderately

Agree strongly

Total

FSM1 and 2

0 (0.0%)

2 (0.5%)

15 (4.1%)

66 (17.8%)

140 (37.8%)

147 (39.7%)

370 (100.0%)

Primary FSM3 and 4

0 (0.0%)

2 (0.9%)

28 (12.2%)

28 (12.2%)

90 (39.1%)

108 (47.0%)

230 (100.0%)

FSM1 and 2

0 (0.0%)

10 (1.2%)

33 (4.1%)

109 (13.6%)

268 (33.3%)

384 (47.8%)

804 (100.0%)

Secondary

FSM3 and 4

0 (0.0%)

3 (0.9%)

9 (2.6%)

39 (11.4%)

114 (33.2%)

178 (51.9%)

343 (100.0%)

Taken together, these results suggest that the use of performance data and

monitoring are particularly important strategies in the drive to raise standards in

schools that make sustained improvement in raising pupil attainment in

disadvantaged contexts.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, higher numbers of Key Staff from low disadvantage

schools agreed that most pupils do achieve the goals that have been set for

them. This was the case for both Primary and Secondary samples104.

4.5.2 School Improvement Groups


Patterns of associations between the school’s improvement group and survey

responses differed for the primary and secondary headteacher samples.

Primary heads serving schools in the Moderate Start Group (N=79, 84%) were

more likely to agree moderately or strongly that lesson plans were regularly

discussed and monitored in their schools than those in the other two

improvement groups (the Low Start Group: N=126, 79%; the High Start Group:

N=87, 71%)105 (Table 4.18). Also at the primary level, heads in the High Start

Group (87%) were somewhat more likely than their peers in the other two

improvement groups to agree that pupils were regularly involved in assessment

104 Primary: χ²=14.14, df=4, p<0.01; Secondary: χ²=11.57, df=5, p<0.05 105 χ²=14.93, df=6, p<0.05

93

for learning within their schools106, though a large majority in all groups agreed

moderately or strongly with this item (the Moderate Group: N=74, 79%; the Low

Group: N=120, 75%) (Table 4.19).

Table 4.18: Improvement groups and primary heads’ responses to “Lesson plans

are regularly discussed monitored.”

Improvement Groups Disagree strongly/

moderately

Disagree slightly

Agree slightly

Agree moderately/

strongly

Total


(0.6%) 9

(5.6%) 24

(15%) 126

(78.8%)

160

(100%)


1 (1.1%)

2 (2.1%)

12 (12.8%)

79 (84%)

94

(100%)


6 (4.9%)

2 (1.6%)

27 (22.1%)

87 (71.3%)

122

(100%)

Total 8

(2%) 13

(3%) 63

(17%) 292

(78%)

376

(100%)

Table 4.19: Improvement groups and primary heads’ responses to “pupils are

regularly involved in assessment for learning”


moderately

Disagree slightly

Agree slightly

Agree moderately/

strongly

Total


(2.5%) 4

(2.5%) 32

(20%) 120

(75%)

160

(100%)


0 (0%)

1 (1.1%)

19 (20.2%)

74 (78.7%)

94

(100%)


0 (0%)

3 (2.5%)

13 (10.7%)

106 (86.9%)

122

(100%)

Total 4

(1%) 8

(2%) 64

(17%) 300

(80%)

376

(100%)

At the secondary level, heads in the Low Start Group schools were

proportionately less likely to agree moderately or strongly that teachers set high

standards for academic performance107 (N=140, 84%) and that pupils respected

others who had good marks/grades108 (N=99, 59%) (Table 4.20 and Table 4.21).

In contrast, heads serving schools in the Moderate Start Group were somewhat

more likely to agree that teachers set high standards for academic performance

(N=72, 96%) whereas those working in the High Start Group schools were

proportionately more likely to agree strongly that pupils respected others who

106 Gamma=0.26, p<0.05 107 χ²=12.75, df=4, p<0.05; Gamma=0.41, p<0.01 108 Gamma=0.27, p<0.05

94

had achieved good marks/grades (N=88, 77%).

Table 4.20: Improvement groups and secondary heads’ responses to “Teachers

set high standards for academic performance”

Improvement Groups Disagree slightly

Agree slightly

Agree moderately/ strongly

Total


(0.6%) 26

(15.6%) 140

(83.8%)

167

(100%)


1 (1.3%)

2 (2.7%)

72 (96%)

75

(100%)


0 (0%)

8 (7%)

107 (93%)

115

(100%)

Total 2

(1%) 36

(10%) 319

(89%)

357

(100%)

Table 4.21: Improvement groups and secondary heads’ responses to “pupils

respect others who get good marks/grades”


moderately

Disagree slightly

Agree slightly

Agree moderately/

strongly

Total


(3%) 19

(11.4%) 44

(26.3%) 99

(59.3%)

167

(100%)


2 (2.7%)

4 (5.3%)

21 (28%)

48 (64%)

75

(100%)


1 (0.9%)

6 (5.3%)

19 (16.7%)

88 (77.2%)

114

(100%)

Total 8

(2%) 29

(8%) 84

(24%) 235

(66%)

356

(100%)


In common with findings from the headteacher sample, patterns of associations

also differed for the primary and secondary key staff sample.

In primary schools, responses from key staff did not differ significantly based on

improvement groups except for one item on academic standards and

expectations. Proportionately more key staff from the High Start Group of schools

were likely to agree strongly that most pupils do achieve the goals that have been

set for them when compared with the leaders from schools in the two other

improvement groups109. Overall, 60% of primary key stage managers from

schools in the high group compared to only 47% staff from the Moderate Start

109 χ²=16.33, df=8, p<0.05

95

Group schools and only 41% of those from the Low Start Group agreed strongly

to this statement (see Figure A in Appendix VI).

However, for secondary schools, significant differences were found on most items

in relation to the three groups of improving schools. Key staff from the High Start

Group reported stronger agreement than their peers in the other two

improvement groups when asked whether i) Pupils in this school can achieve the

goals that have been set for them110 (Figure B in Appendix VI); ii) Teachers set

high standards for academic performance111; iii) The school sets high standards

for academic performance112 (Figure C in Appendix VI); iv) Their pupils respect

others who get good marks/grades113 (Figure D in Appendix VI). For example,

40% of key staff from the High Start Group schools compared to 26% from the

Moderate Start Group and only 21% from the Low Start Group agreed strongly

that pupils in their schools can achieve the goals that have been set for them.

4.6 School Conditions: Collaborative Cultures

Headteachers and key staff were surveyed to establish their perceptions of the

current state of their schools in relation to collaborative practise and cultures.


Most headteachers’ responses to all items on school culture were rated very

positively by both primary and secondary heads, though, again, the primary

heads were more likely to report somewhat higher agreement on most items

related to aspects of school culture than their secondary peers.

In particular, almost two thirds of primary heads (N=233, 62%) agreed strongly

that there was ongoing collaborative planning of classroom work among teachers

in their schools, compared with just under a third of secondary heads (N=111,

31%) who reported this. There was lower agreement (“agree strongly”) that

pupils felt safe in their schools for the secondary (N=204, 57%) than the primary

sample (N=311, 82%). In addition, only just over a third of secondary heads

(N=134, 37%) agreed strongly that teachers and other adults in the classroom

110 χ²=19.12, df=10, p<0.05 111 χ²=79.94, df=8, p<0.001 112 χ²=56.56, df=8, p<0.001 113 χ²=76.44, df=10, p<0.001

96

worked collaboratively whereas twice as many primary heads (N=291, 77%)

indicated that this was the case in their schools. Secondary heads (N=145, 40%)

were, also, much less likely than their primary colleagues (N=298, 79%) to agree

moderately or strongly that parents often visited the school.


The majority of the key staff reported higher levels of agreement to most items

relating to the culture in their schools. This is broadly in line with findings from

the headteacher survey in which most primary and secondary heads responded

positively to all items on school culture.

In particular, close to 95% of the key staff agreed moderately/strongly when

asked whether teachers in their school mostly work together to improve their

practice. The least amount of agreement was reported when they were asked

whether parents often visit the school (N=1,026, 58% agreed

moderately/strongly).

Considerable sector difference was also noted in relation to all items on school

culture. Primary key staff reported higher levels of “strong” agreements and lower

levels of “moderate” agreements than their counterparts in secondary schools as

seen in Appendix VII (Tables A & B). This is, again, in line with patterns of

responses from the headteacher survey.

4.6.1 School SES Contexts


At the primary level, heads in low disadvantage schools were more likely to agree

that parents often visited the school114. (FSM 1 and 2: 86% versus FSM 3 and 4:

67%).

At the secondary level heads in high disadvantage schools were more likely to

agree that most teachers shared a similar set of values, beliefs and attitudes115

(FSM 3 and 4: 96% versus FSM 1 and 2: 88%) and that teachers and other

adults worked collaboratively in the classroom116 (FSM 3 and 4: 91% versus FSM

1 and 2: 82%).

114 χ²=21.74, df=3, p<0.001; Gamma=-0.51, p<0.001 115 Gamma=0.54, p<0.01 116 Gamma=0.38, p<0.05

97


In common with patterns of headteachers’ responses, school disadvantage was

related to both primary and secondary key staff responses, but for different items

on school culture.

When asked whether parents often visit the school, primary key staff from high

disadvantage schools were relatively less likely than their counterparts to agree

strongly to it117, but this was not the case for secondary schools (Table 4.22).

This finding is again in line with headteachers’ responses.

Table 4.22: Key staff responses indicating agreement with the statement

“Parents often visit the school”

Sector School

FSM Band

Disagree strongly

Disagree moderately

Disagree slightly

Agree slightly

Agree moderately

Agree strongly

Total

FSM1 and 2

2 (0.5%)

8 (2.2%)

13 (3.5%)

41 (11.1%)

117 (31.7%)

188 (50.9%)

369 (100.0%)

Primary FSM3 and 4

4 (1.7%)

10 (4.3%)

16 (7.0%)

43 (18.7%)

80 (34.3%)

77 (33.5%)

230 (100.0%)

FSM1 and 2

14 (1.8%)

57 (7.1%)

107 (13.4%)

230 (28.8%)

252 (31.5%)

139 (17.4%)

799 (100.0%)

Secondary

FSM3 and 4

16 (4.7%)

18 (5.2%)

48 (14.0%)

99 (28.8%)

105 (30.5%)

58 (16.9%)

344 (100.0%)

At the secondary level, key staff in high disadvantage schools were also more

likely than their peers in low disadvantage schools to agree that most teachers in

their school shared a similar set of values, beliefs and attitudes118 (Table 4.23).

This once again corresponds with headteachers’ perceptions.

117 χ²=23.66, df=5, p<0.001; Gamma=-0.31, p<0.001 118 χ²=15.36, df=5, p<0.01

98

Table 4.23: Secondary key staff responses indicating agreement with the

statement “Most teachers in our school share a similar set of values, beliefs and

attitudes related to teaching and learning”

School FSM Band

Disagree strongly

Disagree moderately

Disagree slightly

Agree slightly

Agree moderately

Agree strongly

Total

FSM1 and 2

1 (0.1%)

9 (1.1%)

30 (3.7%)

141 (17.5%)

388 (48.2%)

236 (29.3%)

805 (100.0%)

FSM3 and 4

3 (0.9%)

7 (2.0%)

13 (3.7%)

51 (14.8%)

139 (40.4%)

131 (37.5%)

344 (100.0%)

Total 4

(0.3%) 16

(1.4%) 43

(3.7%) 192

(16.7%) 527

(45.9%) 367

(31.9%) 1149

(100.0%)

School disadvantage was also found to be related to different items on school

culture compared with secondary headteachers’ responses. Key staff in high

disadvantage schools were relatively more likely than those from low

disadvantage schools to agree strongly that i) the goals they are expected to

accomplish with their pupils are clear to them119; ii) there is no conflict in their

mind about what they are expected to do120; and iii) the school is actively

involved in work with other schools or organisations121.

Contrasting associations were found when secondary heads of department were

asked whether pupils feel safe in their schools122. A slightly higher proportion of

key staff from low disadvantage schools (N= 361, 45%) agreed strongly to it

compared to their peers from high disadvantage schools (N=144, 42%).

Taken together these results suggest that the achievement of a common vision,

or mind set is likely to play a particular role in motivating and focussing the

collective efforts of staff to promote improvement in pupil outcomes as a high

priority within high disadvantage contexts.



Overall there were few statistically significant differences between the three

improvement groups in relation to most items on school culture, except for heads’

perceptions of how often parents visited their schools.

As shown in Figure 4.4 and Figure 4.5, for both the primary and the secondary


99

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Stable High/ High-Higher

AgreeModerately/StronglyAgreeSlightly

DisagreeSlightly

DisagreeStrongly/Moderately

(N=160) (N=122)(N=94)

samples, heads serving the Low Start Group schools were somewhat less likely to

agree that parents often visited their schools123. For example, 69% of primary

heads in the Low Start Group, compared to 86% of those in the Moderate Start

and High Start Groups respectively, agreed moderately or strongly that parents

often visited their schools. At the secondary level, 33% of headteachers in the

Low Start Group, in contrast to 49% of those in the High Start Group, agreed that

this was the case.

Figure 4.4: Levels of agreement with the item “parents often visit the school” by

improvement groups (Primary)

123 Primary: χ²=17.93, df=6, p<0.01; Gamma=0.37, p<0.001; Secondary: Gamma=0.19, p<0.01

100

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Stable High/ High-Higher

AgreeModerately/StronglyAgreeSlightly

DisagreeSlightly

DisagreeStrongly/Moderately

(N=165) (N=115)(N=75)

Figure 4.5: Levels of agreement with the item “parents often visit the school” by

improvement groups (Secondary)


Key staff responses differed based on the three improvement groups for three

items on school culture.

At the primary level, key stage managers from the High Start Group schools were

the most likely to agree strongly to the statement that parents often visit the

school124. This is in line with the headteachers’ responses. Primary key staff from

the Moderate Start Group were the most likely to agree strongly that the goals

they are expected to accomplish with their pupils are clear to them125 (Table

4.24).

Table 4.24: Primary key staff responses indicating agreement with the statement

“The goals I am expected to accomplish with my pupils are clear to me”

Improvement Group

Disagree strongly

Disagree moderately

Disagree slightly

Agree slightly

Agree moderately

Agree strongly

Total

Low Start Group

0 (0.0%)

0 (0.0%)

0 (0.0%)

1 (0.4%)

58 (23.2%)

191 (76.4%)

250 (100.0%)


0 (0.0%)

0 (0.0%)

0 (0.0%)

4 (2.9%)

19 (13.8%)

115 (83.3%)

138 (100.0%)

High Start Group

0 (0.0%)

0 (0.0%)

2 (1.1%)

1 (0.6%)

36 (20.2%)

139 (78.1%)

178 (100.0%)

Total 0

(0.0%) 0

(0.0%) 2

(0.4%) 6

(1.1%) 113

(20.0%) 445

(78.6%) 566

(100.0%)

For the secondary key staff sample, higher proportions of heads of department

124 χ²=28.53, df=10, p<0.01 125 χ²=16.72, df=6, p<0.05

101

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Low -Moderate/High Moderate-highermoderate/high

Stable high/ high-higher

Agree strongly

Agree moderately

Agree slightly

Disagree slightly

Disagree strongly/moderately

from the High Start Group were more likely to agree strongly that pupils feel safe

in their school126. Figure 4.6 illustrates this result and points to the difference in

perceptions of behavioural climate.

Figure 4.6: Three improvement groups and key staff responses to whether their

pupils feel safe in their school (Secondary)

4.7 Leader Self-Efficacy


Both primary and secondary heads’ responses to items related to their self-

efficacy were positively skewed, indicating high levels of self-confidence about

their abilities. However, although still positive, primary heads’ responses were

somewhat less favourable than their secondary colleagues on most items.

Primary heads were relatively less positive about their ability to manage multiple

accountabilities from diverse audiences and their ability to sustain their job

satisfaction and motivation in their leadership role as well as their commitment to

the teaching profession (Table 4.25 shows differences in the use of the most

positive ratings). Also, primary heads were relatively less confident about their

ability to raise achievement in national tests and examinations and to manage

change in their schools.

Secondary heads of improved and highly effective schools showed the most

positive ratings for their ability to sustain their commitment to the teaching

126 χ²=64.83, df=10, p<0.001

102

profession and to manage change.

Table 4.25: Comparisons of heads’ responses (“very significantly”) to items on

self-efficacy127

Primary Headteachers

Secondary Headteachers

Very significantly Very significantly To what extent do you feel able to:

N % N %

Manage multiple accountabilities from diverse audiences

68 18 97 27

Sustain your job satisfaction in your leadership role 91 24 139 39

Sustain your motivation as a school leader 91 24 147 41

Sustain your commitment to the teaching profession 133 35 180 50

Raise achievement on national tests & exams 77 21 114 32

Manage change in your school 149 39 170 48


The majority of the key staff also responded positively on almost all items related

to headteacher efficacy. In particular, when they were asked whether the

headteacher in their school managed multiple accountabilities from diverse

audiences (e.g. Governing Body, LA, Ofsted), 92% (N=1,595) reported “a lot” or

“very significantly”. This corresponds to patterns of headteachers’ own

perceptions of their self-efficacy. Primary key staff were more likely to hold

positive views on all of the items related to the headteacher’s efficacy. These

results confirm the high esteem accorded to head teachers in the sample of

effective and improved schools in this study by their key staff.

4.7.1 School SES contexts


In both sectors heads from more disadvantaged schools responded most

positively to items asking their views about their self-efficacy. For primary heads,

those from high disadvantage schools were more positive about items related to

their role and their ability to manage change in their school128 (FSM 3 and 4:

N=134, 94% versus FSM 1 and 2: N=207, 89%) and manage multiple

accountabilities129 (FSM 3 and 4: N=96, 68%; versus FSM 1 and 2: N=121,

52%).

127 See Tables A and B in Appendix VIII for complete summaries of primary and secondary heads’ responses to items on leader self-efficacy 128 Gamma=0.37, p<0.05 129 χ²=10.35, df=3, p<0.05; Gamma=0.31, p<0.01

103

For secondaries, heads in high disadvantage schools tended to be more positive

about their ability to i) motivate teachers, ii) create a positive learning

environment, iii) facilitate pupil learning and iv) raise achievement – areas that

are closely related to raising standards and the quality of teaching and learning

(see Tables 1-4 in Appendix IX). They were also, in common with their primary

colleagues in schools with similar SES contexts, more positive about their ability

to manage multiple accountabilities (Table 5 in Appendix IX).


In contrast to findings of the headteacher survey, school disadvantage was not

related to the key staff responses within the primary sample. However, at the

secondary level, key staff responses varied based on the school disadvantage

factor. Key staff from high disadvantage schools tended to be more positive about

their headteachers’ ability to motivate teachers130 and raise achievement on

national tests and examinations131. This was in line with secondary headteachers’

own perceptions. In addition, secondary key staff in high disadvantage schools

were also more positive about their headteachers’ ability to generate enthusiasm

for a shared vision of the school132 and sustain staff commitment to the teaching

profession133(Table 4.26).

These findings indicate that the leadership of the headteacher is viewed as

especially important to success in disadvantaged secondary schools.

130 χ²=13.47, df=5, p<0.05 131 χ²=13.22, df=5,p<0.05 132 χ²=13.74, df=5, p<0.05 133 χ²=15.55, df=5, p<0.01

104

Table 4.26: Secondary key staff responses concerning the headteachers’ abilities

Question School

FSM Band

Not at all

Very little


significantly Total

FSM1 and 2

6 (0.7%)

34 (4.2%)

31 (3.9%)

222 (27.7%)

337 (42.0%)

172 (21.4%)

802 (100.0%) Motivates

teachers FSM3 and 4

5 (1.4%)

6 (1.7%)

12 (3.4%)

79 (22.6%)

147 (42.1%)

100 (28.7%)

349 (100.0%)

FSM1 and 2

6 (0.7%)

24 (3.0%)

31 (3.9%)

177 (22.1%)

287 (35.8%)

277 (34.5%)

802 (100.0%)

Generates enthusiasm for a shared vision of the school

FSM3 and 4

3 (0.9%)

6 (1.7%)

10 (2.9%)

56 (16.1%)

116 (33.4%)

156 (45.0%)

347 (100.0%)

FSM1 and 2

5 (0.6%)

12 (1.5%)

39 (4.9%)

157 (19.6%)

278 (34.7%)

310 (38.7%)

801 (100.0%)

Raises achievement on national tests and examinations

FSM3 and 4

3 (0.9%)

2 (0.6%)

12 (3.5%)

60 (17.3%)

98 (28.3%)

171 (49.4%)

346 (100.0%)

FSM1 and 2

18 (2.3%)

29 (3.6%)

54 (6.8%)

162 (20.3%)

268 (33.6%)

267 (33.5%)

798 (100.0%)

Sustains your commitment to the teaching profession

FSM3 and 4

9 (2.6%)

6 (1.8%)

15 (4.4%)

60 (17.6%)

99 (29.0%)

152 (44.6%)

341 (100.0%)



For both primary and secondary heads, those in the Low Start improvement

group were somewhat more confident about their ability to manage multiple

accountabilities134(Table 4.27). In all 66% (N=105) of these primary heads, in

contrast to 43% (N=53) of those in the High Start Group schools, indicated a high

level of perceived self-efficacy in this aspect. For the secondary sample, 75%

(N=124) of heads serving schools in the Low Start Group, in contrast to 64%

(N=72) of those in the High Start Group, reported high self-efficacy in relation to

managing multiple accountabilities.

134 Primary: χ²=19.34, df=6, p<0.01; Gamma=-0.30, p<0.001; secondary: Gamma=-0.17, p<0.05

105

Table 4.27: Headteacher responses to the question “To what extent do you feel

able to manage multiple accountabilities from diverse audiences?”

Sector Improvement

Group Not at all / Very little


Total

Low Start Group

2 (1.3%)

7 (4.4%)

46 (28.8%)

105 (65.6%)

160 (100.0%)


4 (4.3%)

5 (5.3%)

25 (26.6%)

60 (63.8%)

94 (100.0%)

Primary

High Start Group

8 (6.6%)

12 (9.8%)

49 (40.2%)

53 (43.4%)

122 (100.0%)

Low Start Group

2 (1.2%)

6 (3.6%)

33 (20.0%)

124 (75.2%)

165 (100.0%)


1 (1.3%)

5 (6.7%)

19 (25.3%)

50 (66.7%)

75 (100.0%)

Secondary

High Start Group

1 (0.9%)

3 (2.7%)

37 (32.7%)

72 (63.7%)

113 (100.0%)

In secondary schools heads in the Low Start Group were also more positive about

their ability to motivate teachers135. Over 90% of these heads (N=149),

compared with 79% (N=59) of those in the Moderate Start Group and 83%

(N=95) in the High Start Group, indicated a high level of perceived efficacy in this

aspect.


Primary key staff responses did not differ based on the three improvement

groups. In contrast, we found differences in the pattern of responses for

secondary key staff for three items related to perceived headteacher efficacy.

When secondary key staff were asked whether the headteacher created a positive

learning environment in their school, those from the High Start Group (46%)

were the most likely to report “very significantly”, followed by Key Staff from the

Low Start Group (39%) and then the Moderate Start Group (36%)136.

In contrast, rather more positive views were given by secondary key staff from

the Low Start Group, when asked whether the headteacher sustained their

motivation as a school leader137 and sustained their commitment to the teaching

profession138. These results are in line with headteachers’ own perceptions in the

Low Start Group.


106

4.8 Classroom Conditions: Workload Volume And

Complexity


Both primary and secondary heads’ views were fairly positive in response to these

items, particularly concerning teachers having access to the teaching resources

they need to do a good job and the atmosphere throughout their school

encouraging pupils to learn. Most heads felt that teachers’ workloads were quite

fair compared with those in other schools (“agree strongly”: Primary: N=150,

40%; Secondary: N=174, 49%). Over half of primary heads (N=208, 55%)

compared with more than two thirds of secondary heads (N=251, 70%) felt that

the amount of administrative work required of teachers was not excessive.

Primary heads were relatively less likely than secondary heads to report that the

school had too many pupils who were uncooperative (13% compared with 26%),

or who achieved poorly despite teachers’ best efforts (28% compared with 33%).

However, primary heads were somewhat more likely to think the size of classes

makes unreasonable demands on the time required for preparation and marking

although this was still a minority (26% primary versus 17% secondary).

In general, therefore, heads of improving and effective schools are fairly positive

about the relationship between workload demands and resources available to

meet them in their schools.


• Workload volume

Overall, fairly positive views were reported by key staff in terms of their workload

volume, but with mixed views on some of the items. This is broadly in line with

findings of the headteacher survey.

Sector difference was also noted. Primary key stage managers were more likely

than secondary heads of department to have more positive views about their

workload volume (Table 4.28).

107

Table 4.28: Key staff responses concerning workload volume

Questions Sector Disagree strongly

Disagree moderately

Disagree slightly

Agree slightly

Agree moderately

Agree slightly

Total

Primary 12

(2.0%) 40

(6.8%) 51

(8.7%) 95

(16.2%) 203

(34.6%) 186

(31.7%) 587

(100.0%) My workload is quite fair compared to teachers in other schools Secondary

54 (4.8%)

102 (9.0%)

169 (14.9%)

207 (18.2%)

357 (31.5%)

246 (21.7%)

1135 (100.0%)

Primary 44

(7.4%) 78

(13.1%) 119

(19.9%) 105

(17.6%) 160

(26.8%) 91

(15.2%) 597

(100.0%) The amount of administrative work required of me is not excessive Secondary

134 (11.6%)

224 (19.4%)

251 (21.8%)

214 (18.6%)

226 (19.6%)

104 (9.0%)

1153 (100.0%)

• Workload complexity

With regards to workload complexity, there was a large sector difference found

for most items. Primary staff were more likely to agree strongly than secondary

staff that:

• They have access to the teaching resources that they need to do a good

job (Primary: N=383, 48% and Secondary: N=484, 42%);

• The atmosphere throughout the school encourages pupils to learn

(Primary: N=430, 72% and Secondary: N=393, 34%).

Primary staff (N=357, 60%) were also more likely to disagree compared with

secondary staff (N=462, 40%) when asked whether they have too many pupils

who are uncooperative. This corresponds with headteachers’ responses.

However, when staff were asked if they teach subjects or areas of the curriculum

for which they have little formal preparation, substantially higher numbers of

secondary staff (N=832, 73%) disagreed strongly to it compared to their primary

peers (N=266, 45%).

4.8.1 School SES contexts


Both primary and secondary heads from high disadvantage schools gave more

positive responses to the two items concerned with class size: i) the size of

classes makes unreasonable demands on the time required for preparation and

marking139; and ii) the size of classes allows teachers to adequately differentiate

their teaching between pupils140 (Table 4.29).

139 Primary: χ²=7.85, df=3, p<0.05; Gamma=-0.23, p<0.05; Secondary: Gamma=-0.30, p<0.01 140 Primary: χ²=10.32, df=3, p<0.05; Gamma=0.32, p<0.01; Secondary: Gamma=0.23, p<0.05

108

Table 4.29: Headteacher responses concerning class size by school FSM band

Question School

FSM Band

Disagree strongly /

moderately

Disagree slightly

Agree slightly


Total

FSM 1 and 2

296 (60.9%)

69 (14.2%)

76 (15.6%)

45 (9.3%)

486 (100.0%)

The size of classes makes unreasonable demands on the time required for preparation and marking

FSM 3 and 4

180 (73.5%)

29 (11.8%)

23 (9.4%)

13 (5.3%)

245 (100.0%)

FSM 1 and 2

37 (7.6%)

69 (14.2%)

116 (23.9%)

264 (54.3%)

486 (100.0%)

The size of classes allows teachers to adequately differentiate their teaching between pupils

FSM 3 and 4

11 (4.5%)

14 (5.7%)

52 (21.2%)

168 (68.6%)

245 (100.0%)

However, both primary and secondary heads from high disadvantage schools

gave relatively less positive responses to the item on numbers of pupils achieving

poorly despite teachers’ best efforts141. Also, in both sectors fewer heads from

low disadvantage schools thought there were too many pupils who were

uncooperative142 (Table 4.30).

Again these findings indicate differences in the challenges facing those working in

high versus lower disadvantage contexts.

Table 4.30: Headteacher responses concerning pupil achievement and

cooperation by school FSM band

Question SES Disagree

strongly / moderately

Disagree slightly

Agree slightly


Total

FSM 1 and 2

375 (76.8%)

28 (5.7%)

57 (11.7%)

28 (5.7%)

488 (100.0%) This school has too

many pupils who are uncooperative FSM 3

and 4 157

(64.1%) 29

(11.8%) 38

(15.5%) 21

(8.6%) 245

(100.0%)

FSM 1 and 2

326 (66.9%)

46 (9.4%)

75 (15.4%)

40 (8.2%)

487 (100.0%)

This school has too many pupils who achieve poorly in spite of teachers’ best efforts

FSM 3 and 4

113 (23.2%)

24 (4.9%)

69 (14.2%)

39 (8.0%)

245 (100.0%)

141 Primary: χ²=41.27, df=3, p<0.001; Gamma=0.34, p<0.001; Secondary: Gamma=0.19, p<0.05 142 Primary: χ²=14.72, df=3, p<0.01; Gamma=0.36, p<0.01; Secondary: χ²=10.17, df=3, p<0.05; Gamma=0.28, p<0.01

109


• Workload volume

Secondary Key Staff from high disadvantage schools were more likely than their

counterparts from low disadvantage schools to agree strongly that the size of

their class(es) allows them to adequately differentiate their teaching between

pupils143. In the headteacher survey, however, a similar pattern of responses was

found for both the primary and the secondary sample.

Interestingly, when Key Staff were asked whether the amount of administrative

work required of them is not excessive, slightly higher proportions of key staff

from high disadvantage schools (N=41, 18%) than their counterparts from low

disadvantage schools (N=50, 14%) reported strong agreement144. This may

reflect differences in staffing levels.


For both primary and secondary schools, key staff from low disadvantage schools

reported stronger disagreement when asked whether they have too many pupils

who achieve poorly in spite of their best efforts145. (Table 4.31) This is in line with

headteachers’ responses. Secondary key staff from low disadvantage schools

reported stronger disagreement when asked whether they have too many pupils

who are uncooperative146 (Table 4.32). Again, a similar pattern of disagreement

was found for both the primary and the secondary headteacher sample.

Table 4.31: Key staff responses indicating the degree to which they agreed with

the statement “I have too many pupils who achieve poorly in spite of my best

efforts”

Sector SES Strongly disagree

Moderately disagree

Slightly disagree

Slightly agree

Moderately agree

Strongly agree

Total

FSM 1 and 2

171 (47.0%)

84 (23.1%)

39 (10.7%)

46 (12.6%)

17 (4.7%)

7 (1.9%)

364 (100.0%)

Primary FSM 3 and 4

85 (37.6%)

44 (19.5%)

27 (11.9%)

39 (17.3%)

24 (10.6%)

7 (3.1%)

226 (100.0%)

FSM 1 and 2

359 (44.8%)

175 (21.8%)

105 (13.1%)

116 (14.5%)

37 (4.6%)

9 (1.1%)

801 (100.0%)

Secondary FSM 3 and 4

115 (33.8%)

71 (20.9%)

45 (13.2%)

62 (18.2%)

23 (6.8%)

24 (7.1%)

340 (100.0%)

143 χ²=22.19, df=5, p<0.001 144 χ²=11.67, df=5, p<0.05 145 Primary: χ²=13.96, df=5, p<0.05 and Secondary: χ²=40.37, df=5, p<0.001 146 χ²=26.60, df=5, p<0.01; Gamma=0.21, p<0.001

110

Table 4.32: Secondary key staff responses indicating the degree to which they

agreed with the statement “I have too many pupils who are uncooperative”

SES Strongly disagree

Moderately disagree

Slightly disagree

Slightly agree

Moderately agree

Strongly agree

Total

FSM 1 and 2

349 (43.5%)

178 (22.2%)

101 (12.6%)

109 (13.6%)

45 (5.6%)

20 (2.5%)

802 (100.0%)

FSM 3 and 4

110 (32.4%)

77 (22.6%)

43 (12.6%)

55 (16.2%)

30 (8.8%)

25 (7.4%)

370 (100.0%)

Total 459

(39.2%) 255

(21.8%) 144

(12.3%) 164

(14.0%) 75

(6.4%) 45

(3.8%) 1172

(100.0%)

With regards to access to teaching resources, those from high disadvantage

schools were more likely to agree strongly to it. This was found for both

primary147 and secondary schools148 and may reflect more favourable resource

allocations to such schools.

Again, these findings indicate differences in the challenges facing those working in

high versus low disadvantage contexts in terms of pupil characteristics rather

than in terms of resources available to meet needs.

4.8.2 School improvement groups


• Workload volume

The school’s improvement group was associated with heads’ views on different

items in relation to workload volume for the primary and the secondary sample.

At the primary level heads in schools from the High Start Group were less likely

to report that their schools had too many pupils who were uncooperative149. Three

quarters of heads from the Low Start Group (N=120, 75%), compared with 85%

(N=80) of those in the Moderate Start Group and 90% (N=111) in the High Start

Group, disagreed moderately or strongly that there were too many uncooperative

pupils in their schools.

At the secondary level heads in the Low Start group had more favourable

147 χ²=12.97, df=5, p<0.05; Gamma=0.22, p<0.01 148 χ²=18.65, df=5, p<0.01; Gamma=0.16, p<0.01 149 χ²=14.53, df=6, p<0.05; Gamma=-0.35, p<0.01

111

responses to the items concerned with class size (Table 4.33):

i) Three quarters of heads (N=125) in the Low Start Group disagreed

moderately or strongly that teachers in their schools taught an excessive

number of pupils, compared with 68% (N=51) of those in the Moderate

Start Group and 63% (N=72) in the High Start Group150;

ii) 78% (N=131) of heads in Low Start Group schools, compared with 64%

(N=48) of the Moderate Start and 57% (N=65) of the High Start

improvement groups reported a high level of disagreement with the item

indicating that the size of classes made unreasonable demands on the

time required for preparation and marking in their schools151;

iii) The majority of heads in the Low Start Group (N=104, 62%) felt that the

size of classes allowed teachers to adequately differentiate their teaching

between pupils whereas less than half of heads in the other two groups

reported so (the Moderate Start Group: 47%; the High Start Group: 49%).

150 Gamma=0.20, p<0.05 151 χ²=18.08, df=6, p<0.01; Gamma=0.33, p<0.001

112

Table 4.33: Secondary headteacher responses concerning class size by

improvement group

Question Improvement

Group

Disagree strongly /

moderately

Disagree slightly

Agree slightly


Total

Low Start Group

125 (74.9%)

26 (15.6%)

13 (7.8%)

3 (1.8%)

167 (100.0%)


51 (68.0%)

11 (14.7%)

9 (12.0%)

4 (5.3%)

75 (100.0%)

Teachers in this school teach an excessive number of pupils High Start

Group 72

(62.6%) 23

(20.0%) 12

(10.4%) 8

(7.0%) 115

(100.0%)

Low Start Group

131 (78.4%)

19 (11.4%)

11 (6.6%)

6 (3.6%)

167 (100.0%)


48 (64.0%)

11 (14.7%)

11 (14.7%)

5 (6.7%)

75 (100.0%)

The size of classes makes unreasonable demands on the time required for preparation and marking

High Start Group

65 (56.5%)

22 (19.1%)

22 (19.1%)

6 (5.2%)

115 (100.0%)

Low Start Group

13 (7.8%)

13 (7.8%)

37 (22.2%)

104 (62.3%)

167 (100.0%)


6 (8.0%)

12 (15.8%)

21 (28.0%)

35 (46.7%)

75 (100.0%)

The size of my classes allows teachers to adequately differentiate their teaching between pupils High Start

Group 7

(6.1%) 23

(20.0%) 29

(25.2%) 56

(48.7%) 115

(100.0%)

This may reflect differences in the resources available and strategies for size of

classes in such schools.


In both sectors, heads in schools from the High Start Group were, relatively, less

likely than heads in the other two improvement groups to report that the school

had too many pupils who were uncooperative152, or who achieved poorly despite

teachers’ best efforts153 (Figure 4.7 and Figure 4.8).

152 Primary: χ²=14.53, df=6, p<0.05; Gamma=-0.35, p<0.01 153 Primary: χ²=37.27, df=6, p<0.001; Gamma=-0.46, p<0.001

113

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%



Agreemoderately/stronglyAgree slightly

Disagreeslightly

Disagreemoderately/strongly

(N=167) (N=115)(N=75)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%




Disagreeslightly


(N=160) (N=123)(N=94)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%




Disagreeslightly


(N=160) (N=123)(N=94)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%




Disagreeslightly


(N=167) (N=115)(N=74)

Figure 4.7: Heads’ views on the number of pupils who were uncooperative across

three improvement groups

a Primary b Secondary

Figure 4.8: Heads’ views on the number of pupils who achieved poorly despite

teachers’ best efforts across three improvement groups

a Primary b Secondary

For primary schools, heads in the High Start group (N=99, 81%) were more likely

to indicate that teachers had a significant amount of autonomy over decisions

about what happened in their classes compared with those in the other two

improvement groups (the Moderate Start Group: N=63, 67%; the Low Start

Group: N=109, 68%)154.

This may suggest that teacher autonomy may be viewed as less important in

comparison with collaboration and consistency of approach in schools that are

successful in raising attainment in difficult circumstances and from a low base.

For the secondary sample heads in schools from the High Start Group (N=112,

154 Gamma=0.19, p<0.05

114

97%) were more likely to agree that the atmosphere throughout their schools

encouraged pupils to learn155. A slightly lower proportion of heads in the other

two improvement groups indicated so although this was still the vast majority

(the Moderate Start Group: N=70, 93%; the Low Start Group: N=146, 87%).


• Workload volume

Compared with headteacher perceptions, key staff views were somewhat less

favourable in terms of whether they teach an excessive number of pupils, but the

pattern of differences was broadly in line with the headteachers by improvement

group. Primary staff from the Moderate Start Group were the most likely to

disagree strongly (N=91, 61%) to it followed by those from the Low Start Group

(N=144, 56%) and the High Start Group (N=95, 51%). Secondary key staff from

the Low Start Group were most likely to disagree strongly to it156, in line with

findings from the headteacher survey.

Secondary staff from the Low Start Group (N=176, 35%) were the most likely to

disagree strongly that the size of their class(es) makes unreasonable demands on

the time required for preparation and marking157. Almost equal proportions of

staff from the Moderate Start (N=60, 25%) and the High Start groups (N=100,

26%) disagreed strongly to it. This, again, corresponds with results of the

headteacher survey. By contrast 11% of secondary staff from the Low Start group

agreed moderately or strongly with the statement, as did 15% of the Moderate

Start group and 13% of the High Start group.


More variation was found within the secondary sample in relation to school

improvement groups. Overall, key staff from schools in the High Start Group

reported the most positive views compared with staff from schools in the other

two improvement groups, broadly in line with findings from the headteacher

survey:

i. When asked whether they have too many pupils who are uncooperative,

they were more likely to disagree158 (see Figure A in Appendix X);

ii. When asked whether they have too many pupils who achieve poorly in

155 χ²=14.63, df=6, p<0.05; Gamma=0.52, p<0.01 156 χ²=30.70, df=10, p<0.01 157 χ²=19.83, df=10, p<0.05 158 χ²=43.15, df=10, p<0.001; Gamma=-0.2, p<0.001

115

spite of their best efforts, they showed stronger disagreement159 (see

Figure B in Appendix X);

iii. When asked about whether the atmosphere throughout the school

encourages pupils to learn, they were most likely to agree strongly160.

On the other hand, key staff from the Moderate and High Start Groups were most

likely to agree strongly or moderately that they have a significant amount of

autonomy over decisions about what happens in their classes161. The proportion

of staff in the Low Start Group was still large but lower.

Within primary schools, significant variation was noted only for one item on

workload complexity concerned with whether many pupils achieved poorly in spite

of teachers’ best efforts. Those from the Moderate Start Group were the most

likely to disagree strongly to it162. However, when taken together moderate and

strong disagreement, those from the High Start Group were the most likely to

disagree that this was the case, in line with the results for headteachers.

4.9 Building and Sustaining Improvement: The Extent of

Change

4.9.1 Changes in school conditions over time: disciplinary climate

Headteachers and key staff were surveyed to explore perceptions of the extent of

change in practice of the last three years in a range of aspects related to school

climate and culture.

Headteacher perceptions

Where change was reported for both samples it suggested some or a lot of

improvement rather than decline in pupil behaviour over the last three years. For

both the primary and the secondary sample there were significant differences

related to the three school improvement groups.

159 χ²=67.41, df=10, p<0.001; Gamma=-0.27, p<0.001 160 χ²=13.85, df=6, p<.05 161 χ²=20.53, df=10, p<0.05 162 χ²=19.52, df=10, p<0.05

116

Heads in the Low Start Group were more likely to report a greater degree of

improvement in pupil behaviour. In contrast, relatively less improvement was

reported by those in the High Start Group schools (it is likely that behaviour in

such schools was already good and not in need of change). Primary heads

reported relatively less change over the last three years than their secondary

colleagues. The most marked difference in responses was in relation to pupils’

missing class. At the primary level 28% of heads in the Low Start Group (N=40)

indicated improvement in this area compared with only 7% of heads in the High

Start group. A striking 79% (N=131) of secondary heads in the Low Start

improvement group noted improvement in pupil attendance over the last three

years compared with 29% of those in the High Start group (Table 4.34 and Table

4.35).

Table 4.34: Improvement groups and primary heads’ responses to “pupils’

missing class”

Improvement Group Much worse/ worse now

No change Better/ much better now Total


(0%) 101

(72%) 40

(28%)

141

(100%)


1 (1%)

75 (82%)

16 (17%)

92

(100%)


1 (1%)

104 (92%)

8 (7%)

113

(100%)

Total 2

(1%) 280

(81%) 64

(18%)

346

(100%)

Table 4.35: Improvement groups and secondary heads’ responses to “pupils’

missing class”

Improvement Group Much worse/ worse now

No change Better/ much better now Total


(2%) 32

(19%) 131

(79%)

166

(100%)


5 (6%)

34 (45%)

37 (49%)

76

(100%)


6 (5%)

74 (66%)

33 (29%)

113

(100%)

Total 14

(4%) 140

(39%) 201

(57%)

355

(100%)

117


• Pupil attendance

Key staff perceptions supported those of the heads in the survey in terms of the

degree of improvement in non academic areas.

When the key staff were asked about pupils’ lateness to lessons and school,

pupils’ absenteeism, pupils’ missing class and pupils’ turnover, between 30%-

60% respondents reported no change. Overall the majority (N=1,058, 62%)

reported no change for pupils’ turnover. In contrast, more than 30% reported

that it is better/much better now (see Tables A and B in Appendix XIII).

Sector differences

In terms of sector differences, some patterns are similar to those noticed in

previous sections. When asked about pupils’ absenteeism and pupils’ lateness to

lessons and school, primary key staff were more likely to report that they are

better/much better now, compared with their colleagues in secondary schools.

However, when asked about pupils’ missing classes and their turnover, more

secondary key staff than their primary counterparts were likely to report

improvement163 (see Tables A and B in Appendix XIII).

• Pupil behaviour

Key staff were asked to report on the extent of improvements over the last three

years in physical conflict and bullying among pupils, vandalism of school property,

physical and verbal abuse of teachers as well as level of pupil misbehaviour

(Table 4.36).

Among these, the highest number of key staff reported no change for physical

abuse of teachers and the lowest number reported no change when asked about

pupil misbehaviour. Between 30%-50% staff reported improvements with regards

to the above items – a greater proportion of key staff reported improvements in

terms of reductions in bullying among pupils while the lowest (30%) was noted

for reductions in physical abuse of teachers (note such abuse is very rare in most

schools).

163 χ²= 171.18, df=5, p<0.001 and χ²=41.49, df=6, p<0.001

118

Table 4.36: Key staff responses to questions concerning pupil behaviour

To what extent do you consider that these things

have changed over the past three years?

Much worse now

Worse now

No change

now

Better now

Much better now

Total

Physical conflict among pupils 10 (0.6%)

113 (6.5%)

777 (44.9%)

613 (35.4%)

218 (12.6%)

1732 (100.0%)

Bullying of all kinds among pupils 8 (0.5%)

71 (4.1%)

769 (44.4%)

687 (39.7%)

194 (11.2%)

1729 (100.0%)

Vandalism of school property 22 (1.3%)

165 (9.6%)

780 (45.1%)

594 (34.3%)

227 (13.1%)

1727 (100.0%)

Physical abuse of teachers 12 (0.7%)

59 (3.5%)

1107 (65.0%)

311 (18.3%)

211 (12.4%)

1700 (100.0%)

Verbal abuse of teachers 44 (2.6%)

254 (14.7%)

871 (50.5%)

388 (22.5%)

167 (9.7%)

1724 (100.0%)

Level of pupil misbehaviour 33 (1.9%)

276 (15.9%)

593 (34.2%)

617 (35.6%)

212 (12.2%)

1732 (100.0%)

Sector differences

There was a marked sector difference found for all of the above items (Table

4.37). More primary staff than their counterparts in secondary schools reported

improvements in terms of reductions in physical conflict and bullying among

pupils; and improved pupil behaviour.

Higher proportions of primary staff reported no change when asked about

vandalism of school property, physical and verbal abuse of teachers; whereas

their secondary colleagues were more likely to report improvement in relation to

these three items (but it is likely that many of the no change responses in

primaries were related to the rarity of such incidences of teacher abuse).

119

Table 4.37: Key staff responses to questions concerning pupil behaviour by sector

To what extent do

you consider that these

things have changed over

the past three years?

Sector Much worse now

Worse now

No change now

Better now Much better

now Total

Primary 2

(0.3%) 29

(4.9%) 241

(40.6%) 221

(36.3%) 100

(16.8%) 593

(100.0%) Physical conflict among pupils Secondary

8 (0.7%)

84 (7.4%)

536 (47.1%)

392 (34.4%)

118 (10.4%)

1138 (100.0%)

Primary 1

(0.2%) 11

(1.9%) 250

(42.1%) 229

(38.6%) 101

(17.0%) 592

(100.0%) Bullying of all kinds among pupils Secondary

7 (0.6%)

60 (5.3%)

519 (45.6%)

458 (40.3%)

93 (8.2%)

1137 (100.0%)

Primary 5

(0.8%) 29

(4.9%) 323

(54.6%) 138

(23.3%) 94

(15.9%) 589

(100.0%) Vandalism of school property Secondary

17 (1.5%)

136 (12.0%)

457 (40.2%)

395 (34.7%)

133 (11.7%)

1138 (100.0%)

Primary 3

(0.5%) 10

(1.7%) 428

(73.5%) 67

(11.5%) 72

(12.4%) 580

(100.0%) Physical abuse of teachers Secondary

9 (0.8%)

49 (4.4%)

679 (60.6%)

244 (21.8%)

139 (12.4%)

1120 (100.0%)

Primary 4

(0.7%) 26

(4.4%) 386

(65.6%) 91

(15.5%) 79

(13.4%) 586

(100.0%) Verbal abuse of teachers

Secondary 40

(3.5%) 228

(20.0%) 485

(42.6%) 297

(26.1%) 88

(7.7%) 1138

(100.0%)

Primary 4

(0.7%) 42

(7.1%) 233

(39.2%) 204

(34.3%) 110

(18.5%) 593

(100.0%) Level of pupil misbehaviour

Secondary 29

(2.5%) 234

(20.5%) 361

(31.7%) 413

(36.3%) 102

(8.7%) 1139

(100.0%)


Significant differences were found between all three improvement groups when

asked about change in the discipline climate of the school in last three years. Key

staff from the High Start Group were the most likely to report “no change” for all

items relating to discipline climate (which is likely to reflect a good discipline

climate already in place). In contrast, those from schools in the Low Start Group

were the most likely to report that it is “better now” or “much better now”. This

is in line with the results for headteachers.

Close to half of key staff from the Low Start Group reported that pupils’ lateness

to school and absenteeism had become ‘better now’ (i.e. reduced), 14% thought

lateness was ‘much better’ and 19% that absenteeism was ‘much better’. In

terms of changes in pupils’ motivation for learning, those from both the High and

the Moderate Start Groups were more likely to indicate this was “better now”

compared with those from the Low Start Group.

These results strongly support the view that there is an important association

between changes in the behavioural climate and improvement in academic results

120

(value added progress and attainment levels) particularly for Low Start schools,

those making significant gains from a low base.

4.10 Changes in school conditions over time: the school

Here we examine heads’ and key staff perceptions of the extent of

improvement/change across their school over the last three years. The evidence

from the headteacher and the key staff survey indicated that there was a fairly

strong degree of correspondence in general views on change in school conditions

over time between headteachers and other key staff.


For primary and secondary heads the majority indicated considerable

improvements in a range of areas including: commitment and enthusiasm of

staff, an orderly and secure working environment, enhanced local reputation and

improved pupil behaviour and discipline as a result of a whole school approach

(Table 4.38 and Table 4.39). Secondary heads also reported some or a lot of

change in terms of more pupils going into further/higher education (N=230,

64%).

Table 4.38: Headteachers’ perceptions of change in school conditions over time

(primary)

No change A little Some A lot Total

Enhanced commitment and enthusiasm of staff

54 (14.4%)

50 (13.3%)

121 (32.2%)

151 (40.2%)

376

(100%)

Promoted an orderly and secure working environment

79 (21%)

47 (12.5%)

85 (22.5%)

166 (44%)

377

(100%)

Enhanced local reputation 64

(17.1%) 65

(17.3%) 125

(33.3%) 121

(32.3%)

375

(100%)

Improved pupil behaviour and discipline as a result of

a whole school approach

78 (20.7%)

55 (14.6%)

107 (28.5%)

136 (36.2%)

376

(100%)

121

Table 4.39: Headteachers’ perceptions of change in school conditions over time

(secondary)

No change A little Some A lot Total


32 (8.9%)

49 (13.6%)

150 (41.6%)

130 (36%)

361

(100%)


41 (11.4%)

58 (16.1%)

137 (38%)

125 (34.6%)

361

(100%)

Enhanced local reputation 44

(12.2%) 53

(14.7%) 107

(29.7%) 156

(43.3%)

360

(100%)

Improved pupil behaviour and discipline as a result of

a whole school approach

44 (12.2%)

70 (19.4%)

127 (35.3%)

119 (33.1%)

360

(100%)

This is in line with school effectiveness and improvement research that points to

the importance of the behavioural climate as a key characteristic of effectiveness

(Sammons et al 1997; Teddlie & Reynolds 2000) and the results of previous case

studies of improving and turnaround schools (Haydn 2001, Ofsted 2001).

Secondary heads (N=287, 79%) were relatively more likely to report

improvements in homework policies and practices than primary heads (N=262,

70%). More primary than secondary heads reported no change in staff absence

(44% versus 29%) or mobility (43% versus 32%), but this may indicate an

absence of problems three years before in these areas.


For both the primary and the secondary sample, heads in the Low Start

improvement group were relatively more likely to indicate a substantial amount of

improvement across their school over the past three years. In contrast, no

change was somewhat more likely to be reported by those in High Start group.

For example, 28.7% (N=45) of primary heads and 29.7% (N=49) of secondary

heads in the Low Start Group indicated “a lot” of improvement in terms of a

reduction in staff mobility in their schools, in contrast to 12.4% (N=15) of

primary heads and 11.4% (N=13) of secondary heads in the High Start Group

(Table 4.40 and Table 4.41).

122

Table 4.40: Improvement groups and primary heads’ responses to “reduction in

staff mobility”


No change A little Some A Lot Total


(35%) 22

(14%) 35

(22.3%) 45

(28.7%)

157

(100%)


41 (43.6%)

18 (19.1%)

22 (23.4%)

13 (13.8%)

94

(100%)


64 (52.9%)

27 (22.3%)

15 (12.4%)

15 (12.4%)

121

(100%)

Total 160 43%

67 18%

72 19%

73 20%

372

100%

Table 4.41: Improvement groups and secondary heads’ responses to “reduction

in staff mobility”


No change A little Some A Lot Total


(24.2%) 24

(14.5%) 52

(31.5%) 49

(29.7%)

165

(100%)


26 (34.2%)

15 (19.7%)

22 (28.9%)

13 (17.1%)

76

(100%)


48 (42.1%)

31 (27.2%)

22 (19.3%)

13 (11.4%)

114

(100%)

Total 114

(32%) 70

(20%) 96

(27%) 75

(21%)

355

(100%)

Over half of secondary heads (50.6%) in the Low Start Group reported a

substantial degree of improvement in terms of an enhanced local reputation, with

less than one in three (30.4%) in the High Start Group who indicated this. A

similar but much less marked pattern was found for the primary sample. Just

over one in three (35.6%) in the Low Start Group indicated a lot of improvement

in this aspect compared with 28.9% of the Stable High/High to High Start group

who reported this.

A substantial degree of improvement in achieving an orderly and secure working

environment was reported by over half of primary heads in the Low Start group

(54%). In contrast, one in three of those in the High Start group (34%) indicated

this. This difference is more noticeable for the secondary sample. Almost half of

secondary heads in the Low Start group (45%) reported a lot of improvement in

this aspect, in contrast to only 18% of those in the High Start group.

A similar pattern of association was also found in the extent of

change/improvements in four other areas: reduction in staff absence, improved

123

homework policies and practice, enhanced commitment and enthusiasm of staff

and improved pupil behaviour and discipline as a result of a whole school

approach.


Key staff were also asked about any reduction in staff mobility in the past three

years. One third of the respondents indicated that there had been no change and

another third of the respondents indicated some change. Six out of ten reported

some/a lot of change when asked about enhanced local reputation of the school.

Secondary staff were more likely to report a lot of change than their primary

counterparts.

Between 50%-70% of key staff reported some or a lot of change in terms of

enhanced commitment and enthusiasm of staff, improved homework policies and

practice, and promotion of an orderly and secure working environment over the

past three years (see Tables A and B in Appendix XIV). There is a sharp sector

difference found here, with higher numbers of primary staff reporting a lot of

change compared to those in secondary schools.


Significant associations were also found between key staff responses and the

three school improvement groups. Overall, those from schools in the Low Start

group were the most likely to report “a lot” of change in last three years with

regards to school conditions. This is broadly in line with the results for

headteachers.

More differences were found within secondary schools than primary schools. In

particular, there was an association between secondary key staff response and

school improvement groups for the following items (Table 4.42):

• Enhanced local reputation;

• Enhanced commitment and enthusiasm of staff;

• Promoted an orderly and secure working environment.

124

Table 4.42: Secondary key staff responses to questions concerning school

improvement over the past 3 years

To what extent has your school experienced improvement in the

following areas in the last 3 years?

Improvement group

No change

A little Some A lot Total

Low Start Group

29 (5.8%)

73 (14.6%)

165 (33.1%)

232 (46.5%)

499 (100.0%)


24 (10.8%)

27 (12.1%)

71 (31.8%)

100 (44.8%)

222 (100.0%)

Enhanced local reputation

High Start Group

71 (20.7%)

46 (13.4%)

120 (35.0%)

106 (30.9%)

343 (100.0%)

Low Start Group

51 (10.2%)

73 (14.6%)

208 (41.6%)

168 (33.6%)

500 (100.0%)


26 (11.7%)

32 (14.4%)

102 (45.9%)

62 (27.9%)

222 (27.9%)


High Start Group

82 (24.0%)

67 (19.6%)

125 (36.7%)

67 (19.6%)

341 (19.6%)

Low Start Group

42 (8.4%)

78 (15.6%)

177 (35.4%)

203 (40.6%)

500 (40.6%)


27 (12.1%)

45 (20.1%)

89 (39.7%)

63 (28.1%)

224 (28.1%)


High Start Group

88 (25.5%)

56 (16.2%)

112 (32.5%)

89 (25.8%)

345 (25.8%)

For most items related to school conditions, a higher percentage of key staff from

schools in the Moderate Start Group reported “some” change. For example, when

asked about the improved pupil behaviour and discipline as a result of a whole

school approach, “a lot” of change was reported by 47% primary key stage

managers from the Low Start Group schools and 33% of those from schools in

the Moderate Start Group. By contrast, only 28% staff from the Low Start Group

reported “some” change compared with 36% of those from the Moderate Start

Group who indicated this.

Taken together, the survey results for headteachers and key staff support the

view that rapidly improving schools effect improvement across a range of areas to

do with practice, climate and learning conditions that have a mutually reinforcing

impact and help schools to break out of a low attainment state into an upward

trajectory. It appears that such change is particularly associated and marked for

secondary schools with a past history of low performance.

4.11 Changes in structures, culture, and curriculum,

pedagogy and assessment

At the secondary level schools’ improvement is related to the extent of reported

change in leadership practice in relation to almost all the aspects of school

structures, culture, and curriculum, pedagogy and assessment. These aspects

125

were discussed in more detail in Chapters 1, 2 and 3. In contrast, far fewer

associations were found for the primary sample, particularly in relation to change

in school culture.

4.11.1 Changes in structures


Primary sector

At the primary level statistically significant differences in the extent of reported

change between the three improvement groups were particularly noted in relation

to building external collaborations (structure) (Table 4.43). Heads in the Low

Start Group were somewhat more likely to report a moderate or a substantial

amount of change in terms of working collaboratively with the LA (Low Start 42%

versus 37% in the Moderate Start Group and 24% in the High Start Group) and

building community support for the school’s improvement efforts (Low Start 39%

versus Moderate Start 28% and High Start 25%).

Table 4.43: Improvement groups and primary heads’ responses to the extent of

change in working collaboratively with the LA

Improvement Group Not at all/ Very little

Little Partially A lot/ very

significantly Total


(21.5%) 24

(15%) 34

(21.5%) 66

(42%)

158

(100%)


15 (16.3%)

15 (16.3%)

28 (30.4%)

34 (37%)

92

(100%)


26 (21%)

27 (22%)

40 (33%)

29 (24%)

122

(100%)

Total 75

(20%) 66

(18%) 102

(27%) 129

(35%)

372

(100%)

In addition, we found significant associations relating to change in structuring the

organisation. Nearly two thirds of primary heads in the Low Start Group (N=98,

62%) reported a substantial amount of change in leadership practice in relation to

improving internal review procedures in their schools over the last three years,

whereas around half in the Moderate Start Group (N=49, 52%) and less than half

(N=57, 46%) in the High Start Group indicated that this had occurred164 (Table

4.44).

164 Gamma=-0.18, p<0.05

126

Table 4.44: Improvement groups and primary heads’ responses to the extent of

change in improving internal review procedures



significantly Total


(7.5%) 8

(5%) 41

(25.8%) 98

(61.6%)

159

(100%)


4 (4.3%)

3 (3.2%)

38 (40.4%)

49 (52.1%)

94

(100%)


11 (8.9%)

8 (6.5%)

47 (38.2%)

57 (46.3%)

123

(100%)

Total 27

(7%) 19

(5%) 126

(34%) 204

(54%)

376

(100%)

Secondary sector

At the secondary level, schools’ improvement group was also found to be related

to greater reported change in structures. In Chapters 1, 2 and 3, change in four

areas of leadership practices was discussed under Structures: i) Structuring the

organisation, ii) School improvement, iii) External and internal collaborations and

iv) Teacher leadership. We found significant differences between the three school

improvement groups and the extent of reported change in relation to almost all

items on structuring the organisation, school improvement and external and

internal collaborations (see Tables A, B and C in Appendix XV). Secondary heads

in the Low Start Group schools were relatively more likely than those in the other

two improvement groups to report a moderate or a substantial amount of change

in leadership practice in all of these areas in their schools over the last three

years.

For example, in terms of structuring the organisation, in total 79% of heads of

the Low Start Group of secondary schools reported a substantial amount of

change in improving internal review procedures, compared with 61% of those in

the High Start Group of schools165 (Table 4.45).

165 χ²=12.91, df=6, p<0.05; Gamma=-0.26, p<0.01

127

Table 4.45: Improvement groups and secondary heads’ responses to the extent

of change in improving internal review procedures



significantly Total


(6.8%) 6

(3.7%) 17

(10.5%) 128

(79%)

162

(100%)


4 (5.3%)

4 (5.3%)

17 (22.7%)

50 (66.7%)

75

(100%)


9 (8%)

9 (8%)

25 (22.1%)

70 (61.9%)

113

(100%)

Total 24

(7%) 19

(5%) 59

(17%) 248

(71%)

350

(100%)

Likewise, over half of heads of the Low Start Group (57%), compared with 34%

of those in the High Start Group, reported a substantial amount of change in

ensuring wide participation in decisions about school improvement. Another

example is secondary heads’ responses to the extent of change in helping clarify

the reasons for their schools’ improvement initiatives where 63% of the Low Start

Group reported a lot or very significant change in this aspect compared with just

over half of those in the High Start Group.

Significant differences in the extent of reported change were found between

school improvement groups in relation to all the items on external and internal

collaborations, including: working collaboratively with the Governing Body, the

LA, the SMT/SLT and encouraging collaborative work amongst staff. For example,

the majority of heads of the Low Start Group (N=101, 61%) reported a

substantial amount of change in working collaboratively with SMT/SLT whereas

less than half of those in the High Start Group (N=53, 46%) reported this. Also,

42% (N=69) of secondary heads in the Low Start Group, compared with only one

in five (N=23, 20%) of those in the High Start Group, indicated a lot of change in

working collaboratively with the LA (Table 4.46).

128


of change in working collaboratively with the LA



significantly Total


(21.8%) 21

(12.7%) 39

(23.6%) 69

(41.8%)

165

(100%)


20 (26.3%)

11 (14.5%)

23 (30.3%)

22 (28.9%)

76

(100%)


40 (34.8%)

20 (17.4%)

32 (27.8%)

23 (20%)

115

(100%)

Total 96

(27%) 52

(15%) 94

(26%) 114

(32%)

356

(100%)


In contrast to primary headteachers’ results, primary key stage managers’

responses did not differ based on the improvement group of the schools. For

secondary schools, the responses differed for three items related to changes in

school structure. For all these items on headteachers’ leadership style in relation

to school structures, secondary key staff from the Low Start Group schools were

most likely to agree strongly and those from schools in the High Start Group were

most likely to agree moderately to them compared with their counterparts (Table

4.47):

• Works in collaboration with other schools166;

• Ensures wide participation in decisions about school improvement167;

• Works collaboratively with the Local Authority (LA)168 .

166 χ²=24.85, df=10, p<0.01 167 χ²=26.84, df=10, p<0.01 168 χ²=29.73, df=10, p<0.01

129

Table 4.47: Secondary key staff responses to questions concerning their

headteachers’ leadership style in relation to school structures

Question Improvement

group Disagree strongly

Disagree Moderately

Disagree slightly

Agree slightly

Agree moderately

Agree strongly

Total

Low Start Group

0 (0.0%)

0 (0.0%)

5 (1.0%)

38 (7.6%)

145 (29.1%)

311 (62.3%)

499 (100.0%)


0 (0.0%)

0 (0.0%)

2 (0.9%)

15 (6.9%)

66 (30.6%)

133 (61.6%)

216 (100.0%)

Works collaborative with the Local Authority (LA)

High Start Group

3 (0.9%)

2 (0.6%)

11 (3.2%)

29 (8.5%)

129 (37.8%)

167 (49.0%)

341 (100.0%)

Low Start Group

12 (2.4%)

14 (2.8%)

29 (5.7%)

90 (17.7%)

145 (28.5%)

218 (42.9%)

508 (100.0%)


6 (2.7%)

7 (3.1%)

14 (6.2%)

31 (13.8%)

83 (36.9%)

84 (37.3%)

225 (100.0%)

Ensures wide participation in decisions about school improvement High Start

Group 9

(2.6%) 17

(4.8%) 25

(7.1%) 65

(18.5%) 139

(39.5%) 97

(27.6%) 352

(100.0%) Low Start Group

1 (0.2%)

3 (0.6%)

9 (1.8%)

67 (13.3%)

172 (34.1%)

252 (50.0%)

504 (100.0%)


0 (0.0%)

1 (0.4%)

8 (3.6%)

28 (12.5%)

81 (36.2%)

106 (47.3%)

224 (100.0%)

Works in collaboration with other schools High Start

Group 3

(0.9%) 7

(2.0%) 19

(5.5%) 54

(15.7%) 128

(37.2%) 133

(38.7%) 344

(100.0%)

4.11.2 Changes in culture


Interestingly no clear pattern of association between schools’ improvement group

and heads’ reported change in school culture was found at the primary level.

However, for secondary schools statistically significant differences in the extent of

reported change were found between the three improvement groups in relation to

almost all the items on culture (see Appendix VII). This may suggest that

achieving cultural change may be relatively more important for the improvement

of pupil attainment in secondary schools, particularly for schools starting from a

low attainment base.

These items were categorised as setting directions, developing people and

managing the teaching and learning programme in Chapters 1, 2 and 3. Again,

heads in the Low Start Group schools tended to report more change in practice

relating to culture over the past three years compared with their colleagues in the

other two improvement groups.

For example, over half of the heads of the Low Start Group of secondary schools

(N=87, 52%) indicated a substantial degree of change in demonstrating high

expectations for pupil behaviour, compared with 36% (N=41) of those in the

Stable High/High to Higher group of schools (Table 4.48).

130


of change in demonstrating high expectations for pupil behaviour



significantly Total


(16.9%) 14

(8.4%) 37

(22.3%) 87

(52.4%)

166

(100%)


19 (25.3%)

8 (10.7%)

18 (24%)

30 (40%)

75

(100%)


28 (24%)

19 (18.5%)

27 (23.5%)

41 (35.7%)

115

(100%)

Total 75

(21%) 41

(12%) 82

(23%) 158

(44%)

356

(100%)

A lot or very significant change in demonstrating high expectations for pupil

achievement and for staff’s work with pupils were reported by 64% (N=107) and

59% (N=98) of secondary heads in the Low Start Group respectively, compared

with 50% (N=58) and 42% (N=48) of those in the High Start Group of schools.

In addition, half of secondary heads in the Low Start Group (N=84, 50%)

indicated a substantial amount of change in developing an atmosphere of caring

and trust, in contrast to 39% (N=44) of those in the High Start Group who

reported this, and only 29% of those in the Moderate Start Group (Table 4.49).


of change in developing an atmosphere of caring and trust



significantly Total


(18.6%) 20

(12%) 32

(19.2%) 84

(50.3%)

167

(100%)


26 (34.2%)

9 (11.8%)

19 (25%)

22 (28.9%)

76

(100%)


32 (28.3%)

18 (15.9%)

19 (16.8%)

44 (38.9%)

113

(100%)

Total 89

(25%) 47

(13%) 70

(20%) 150

(42%)

356

(100%)


Interestingly, there were no significant relationships found between the three

improvement groups and the way key staff responded to items related to school

culture in either sector.

131

4.11.3 Changes in curriculum, pedagogy and assessment


There were significant associations between schools’ improvement group and the

amount of change in leadership practice reported in relation to curriculum,

pedagogy and assessment, but these were most evident for responses by heads

in the secondary sector. This was particularly noted in terms of the use of

coaching, mentoring and class observation, and assessment to improve teaching

and the use of data.

Primary sector

For the primary sample, heads in the Low Start Group were somewhat more likely

to report a moderate or a substantial amount of change in terms of using

coaching and mentoring to improve the quality of teaching169, encouraging staff

to use data in their work170 and encouraging staff to use data in planning for

individual pupil needs171 (Table 4.50).

169 χ²=17.20, df=6, p<0.01 170 χ²=13.13, df=6, p<0.05; Gamma=-0.26, p<0.01 171 Gamma=-0.17, p<0.05

132

Table 4.50: Primary headteacher responses to questions concerning their

leadership style in relation to curriculum, pedagogy and assessment

To what extent do you believe your actions

have changed in relation to the following over the past three

years?

Improvement group



Total

Low Start Group

28 (17.5%)

15 (9.4%)

45 (28.1%)

72 (45.0%)

160 (100.0%)


13 (13.8%)

13 (13.8%)

37 (39.4%)

31 (33.0%)

94 (100.0%)

Using coaching and mentoring to improve quality of teaching High Start

Group 13

(10.8%) 24

(20.0%) 49

(40.8%) 34

(28.3%) 120


7 (4.4%)

4 (2.5%)

20 (12.5%)

129 (80.6%)

129 (100.0%)


5 (5.3%)

4 (4.3%)

21 (22.3%)

64 (68.1%)

94 (100.0%)

Encouraging staff to use data in their work

High Start Group

7 (5.7%)

11 (9.0%)

25 (20.5%)

79 (64.8%)

122 (100.0%)

Low Start Group

9 (5.7%)

6 (3.8%)

26 (16.4%)

118 (74.2%)

159 (100.0%)


7 (7.4%)

2 (2.1%)

22 (23.4%)

63 (67.0%)

94 (100.0%)

Encouraging all staff to use data in planning for individual pupil needs High Start

Group 8

(6.6%) 12

(9.8%) 25

(20.5%) 77

(63.1%) 122

(100.0%)

Secondary sector

A similar pattern of association was found for the secondary sample in relation to

the three items (Table 4.51). For secondary heads, relatively more change was

also reported by those in the Low Start Group in relation to using coaching and

mentoring and using data to improve teaching and learning. Half of secondary

heads in the Low Start Group (N=85, 52%) reported a lot of change in this

aspect, compared with 40% of those in the High Start Group.

In the secondary sector the schools’ improvement group was also associated with

the amount of reported change in relation to other items on class observation and

assessment. In particular, in terms of class observation, heads in the Low Start

Group were relatively more likely to report a substantial degree of change relating

to regularly observing classroom activities172 and working with teachers to

improve their teaching after observing classroom activities173 (Table 4.52).

Relatively more change in leadership practice was also reported by heads in this

improvement group for items related to incorporating research evidence into their

decision making to inform practice174 and using pupil achievement data to make

172 χ²=17.16, df=6, p<0.01; Gamma=-0.15, p<0.05 173 Gamma=-0.17, p<0.05 174 χ²=17.16, df=6, p<0.01; Gamma=-0.18, p<0.01

133

most decisions about school improvement175.

Table 4.51: Secondary headteacher responses to questions concerning their

leadership style in relation to curriculum, pedagogy and assessment



years?

Improvement group



Total

Low Start Group

11 (6.7%)

15 (9.2%)

52 (31.9%)

85 (52.1%)

163 (100.0%)


12 (16.0%)

8 (10.7%)

22 (28.9%)

33 (44.0%)

75 (100.0%)

Using coaching and mentoring to improve quality of teaching High Start

Group 14

(12.5%) 15

(13.4%) 38

(33.9%) 45

(40.2%) 112


9 (5.6%)

6 (3.7%)

11 (6.8%)

136 (84.0%)

162 (100.0%)


6 (7.9%)

2 (2.7%)

16 (21.3%)

51 (68.0%)

75 (100.0%)

Encouraging staff to use data in their work

High Start Group

9 (8.0%)

7 (6.3%)

18 (16.1%)

78 (69.6%)

112 (100.0%)

Low Start Group

9 (5.5%)

7 (4.3%)

18 (11.0%)

129 (79.1%)

163 (100.0%)


6 (8.1%)

2 (2.7%)

18 (24.3%)

48 (64.9%)

74 (100.0%)

Encouraging all staff to use data in planning for individual pupil needs High Start

Group 9

(8.0%) 5

(4.5%) 26

(23.2%) 72

(64.3%) 112

(100.0%)

Table 4.52: Secondary headteacher responses to questions concerning their

leadership style in relation to classroom observation



years?

Improvement group



Total

Low Start Group

17 (10.4%)

15 (9.1%)

26 (15.9%)

106 (64.6%)

164 (100.0%)


13 (17.3%)

8 (10.7%)

24 (32.0%)

30 (40.0%)

75 (100.0%)

Regularly observing classroom activities High Start

Group 14

(12.5%) 17

(15.2%) 19

(17.0%) 62

(55.4%) 112


14 (8.6%)

19 (11.7%)

51 (31.3%)

79 (48.5%)

163 (100.0%)


13 (17.3%)

13 (17.3%)

25 (33.3%)

24 (32.0%)

75 (100.0%)

After observing classroom activities, working with teachers to improve their teaching

High Start Group

15 (13.4%)

18 (16.1%)

38 (33.9%)

41 (36.6%)

112 (100.0%)

For example, 84% of secondary heads in the Low Start Group reported a

substantial amount of change in encouraging staff to use data in their work,

175 χ²=12.86, df=6, p<0.05; Gamma=-0.20, p<0.01

134

compared with 70% of those in the High Start Group. Likewise, substantial

change in regularly observing classroom activities was indicated by 65% of

secondary heads of the Low Start Group, compared with 55% of those in the High

Start Group.

It thus appears that heads in schools that had made rapid improvement from a

low base were likely to have focused more upon the use of a range of specific

strategies to change teachers’ classroom practices, particularly in the secondary

sector. All heads in secondary schools reported considerable change in the extent

to which they encourage the use of data by teachers, but this was a particular

emphasis in Low Start secondary schools.


Turning to key staff responses, once again almost equal levels of agreement were

found between schools from the three improvement groups within the primary

sample. In contrast, for secondary schools, key staff responses differed based on

the three improvement groups. This again corresponds with the results for

headteachers.

When the Heads of Departments were asked whether the headteacher in their

school allocates resources strategically based on pupil needs, those from the Low

Start Group schools were the most likely to agree strongly176. When asked

whether the headteacher utilises support staff skills for the benefit of pupil

learning, those from the Moderate Start Group were more likely to agree

strongly/moderately compared with their counterparts in the other improvement

groups177 (Table 4.53).

176 χ²=21.00, df=10, p<0.05 177 χ²=19.30, df=10, p<0.05

135

Table 4.53: Secondary key staff responses to questions concerning their

headteachers’ leadership style in relation to curriculum, pedagogy and

assessment

To what extent do you agree

that the headteacher in

your school does the

following?

Improvement group

Disagree strongly

Disagree moderately

Disagree slightly

Agree slightly

Agree moderately

Agree strongly

Total

Low Start Group

3 (0.6%)

11 (2.2%)

24 (4.7%)

82 (16.1%)

158 (31.1%)

230 (45.3%)

508 (100.0%)


2 (0.9%)

1 (0.4%)

7 (3.1%)

25 (11.1%)

87 (38.7%)

103 (45.8%)

225 (100.0%)

Utilises support staff skills for the benefit of pupil learning High Start

Group 3

(0.9%) 4

(1.2%) 7

(2.0%) 52

(15.0%) 143

(41.3%) 137

(39.6%) 346


5 (1.0%)

16 (3.2%)

15 (3.0%)

86 (17.1%)

161 (31.9%)

221 (43.8%)

504 (100.0%)


1 (0.4%)

2 (0.9%)

9 (4.0%)

31 (13.9%)

98 (43.9%)

82 (36.8%)

223 (100.0%)

Allocates resources strategically based on pupil needs High Start

Group 6

(1.7%) 3

(0.9%) 12

(3.5%) 66

(19.2%) 126

(36.6%) 131

(38.1%) 344

(100.0%)

4.12 Teaching Policies And Practices


Overall, headteachers agreed moderately or strongly with most items, though the

tendency was stronger for primary heads in relation to the item on disruptions to

teaching time are minimised (“agree strongly”: 53% versus 30%). Secondary

heads had somewhat lower agreement about the extent to which the school

timetable provides adequate time for collaborative teacher planning (“agree

strongly”: 21% versus 37%), and teachers’ strategies enable pupils to construct

their own knowledge (“agree strongly”: 8% versus 24%). The large majority

(around 80%) of heads from both sectors believed there were more opportunities

for pupils to take responsibility for their own learning now than three years ago.

This seems to be a strong feature in both sectors.

Secondary heads were more likely than primary heads to indicate moderate to

strong agreement that pupils of similar academic ability were grouped together in

most subject areas (70% versus 50%).

136


No clear pattern of significant associations was found between schools’ level of

improvement and heads’ views on teaching policies and practices for the primary

sample.

Significant associations, however, were again identified for secondary schools.

Heads in the Low Start Group (N=125, 75%) were somewhat more likely to agree

moderately or strongly that pupils of similar academic ability were grouped

together in most subject areas compared to those in the other two improvement

groups (the Moderate Start Group: N=53, 71%; the High Start Group: N=73,

64%)178. In contrast, those in the High Start Group schools (N=75, 66%) tended

to indicate somewhat stronger agreement than those in the other two

improvement groups that there were more opportunities for pupils to take

responsibility for their own learning now than three years ago179 (the Moderate

Start Group: N=41, 55%; the Low Start Group: N=85, 51%).


There was very little evidence of differences in key staff views in relation to

school improvement group in items referring to teaching policies and practices. A

statistically significant difference was noted only for one item in secondary staff

responses in relation to the extent that teachers in their school have a sense of

collective responsibility for pupil learning. Those from schools in the High Start

Group were the most likely to agree strongly to it180. Forty-three per cent of the

key staff from the High Start Group agreed strongly to it compared with 42%

from the Moderate Start Group and 35% from the Low Start Group.

4.13 Extra Curricula Programmes

Headteacher Perceptions Only

Most primary and secondary heads agreed that their schools provided a broad

range of extracurricular activities for children. In addition, around 60% of primary

and secondary heads reported that most pupils regularly participated in at least

one extracurricular activity in their schools. Secondary heads were more likely to

indicate that their school provided after school academic support activities (85%

178 Gamma=-0.19, p<0.05 179 Gamma=0.20, p<0.05 180 χ²=20.42, df=10, p<0.05

137

versus 46% for primaries). However, a little over half of primary (55%) compared

with around four in ten secondary (43%) heads indicated that most of their

teachers participated regularly in at least one extracurricular school activity.


In both sectors heads in schools of the Low Start Group indicated higher

agreement that their school provided after school academic support activities181.

In all 53% of primary heads and 89% of secondary heads in this improvement

group, compared with 41% of primary heads and 78% of secondary heads in the

High Start Group, reported moderate to strong agreement on this item.

For the primary sample in particular, similar levels of agreement on this item

were noted between heads in the Moderate Start Group (40%) and the High Start

Group (40%). In contrast, at the secondary level those in the Low Start (89%)

and Moderate Start (88%) groups reported similar and much higher levels of

agreement on this item.

In both primary and secondary schools, heads in the High Start Group were

somewhat more likely to agree moderately or strongly that most of their pupils

participated regularly in at least one extracurricular school activity182. In both

sectors around 68% of heads in this improvement group indicated so. There was

no marked difference in heads’ views on this item between the other two

improvement groups (Figures A and B in Appendix XI).

For the primary sample only heads in the High Start Group (N=75, 61%) were

relatively more likely to indicate strong agreement that most of their teachers

participated regularly in at least one extracurricular school activity183, compared

to 58% (N=54) in the Moderate Start Group and 49% (N=79) in the Low Start

Group. This may reflect differences in priorities and in other pressures between

these groups of schools related to their attainment histories.

181 Primary: χ²=16.44, df=6, p<0.05; Gamma=-0.20, p<0.01; Secondary: Gamma=-0.27, p<0.05 182 Primary: Gamma=0.20, p<0.01; Secondary: Gamma=0.20, p<0.01 183 Gamma=0.16, p<0.05

138

4.14 Extended Services

The introduction of extended services is a key feature of recent policy

development in England. There were a number of differences between the

primary and secondary school heads in the extent to which different extended

services were reported as available.

4.14.1 Type of services (headteacher perceptions only)

There were a number of differences between the primary and secondary school

heads in the extent to which different extended services were reported as

available:

• Year round child care from 8am to 6pm was reported as full access

by 28% primary but only 6% secondary schools. No access was indicated

by 32% primary but 64% secondary schools.

• Responses by both samples were more likely to indicate that a varied

menu of activities was provided before and after school (just over 50%

indicating full access to this in both sectors and nearly all of the rest

indicating some access).

• Primary schools were more likely to report swift and easy access to health

and social services (41% primary but only 30% secondary schools noting

full access).

• Primary schools were more likely to report access to parenting support

including structured parenting support programmes (no access was noted

by 25% primary but 42% secondary schools).

In both education sectors heads in the Low Start Group were relatively more

likely to report some or full access to parenting support, including structured

parenting support programme184 (Table 4.54). In contrast, those in the High Start

Group were somewhat more likely to indicate no access to this type of extended

service within their schools, and this tendency appears to be stronger for the

secondary sample (“no access”: secondary 53% versus primary 33%).

184 Primary: χ²=11.36, df=4, p<0.05; Gamma=0.22, p<0.01; Secondary: χ²=15.94, df=4, p<0.01; Gamma=0.31, p<0.001

139

Table 4.54: Headteacher responses to the question “Do you provide some, or full

access to parenting support, including structured parenting support

programmes?”

Sector Improvement group Full access Some access No access Total

Low Start Group 31

(19.5%) 102

(64.2%) 26

(16.4%) 159

(100.0%)

Moderate Start Group 12

(12.8%) 56

(59.6%) 26

(27.7%) 94

(100.0%) Primary

High Start Group 18

(14.6%) 65

(52.8%) 40

(32.5%) 123

(100.0%)

Low Start Group 20

(12.2%) 93

(56.7%) 51

(31.1%) 164

(100.0%)


(6.8%) 33

(44.6%) 36

(48.6%) 74

(100.0%) Secondary

High Start Group 7

(6.1%) 47

(40.9%) 61

(53.0%) 115

(100.0%)

For the secondary sample, again, heads from schools in the Low Start Group

(N=61, 37%) were relatively more likely than those in the other two

improvement groups to indicate full access to swift and easy referral to health

and social services185 (25% of the Moderate Start Group and 22% of the High

Start Group respectively). In addition, they were somewhat more likely to report

community access to school facilities186: half (N=83) indicated full access to this

extended services compared with 42% of the Moderate Start Group and 35% of

the High Start Group who reported so.

4.14.2 Management and provision of services (headteacher perceptions

only)

Only a small proportion of primary (N=45, 12%) and secondary (N=41, 12%)

schools relied greatly on an extended schools coordinator/manager, and around

40-46% did not have one in delivering extended services. Partnerships were

used to some extent or greatly by over half the primary (N=241, 64%) and

secondary (N=184, 52%) school sample in providing services, and cluster

relationships with other schools or Children’s services were also noted at a similar

level (50% primaries; 47% secondaries).

Heads reported that their teachers were relied on greatly to run out of hours

activities (49% primary, 44% secondary) or to some extent (41% primary, 48%

secondary). Primary heads in particular reported that their own involvement was

greatly relied on to lead the strategy for extended services (39% primary

185 Gamma=0.23, p<0.01 186 χ²=11.29, df=4, p<0.05; Gamma=0.21, p<0.05

140

compared with 15% of secondary heads). Primary heads were also much more

likely to report great personal involvement in establishing/running extended

services (29% primaries versus 8% secondaries).

For both primary and secondary schools those in the Low Start Group were

somewhat more likely to report great or some reliance on an extended school’s

coordinator/manager in providing extended services187 (Table 4.55). In all 48% of

secondary heads and 42% of primary heads in this improvement group,

compared with 23% of secondary heads and 33% of primary heads in the High

Start Group, indicated that they did so.

Table 4.55: Headteacher responses to the question “To what extent do these

services rely upon an extended schools coordinator/manager?”

Sector Improvement

group Greatly To some

extent Not at all

Not applicable

Total

Low Start Group 26

(16.4%) 41

(25.8%) 73

(45.9%) 19

(11.9%) 159

(100.0%) Moderate Start Group

8 (8.6%)

20 (21.5%)

47 (50.5%)

18 (19.4%)

93 (100.0%)

Primary

High Start Group 11

(8.9%) 30

(24.4%) 54

(43.9%) 28

(22.8%) 123

(100.0%)

Low Start Group 25

(15.2%) 54

(32.9%) 56

(32.9%) 29

(17.7%) 164


7 (9.2%)

22 (28.9%)

32 (42.1%)

15 (19.7%)

76 (100.0%)

Secondary

High Start Group 9

(7.9%) 17

(14.9%) 56

(49.1%) 32

(28.1%) 114

(100.0%)

In both education sectors cluster relationships with other schools or Children’s

services were somewhat more likely to be used greatly or to some extent by

heads in schools from the Low Start Group188 (Table 4.56). More of those in High

Start schools (47% secondaries and 47% primaries) tended to report no reliance

on these cluster relationships in providing extended services within and around

their schools (the Moderate Start Group: 44% primary, 41% secondary; the Low

Start Group: 35% primary, 33% secondary).

187 Primary: Gamma=0.18, p<0.05; Secondary: χ²=19.45, df=6, p<0.01 188 primary: Gamma=0.19, p<0.01; secondary: χ²=23.08, df=6, p<0.01; Gamma=0.32, p<0.001

141

Table 4.56: Headteacher responses to the question “To what extent do these

services rely upon cluster relationships with other schools/Children’s Centres?”

Sector Improvement

group Greatly To some

extent Not at all

Not applicable

Total

Low Start Group 22

(13.8%) 71

(44.7%) 55

(34.6%) 11

(6.9%) 159


9 (9.7%)

32 (34.4%)

41 (44.1%)

11 (11.8%)

94 (100.0%)

Primary

High Start Group 12

(10.2%) 38

(32.2%) 55

(46.6%) 13

(11.0%) 118

(100.0%)

Low Start Group 18

(11.1%) 77

(47.5%) 54

(33.3%) 13

(8.0%) 162


7 (9.2%)

22 (28.9%)

32 (42.1%)

11 (14.7%)

75 (100.0%)

Secondary

High Start Group 9

(7.9%) 17

(14.9%) 56

(49.1%) 23

(20.2%) 114

(100.0%)

For the primary sample, great reliance on the involvement of teachers to run out

of hours activities was relatively more likely to be reported by heads in High Start

schools (N=68, 55%), whereas those in Low Start schools were more likely to

indicate some (N=76, 48%) or no (N=17, 11%) reliance on the involvement of

teachers in providing extended services (Table 4.57). For secondary schools,

partnerships were relatively more likely to be used to some extent or greatly by

heads in Low Start schools (N=96, 60%). By contrast, the figures were less than

half of heads in Moderate Start schools (N=37, 49%) and High Start schools

(N=49, 43%).

Table 4.57: Primary headteacher responses to the question “To what extent do

these services rely upon the involvement of teachers to run out of hours

activities?”

Improvement group Greatly To some

extent Not at all

Not applicable

Total

Low Start Group 65

(40.6%) 76

(47.5%) 17

(10.6%) 2

(1.3%) 160

(100.0%)


(53.2%) 34

(36.2%) 8

(8.5%) 2

(2.1%) 94

(100.0%)

High Start Group 68

(55.3%) 44

(35.8%) 7

(5.7%) 4

(3.3%) 123

(100.0%)

Total 183

(48.5%) 154

(40.8%) 32

(8.5%) 8

(2.1%) 377

(100.0%)

These results indicate that proportionally more of the Low Start rapidly improving

schools from a low base tended to be involved in extended schools provision. This

may reflect differences in the needs of the pupil populations and communities

served and availability of resources.

4.15 Summary

This section provides a summary of the results of the analyses of surveys of

142

primary and secondary headteachers and comparisons of the views of key staff

in highly improving/highly effective schools in relation to the characteristics of

these schools (by context and sector). It highlights the similarities and differences

in leadership characteristics and strategies in establishing foundations and

building and sustaining improvement between the three school improvement

groups (i.e. Low Start, Moderate Start and High Start) over the last three years.

It also explores sector differences and those related to school contexts.

4.15.1 Key findings:

1. Differences by School SES Context

• School context is significantly associated with schools’ improvement

groupings. Stable High attaining and effective schools were much more

likely to be low disadvantage schools (measured by % FSM of pupil intake

Bands 3 and 4) whereas highly improved effective schools from a low base

(Low Start group) were relatively more likely to be high disadvantage

schools (measured by school FSM Band 3 and 4).

• High disadvantage secondary schools were relatively more likely to be led

by less experienced headteachers and to have had several changes in

headteacher over the last ten years (3 plus changes).

• Overall, key staff in high disadvantage schools in this sample reported

more positive views on school conditions, school culture and workload

volumes. They were also more likely than their counterparts in less

disadvantaged schools to report higher levels of headteacher efficacy. In

contrast, staff in low disadvantage schools were more likely to report

favourable views about their workload complexity189.

2. Differences by Sector

• Primary headteachers were relatively more likely than their secondary

peers to report improvement in aspects of academic press and school

culture in the past three years. Primary heads gave relatively less

favourable responses than their secondary colleagues to most items

relating to leader self-efficacy although views were generally favourable.

• Primary key staff were more likely than their secondary counterparts to

189 It must be remembered that this study includes only highly improved/highly effective schools and this pattern would be less likely to be found in less successful schools.

143

report positive views on all items related to leadership distribution and

practice. They also reported a substantial amount of change over the last

three years in the school conditions (e.g. disciplinary climate).

• Primary key staff perceived higher levels of leadership practice provided by

the headteacher and deputy headteacher and they were also more likely to

report that leadership practice is provided by the LA. Primary key staff also

perceived higher levels of their own involvement in leadership activities

and collective planning in the school.

3. Differences by School Improvement Group

• In both education sectors stable high effective schools (the High Start

Group) were more likely to have experienced headteachers in post, those

who had been in post for more than eight years.

• Schools making rapid improvement from a low base (those in the Low

Start Group) were relatively more likely to be led by a younger and less

experienced headteacher. Such schools were also more likely to have had

several changes (3 or more) of head in the last decade. It is important to

note that this is likely to link to the finding on school context since

relatively more highly disadvantaged schools were in the rapid

improvement Low Start Group.

• Findings in relation to education sector were also associated with school

improvement group. Differences by school improvement group were more

common and generally stronger for the secondary sample.

• For secondary schools in particular, there were marked differences

between the three improvement groups in relation to the extent of

reported change in almost all the aspects of school structures, culture and

curriculum, pedagogy and assessment. Compared to other areas of change

analysed in our surveys (e.g. academic press, extracurricular programmes

and leadership distribution) where fewer differences were found, these

three areas appeared to have been a strong focus of change and

improvement particularly for secondary heads in the Low Start group. To

achieve rapid and sustained (over three years) improvement from a low

base it appears that a focus on these areas is particularly important,

especially in the larger and more complex organisational context of

secondary schools.

144

• In the secondary sample, the LA was seen to have played a greater role in

the provision of leadership practice by both headteachers and key staff in

the Low Start Group.

• Secondary key staff from Low Start schools were the most likely to report

that SMT/SLT in their schools participate in ongoing, collaborative work

and have a positive role in the development of policies on lesson planning.

• In both sectors we found significant differences between the three school

improvement groups in relation to the use of data to improve the quality

of teaching and learning. Analysis provides evidence for the hypothesis

that effective headteachers promote and ensure that staff adopt evidence-

based approaches to the use of assessment data, intervening early and

monitoring and evaluating continually at school, department and

classroom level. This seems to be particularly important for the

improvement strategies of schools improving from a low attainment base

(the Low Start Group).

• Also in both primary and secondary schools, significant differences were

found between the three school improvement groups in terms of the

extent headteachers reported change/improvement across their school,

including disciplinary climate, reduction of staff mobility and enhanced

commitment and enthusiasm of staff. More improvements/change were

likely to be reported by heads and the key staff in the Low Start

improvement group. This supports the findings on their rapid academic

improvement in the analyses of national assessment and examination

data.

This observation also provides evidence for our hypothesis that effective

headteachers have a positive influence upon the ‘mindset’190 of the school

and its culture and staff and student relationships. This is in line with the

conclusion of the literature review (strong claim 4) that school leaders

tend to improve teaching and learning and pupil outcomes indirectly and

most powerfully through their influence on staff motivation, commitment

and working conditions.

190 A term coined by James et al. (2006)

145

There were also broad similarities between the three improvement groups in

relation to school culture, the way that leadership tasks were distributed or

shared within schools and the kinds of leadership practice provided by SMT/SLT in

school. This suggests that these aspects of leadership practice vary less in

relation to school improvement and effectiveness group and supports the view

that there are some common core features of leadership in all highly

effective/improved schools.

4.16 Key Messages

To our knowledge, this interim analysis is the first example of a survey of highly

effective and improved schools that has sought to explore similarities and

differences in headteacher and key staff perceptions of major features of school

leadership according to their school’s improvement and effectiveness history.

1. The categorisation of schools into three distinctive groups reveals that

there are statistically and educationally significant differences in certain

leadership features and practices. In addition, other important influences are

found to show significant associations with the pattern of staff responses related

to headteachers’ years of experience in total and in their current schools, the

number of headteachers in post in the last ten years, school sector and socio-

economic context.

2. There are important relationships between school context and the

school improvement group, and between school context and

headteachers’ time in post. The less stable leadership histories of schools,

particularly secondary schools in high disadvantage, challenging contexts is

evident and is a feature that points to the likely importance of supportive

initiatives by NCSL and others in relation to leadership, training, development and

succession planning.

3. There are distinct features that differentiate schools in the three start

improvement groups. There is strong evidence that schools in the Low to

Moderate/High group had made greater improvements in changing

school culture, climate and addressing teaching and learning and use of

performance data during the last three years.

4. Participants from Low Start schools were significantly more likely to

report substantial improvement in pupil behaviour, attendance, attitude

and motivation. These aspects are likely to be important precursors and

146

facilitators for improvement in students’ academic achievements, especially in

high disadvantage contexts. These findings are in accordance with those of

reviews of school effectiveness and improvement research (Sammons 2007).

5. Headteachers in the Low Start Group were more likely to prioritise

strategies to improve teaching and learning and the use of data than

those in the High Start (stable high effective) Group. This was evident for

schools in both sectors but particularly those in the secondary sector.

Additional data collected from the surveys included details of the three strategies

identified as most influential in improving pupil academic outcomes by the head

teachers and will be analysed to establish which combinations of actions are

perceived to have been most important. Further analyses will help to indicate

which combination of each actions appear to be most frequently adopted by

schools in the three improvement groups and in different contexts. In addition,

qualitative data will be examined to explore patterns of similarities and

differences in approaches between the three improvement groups and schools in

different SES contexts. A follow-up survey of heads and key staff is planned to

further explore aspects identified as potentially important from the initial

integration of quantitative and qualitative evidence.

Structural equation modelling will be used to further examine underlying

dimensions in the responses to both surveys. This will establish whether the

theoretical scales derived from the literature are empirically confirmed in our

sample. In addition, these quantitatively derived dimensions will be related to

hypothesised models of the proposed links between different features of

leadership practice and measures of pupil outcomes and change in outcomes over

time. We will seek to explore their predictive ability, as indicated by relationships

between several measures of change in pupil academic outcomes derived from

the national data sets and from staff and headteacher perceptions of degree of

change in non-academic pupil outcomes collected in the surveys. Combined with

evidence obtained from the qualitative strand, this analysis strategy for the

quantitative strand will help to test and refine models of the hypothesised

relationships between leadership and pupil outcomes (direct/indirect, and

moderating and mediating influences).

Appendices

Contents

Appendix I: Summary Of Responses By Improvement Groups ....................................... i

Appendix II: Headteachers’ Total Years Of Experience By School Improvement Group. ii Experience Of Headteachers And Improvement Groups....................................................... ii

Appendix III: Age Of Headteachers And Improvement Groups .................................... iii Age Of Headteachers And Improvement Groups ............................................................... iii

Appendix IV: Key Staff Perceptions’ Of Leadership Distribution: Associations Between Improvement Groups And Leadership Practice Provided By Sips And Parents .............. iv

Appendix V: Leadership Influence: Persuasion Tactics................................................. vi

Appendix VI: School Conditions: Academic Press ........................................................ vii Key Staff Perceptions Of Academic Press ........................................................................ vii

Appendix VII: Primary And Secondary Key Staff Responses For Items On School Culture .......................................................................................................................... ix

Appendix VIII: Leader Self-Efficacy ............................................................................. xi

Appendix IX: Leader Self-Efficacy And School SES Contexts (Secondary) ................... xii

Appendix X: Three Improvement Groups And Key Staff Responses To Whether They Have Too Many Pupils Who Are Uncooperative............................................................. xv

Appendix XI: Heads’ Views On Pupils’ Participation In Extracurricular School Activity Across Three Improvement Groups............................................................................. xvi

Appendix XII: The kinds of leadership practice provided by SMT/SLT in school........ xvii

Appendix XIII: Keys staff perceptions relating to pupil attendance ........................... xix

Appendix XIV: Key staff perceptions of school improvement over the past 3 years .... xx

Appendix XV: Three improvement groups and secondary headteachers’ responses relating to structuring the organisation, external and internal collaborations, and school improvement.................................................................................................... xxi

Appendix XVI: Primary Headteacher Questionnaire Survey – Wave 1 ...................... xxiv

Appendix XVII: Secondary Headteacher Questionnaire Survey – Wave 1................ xxxii

Appendix XVIII: Primary Key Staff Questionnaire Survey – Wave 1............................. xl

Appendix XIX: Secondary Key Staff Questionnaire Survey – Wave 1......................... xlix

Appendix I: Summary Of Responses By

Improvement Groups

Table 1 shows the numbers of schools for which we received completed head

teacher surveys in each group by sector. Table 2 shows the numbers of responses

received from key staff according to the three improvement groups.

Table 1: Numbers Of Schools Responding To The Head Teacher Survey In Three

Improvement Groups

Primary Secondary Total Improvement Groups

N % N % N %

Low-Moderate/High 160 42 785 45 945 44

Moderate-higher moderate/high 94 25 393 14 487 23

Stable high/ high-higher 123 33 585 25 708 33

Total 377¹ 100 1,763 100 2,140 100

¹ One school has missing value. ² Four schools have missing values.

Table 2: Summary Of Three Improvement Groups (Primary And Secondary) At

Key Staff Response Level

Primary Secondary Total Improvement Groups

N % N % N %

Low-Moderate/High 261 43 524 45 785 45

Moderate-higher moderate/high 153 16 240 13 393 14

Stable high/ high-higher 193 24 392 25 585 25

Total 607 100 1,156 100 1,763 100

i

Appendix II: Headteachers’ Total Years Of

Experience By School Improvement Group

Experience Of Headteachers And Improvement

Groups

The relationship between Headteachers’ total years of experience and school

improvement groups is particularly striking for secondary schools.

Figure A: Headteachers’ Total Years Of Experience By School Improvement

Group (Primary)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%



Low -Mod/High

(N=47) (N=85)(N=127)(N=77)

Figure B: Headteachers’ Total Years Of Experience By School Improvement

Group (Secondary)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%



Low -Mod/High

(N=95) (N=31)(N=69)(N=74)

ii

Appendix III: Age Of Headteachers And

Improvement Groups

Age Of Headteachers And Improvement Groups

Table A shows that younger primary heads were proportionately more likely to be

in post in schools that had made rapid improvement from low to moderate or

moderate to high. (Gamma=0.13, p<0.05). For secondary heads, this tendency

was evident for both the Low to Moderate/High and Moderate to Higher

Moderate/High groups (Table B).

Table A: Headteachers’ Age And Primary School Improvement Group

Improvement Groups Headteachers’

Age Low to Moderate/High



Total

37 15 21 73 45 or under

(51%) (20%) (29%) (100%)

25 14 23 62 46-50

(40%) (23%) (37%) (100%)

65 36 39 140 51-55

(46%) (26%) (28%) (100%)

31 29 40 100 Over 56

(31%) (29%) (40%) (100%)

158 94 123 375 Total

(42%) (25%0 (33%) (100%)

Table B: Headteachers’ Age And Secondary School Improvement Group

Improvement Groups Headteachers’

Age Low to Moderate/High



Total

26 6 17 49 45 or under

(53%) (12%) (35%) (100%)

40 15 15 70 46-50

(57%) (21%) (22%) (100%)

65 29 51 145 51-55

(45%) (20%) (35%) (100%)

33 26 32 91 Over 56

(36%) (29%) (35%) (100%)

164 76 115 355 Total (46%) (21%) (32%) (100%)

iii

Appendix IV: Key Staff Perceptions’ Of

Leadership Distribution: Associations

Between Improvement Groups And

Leadership Practice Provided By Sips And

Parents

Figure A: Leadership Practice Provided By Sips And The Three Improvement

Groups (Secondary)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Low-Mod/High(N=475)

Mod-higherMod/high(N=214)

Stable high/high-higher

(N=338)

All the time

A great deal

ModerateamountSome

Infrequently

Rarely / never

Figure B: Leadership Practice Provided By The LA And The Three Improvement

Groups (Primary)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Low-Mod/High(N=255)



(N=182)

All the time

A great deal

Moderate amount

Some

Infrequently

Rarely / never

iv

Figure C: Leadership Practice Provided By The LA And The Three Improvement

Groups (Secondary)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Low-Mod/High(N=506)



(N=369)

All the time

A great deal

Moderate amount

Some

Infrequently

Rarely / never

v

Appendix V: Leadership Influence:

Persuasion Tactics

There was considerable variation in heads’ responses to these items for both

samples. Some tactics were much more widely reported than other (see Tables

and B).

Table A: Comparisons Of Heads’ Responses To Items On Persuasion Tactics:

Primary

Primary

Not at all/ very little

Little

Partially

A lot

Very significantly

To what extent do you use each of the

following to influence or

persuade others: N % N % N % N % N %

Rational persuasion 2 .5 6 2 77 21 194 52 94 25

Apprising 6 2 26 7 140 38 163 44 37 10

Inspirational appeals 16 4 43 12 150 40 120 32 45 12

Consultation 1 .3 4 1 64 17 214 57 92 25

Ingratiation 82 22 76 21 125 34 75 20 12 3

Personal appeals 198 53 92 25 58 16 20 5 4 1

Exchange 198 53 91 24 69 18 11 3 5 1

Coalition building 86 23 70 19 152 41 56 15 10 3

Legitimating tactics 101 28 91 25 121 33 42 12 8 2

Pressure 182 49 97 26 81 22 13 4 1 .3

Personal support 43 12 33 9 126 34 125 34 46 12

Table B: Comparisons Of Heads’ Responses To Items On Persuasion Tactics:

Secondary

Secondary


Little

Partially

A lot

Very significantly

To what extent do you use each of the

following to influence or

persuade others: N % N % N % N % N %

Rational persuasion 2 .6 0 0 43 12 185 51 132 36

Apprising 6 2 34 9 115 32 148 41 58 16

Inspirational appeals 13 4 33 9 113 31 141 39 60 17

Consultation 1 .3 6 2 58 16 200 55 97 27

Ingratiation 87 24 68 19 114 32 69 19 19 5

Personal appeals 194 54 91 25 42 12 21 6 10 3

Exchange 205 57 81 23 49 14 17 5 8 2

Coalition building 68 19 77 21 130 36 66 18 19 5

Legitimating tactics 96 27 99 28 91 26 54 15 14 4

Pressure 145 40 92 26 87 24 28 8 9 2

Personal support 41 11 43 12 111 31 126 35 40 11

vi

Appendix VI: School Conditions: Academic

Press

Key Staff Perceptions Of Academic Press

Figure A: Three Improvement Groups And Key Staff Responses To Whether Most

Pupils Do Achieve The Goals That Have Been Set For Them (Primary)

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

90.00%

100.00%

Low -Moderate/High

Moderate-highermoderate/high


Agree strongly

Agree moderately

Agree slightly

Disagreestrongly/moderately/slightly

Figure B: Three Improvement Groups And Key Staff Responses To Whether Most

Pupils Do Achieve The Goals That Have Been Set For Them (Secondary)

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

90.00%

100.00%

Agree strongly

Agree moderately

Agree slightly

Disagreestrongly/moderately/slightly

Low -Moderate/High

Moderate-highermoderate/high


vii

Figure C: Three Improvement Groups And Key Staff Responses To Whether The

School Sets High Standards For Academic Performance (Secondary)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%



Agree strongly

Agree moderately

Agree slightly

Disagree slightly

Disagree moderately

Figure D: Three Improvement Groups And Key Staff Responses To Whether Their

Pupils Respect Others Who Get Good Marks / Grades (Secondary)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%



Agree strongly

Agree moderately

Agree slightly

Disagree slightly

Disagree moderately

Disagree strongly

viii

Appendix VII: Primary And Secondary Key

Staff Responses For Items On School Culture

Table A: Primary Key Staff Responses

Primary

School culture N or % Disagree

strongly Disagree

moderately Disagree slightly

Agree slightly

Agree moderately

Agree strongly

N 0 3 6 32 191 370 Most teachers in our school share a similar set of values, beliefs and attitudes related to teaching and learning % 0% 0% 1% 5% 32% 61%

N 0 0 2 7 120 474 The goals I am expected to accomplish with my pupils are clear to me % 0% 0% 0% 1% 20% 79%

N 2 2 11 20 124 443 There is no conflict in my mind about what I am expected to do

% 0% 0% 2% 3% 21% 74%

N 0 0 1 11 83 508 Pupils feel safe in our school

% 0% 0% 0% 2% 14% 84%

N 0 0 2 10 96 495 Teachers and other adults in the classroom work collaboratively

% 0% 0% 0% 2% 16% 82%

N 6 18 29 84 200 265 Parents often visit the school

% 1% 3% 5% 14% 33% 44%

N 5 5 17 88 179 307 The school is actively involved in work with other schools or organisations % 1% 1% 3% 15% 30% 51%

N 0 2 5 38 107 451 Our school provides a broad range of extracurricular activities for pupils

% 0% 0% 1% 6% 18% 75%

ix

Table B: Secondary Key Staff Responses

Secondary

School culture N or %

Disagree strongly

Disagree moderatel

y

Disagree slightly

Agree slightly

Agree moderatel

y

Agree strongly

N 4 16 43 192 533 372 Most teachers in our school share a similar set of values, beliefs and attitudes related to teaching and

learning % 0% 1% 4% 17% 46% 32%

N 2 2 7 69 302 773 The goals I am expected to accomplish with my pupils are

clear to me % 0% 0% 1% 6% 26% 67%

N 7 7 24 76 288 752 There is no conflict in my mind about what I am expected to do

% 1% 1% 2% 7% 25% 65%

N 3 15 34 120 478 510 Pupils feel safe in our school

% 0% 1% 3% 10% 41% 44%

N 2 5 24 146 451 530 Teachers and other adults in the classroom work collaboratively

% 0% 0% 2% 13% 39% 46%

N 30 75 156 332 360 201 Parents often visit the school

% 3% 6% 14% 29% 31% 17%

N 5 21 41 224 354 499 The school is actively involved in work with other schools or

organisations % 0% 2% 4% 20% 31% 44%

N 5 16 26 104 298 708 Our school provides a broad range of extracurricular activities for

pupils % 0% 1% 2% 9% 26% 61%

x

Appendix VIII: Leader Self-Efficacy

Both primary and secondary heads’ responses to items related to their self-

efficacy were positively skewed indicating high levels of self-confidence, however,

primary heads were relatively less favourable than their secondary colleagues to

most items (Tables A and B).

Table A: Comparisons Of Heads’ Responses To Items On Self-Efficacy: Primary

Primary


Little

Partially

A lot

Very significantly

To what extent do you feel able to:

N % N % N % N % N %

Manage multiple accountabilities from

diverse audiences 14 4 24 6 120 32 151 40 68 18

Sustain your job satisfaction in your

leadership role 10 3 21 6 100 26 156 41 91 24

Sustain your motivation as a school leader

3 1 15 4 94 25 175 46 91 24

Sustain your commitment to the teaching profession

8 2 16 4 68 18 153 41 133 35

Raise achievement on national tests & exams

4 1 11 3 114 30 169 45 77 21

Manage change in your school

1 .3 1 .3 33 9 194 51 149 39

Table B: Comparisons Of Heads’ Responses To Items On Self-Efficacy: Secondary

Secondary


Little

Partially

A lot

Very significantly

To what extent do you feel able to:

N % N % N % N % N %

Manage multiple accountabilities from

diverse audiences 5 2 14 4 90 25 151 42 97 27

Sustain your job satisfaction in your

leadership role 7 2 3 1 77 21 132 37 139 39

Sustain your motivation as a school leader

4 1 4 1 58 16 145 41 147 41

Sustain your commitment to the teaching profession

5 1 3 1 41 12 128 36 180 50

Raise achievement on national tests & exams

1 .3 6 2 71 20 165 46 114 32

Manage change in your school

1 .3 1 .3 20 6 166 46 170 48

xi

Appendix IX: Leader Self-Efficacy And School

SES Contexts (Secondary)

Table 1: Crosstabulation Of FSM And Heads’ Perceived Ability To Motivate

Teachers (Χ²=6.82, Df=1, P<0.01; Gamma=0.49, P<0.01)

44 207 251

17.5% 82.5% 100.0%

86.3% 68.3% 70.9%

7 96 103

6.8% 93.2% 100.0%

13.7% 31.7% 29.1%

51 303 354

14.4% 85.6% 100.0%

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Count% within FreeSchool Meals Band% within MotivateteachersCount% within FreeSchool Meals Band% within MotivateteachersCount% within FreeSchool Meals Band% within Motivateteachers

FSM 1&2 (0-20%)

FSM 3&4 (21%+)

Free SchoolMeals Band

Total

PartiallyA lot/Very

significantly

Motivate teachers

Total

Table 2: Crosstabulation Of FSM And Heads’ Perceived Ability To Create A

Positive Learning Environment In Their Schools (Gamma=0.42, P<0.05)

Crosstab

28 223 251

11.2% 88.8% 100.0%

84.8% 69.5% 70.9%

5 98 103

4.9% 95.1% 100.0%

15.2% 30.5% 29.1%

33 321 354

9.3% 90.7% 100.0%

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Count% within Free SchoolMeals Band% within Create a positivelearning environment inyour schoolCount% within Free SchoolMeals Band% within Create a positivelearning environment inyour schoolCount% within Free SchoolMeals Band% within Create a positivelearning environment inyour school

FSM 1&2 (0-20%)

FSM 3&4 (21%+)


Total

PartiallyA lot/Very

significantly

Create a positive learningenvironment in your

school

Total

xii

Table 3: Crosstabulation Of FSM And Heads’ Perceived Ability To Facilitate Pupil

Learning In Their Schools (Gamma=0.38, P<0.05)

Crosstab

1 39 209 249

.4% 15.7% 83.9% 100.0%

50.0% 84.8% 68.8% 70.7%

1 7 95 103

1.0% 6.8% 92.2% 100.0%

50.0% 15.2% 31.3% 29.3%

2 46 304 352

.6% 13.1% 86.4% 100.0%

100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Count% within Free SchoolMeals Band% within Facilitate pupillearning in your schoolCount% within Free SchoolMeals Band% within Facilitate pupillearning in your schoolCount% within Free SchoolMeals Band% within Facilitate pupillearning in your school

FSM 1&2 (0-20%)

FSM 3&4 (21%+)


Total

Little PartiallyA lot/Very

significantly

Facilitate pupil learning in your school

Total

Table 4: Crosstabulation Of FSM And Heads’ Perceived Ability To Raise

Achievement On National Tests And Examinations (Χ²=12.62, Df=3, P<0.01;

Gamma=0.54, P<0.001)

Crosstab

1 5 61 183 250

.4% 2.0% 24.4% 73.2% 100.0%

100.0% 83.3% 87.1% 66.3% 70.8%

0 1 9 93 103

.0% 1.0% 8.7% 90.3% 100.0%

.0% 16.7% 12.9% 33.7% 29.2%

1 6 70 276 353

.3% 1.7% 19.8% 78.2% 100.0%

100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Count% within Free SchoolMeals Band% within Raiseachievement on nationaltests and examinationsCount% within Free SchoolMeals Band% within Raiseachievement on nationaltests and examinationsCount% within Free SchoolMeals Band% within Raiseachievement on nationaltests and examinations

FSM 1&2 (0-20%)

FSM 3&4 (21%+)


Total

Not atall/Very Little Little Partially

A lot/Verysignificantly

Raise achievement on national tests and examinations

Total

xiii

Table 5: Crosstabulation Of FSM And Heads’ Perceived Ability To Manage Multiple

Accountabilities From Diverse Audiences (Gamma=0.25, P<0.05)

Crosstab

3 10 71 166 250

1.2% 4.0% 28.4% 66.4% 100.0%

75.0% 71.4% 79.8% 67.5% 70.8%

1 4 18 80 103

1.0% 3.9% 17.5% 77.7% 100.0%

25.0% 28.6% 20.2% 32.5% 29.2%

4 14 89 246 353

1.1% 4.0% 25.2% 69.7% 100.0%

100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Count% within Free SchoolMeals Band% within Managemultiple accountabilitiesfrom diverse audiencese.g. Governing Body, LA,OfstedCount% within Free SchoolMeals Band% within Managemultiple accountabilitiesfrom diverse audiencese.g. Governing Body, LA,OfstedCount% within Free SchoolMeals Band% within Managemultiple accountabilitiesfrom diverse audiencese.g. Governing Body, LA,Ofsted

FSM 1&2 (0-20%)

FSM 3&4 (21%+)


Total

Not atall/Very Little Little Partially

A lot/Verysignificantly

Manage multiple accountabilities from diverseaudiences e.g. Governing Body, LA, Ofsted

Total

xiv

Appendix X: Three Improvement Groups And

Key Staff Responses To Whether They Have

Too Many Pupils Who Are Uncooperative

Figure A: Three Improvement Groups And Key Staff Responses To Whether They

Have Too Many Pupils Who Are Uncooperative (Secondary)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%



Agree strongly

Agree moderately

Agree slightly

Disagree slightly

Disagree moderately

Disagree strongly

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%



Agree stronglyAgree moderatelyAgree slight lyDisagree slight lyDisagree moderatelyDisagree strongly

Figure B: Three Improvement Groups And Key Staff Responses To Whether They

Have Too Many Pupils Who Achieve Poorly In Spite Of My Best Efforts

(Secondary)

xv

Appendix XI: Heads’ Views On Pupils’

Participation In Extracurricular School

Activity Across Three Improvement Groups

Figure A: Heads’ Views On Pupils’ Participation In Extracurricular School Activity

Across Three Improvement Groups (Primary)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%




Disagreeslightly


(N=160) (N=123)(N=94)

Figure B: Heads’ Views On Pupils’ Participation In Extracurricular School Activity

Across Three Improvement Groups (Secondary)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%




Disagreeslightly


(N=167) (N=115)(N=75)

xvi

Appendix XII: The kinds of leadership

practice provided by SMT/SLT in school

For both the primary and the secondary sample, the large majority of heads

strongly agreed to the items concerning the leadership practice of members of

the SMT/SLT (see Tables and B).

Table A: Primary heads’ responses to items on the role of the SMT/SLT

Primary

Disagree strongly /

moderately

Disagree slightly

Agree slightly

Agree moderately

Agree strongly

To what extent do you agree that the members of

the SMT/SLT in your school:

N % N % N % N % N %

Share a similar set of values, beliefs and attitudes related to

teaching and learning 0 0 1 .3 10 2.7 89 23.7 275 73.3

Participate in ongoing, collaborative work

0 0 0 0 16 4.3 105 28.0 254 67.7

Have a role in school-wide decision-making

0 0 2 .5 7 1.9 100 26.7 266 70.9

Have a role in the development of pupil behaviour policies

0 0 2 .5 6 1.6 87 23.2 280 74.7

Have a role in the development of policies on lesson planning?

0 0 3 .8 19 5.1 95 25.3 258 68.8

Have a role in the development of policies on homework

1 .3 4 1.1 24 6.4 104 27.7 242 64.5

Have involvement in the school evaluation and review process

1 .3 0 0 11 2.9 89 23.7 274 73.1

Have a role in classroom monitoring and assessment

strategies 1 .3 2 .5 15 4.0 118 31.5 239 63.7

Have a role in determining the direction of the school

1 .3 1 .3 16 4.3 120 32.0 237 63.2

Have a positive impact on standards of teaching

1 .3 1 .3 10 2.7 87 23.2 276 73.6

Have a positive impact on raising levels of pupil

attainment 1 .3 1 .3 11 2.9 84 22.4 278 74.1

Have a role in determining the allocation of resources to

pupils 4 1.1 3 .8 45 12.0 135 36.0 188 50.1

xvii

Table B: Secondary heads’ responses to items on the role of the SMT/SLT

Secondary

Disagree strongly /

moderately

Disagree slightly

Agree slightly

Agree moderately

Agree strongly

To what extent do you agree that the members of


N % N % N % N % N %

Share a similar set of values, beliefs and attitudes related to

teaching and learning 2 .6 2 .6 10 2.8 71 19.7 276 76.5

Participate in ongoing, collaborative work

3 .8 3 .8 8 2.2 89 24.6 259 71.5

Have a role in school-wide decision-making

1 .3 4 1.1 5 1.4 41 11.3 311 85.9

Have a role in the development of pupil

behaviour policies 1 .3 1 .3 7 1.9 60 16.6 293 80.9

Have a role in the development of policies on

lesson planning? 2 .6 3 .8 20 5.5 93 25.7 244 67.4

Have a role in the development of policies on

homework 2 .6 2 .6 25 6.9 107 29.6 226 62.4

Have involvement in the school evaluation and review

process 0 0 1 .3 10 2.8 26 7.2 325 89.8

Have a role in classroom monitoring and assessment

strategies 0 0 1 .3 5 1.4 60 16.6 296 81.8

Have a role in determining the direction of the school

2 .6 0 0 10 2.8 70 19.3 279 77.3

Have a positive impact on standards of teaching

0 0 1 .3 11 3.0 93 25.7 257 71.0

Have a positive impact on raising levels of pupil

attainment 0 0 0 0 12 3.3 84 23.2 266 73.5

Have a role in determining the allocation of resources to

pupils 10 2.8 5 1.4 66 18.2 125 34.6 155 42.9

xviii

Appendix XIII: Keys staff perceptions

relating to pupil attendance

Table A: Primary heads’ responses to items concerning pupil attendance

Primary

Much worse now

Worse now

No change

Better now

Much better now

To what extent do you agree that the members of the SMT/SLT in your

school:

N % N % N % N % N %

Pupils’ lateness to lessons 0 0 6 1.0 358 61.2 149 25.5 72 12.3

Pupils’ lateness to school 1 .2 25 4.2 255 43.1 246 41.6 65 11.0

Pupils’ absenteeism (both authorised and unauthorised)

2 .3 19 3.2 229 38.5 261 43.9 84 14.1

Pupils’ missing class 2 .4 1 .2 405 71.1 96 16.8 64 11.2

Pupils’ mobility/turnover 6 .2 72 12.2 369 62.3 102 17.2 40 6.8

Table B: Secondary heads’ responses to items concerning pupil attendance

Secondary

Much worse now

Worse now

No change

Better now

Much better now

To what extent do you agree that the members of the SMT/SLT in

your school:

N % N % N % N % N %

Pupils’ lateness to lessons 19 1.7 139 12.2 482 42.3 405 35.5 95 8.3

Pupils’ lateness to school 13 1.1 120 10.6 485 42.7 422 37.2 95 8.4

Pupils’ absenteeism (both authorised and unauthorised)

11 1.0 87 7.7 411 36.3 479 42.4 142 12.6

Pupils’ missing class 9 .8 73 6.4 462 40.7 461 40.7 128 11.3

Pupils’ mobility/turnover 6 .5 59 5.2 689 61.2 290 25.8 81 7.2

xix

Appendix XIV: Key staff perceptions of

school improvement over the past 3 years

Table A: Primary key staff responses to items concerning school improvement

Primary

No change

A little Some A lot To what extent has your school experienced

improvement in the following areas in the last three years:

N % N % N % N %

Reduction in staff mobility 248 42.0 97 16.4 143 24.2 103 17.4

Reduction in staff absence 265 44.9 83 14.1 148 25.1 94 15.9

Enhanced local reputation 99 16.6 74 12.4 219 36.7 204 34.2

Improved homework policies and practice 122 20.6 131 22.1 215 36.3 124 20.9

Enhanced commitment and enthusiasm of staff 89 15.0 69 11.6 186 31.3 250 42.1

Promoted an orderly and secure working environment 107 18.0 63 10.6 171 28.7 254 42.7

Improved pupil behaviour and discipline as a result of a whole school approach

99 16.7 92 15.5 179 30.1 224 37.7

Table B: Secondary key staff responses to items concerning school improvement

Secondary

No change

A little Some A lot To what extent do you agree that the members of


N % N % N % N %

Reduction in staff mobility 326 29.3 209 18.8 389 35.0 188 16.9

Reduction in staff absence 329 29.7 257 23.2 371 33.5 149 13.5

Enhanced local reputation 131 11.5 156 13.7 379 33.4 468 41.2

Improved homework policies and practice 268 23.6 298 26.3 422 37.2 146 12.9

Enhanced commitment and enthusiasm of staff 174 15.4 182 16.1 457 40.3 320 28.2

Promoted an orderly and secure working environment 168 14.7 194 17.0 396 34.8 381 33.5


242 21.2 250 21.9 358 31.4 289 25.4

xx

Appendix XV: Three improvement groups and

secondary headteachers’ responses relating

to structuring the organisation, external and

internal collaborations, and school

improvement

Table A: Secondary headteacher responses to items relating to structuring the

organisation

To what extent do you believe your actions have changed in relation to the following over the past three years?

Improvement group



Low Start Group

12 (7.5%)

8 (5.0%)

41 (25.8%)

98 (61.6%)


4 (4.3%)

3 (3.2%)

38 (40.4%)

49 (52.1%)

Improving internal review procedures

High Start Group

11 (8.9%)

8 (6.5%)

47 (38.2%)

57 (46.3%)

Low Start Group

13 (8.2%)

9 (5.7%)

26 (16.4%)

111 (69.8%)


4 (4.3%)

5 (5.4%)

22 (23.7%)

62 (66.7%)

Utilising support staff skills for the benefit of pupil learning

High Start Group

8 (6.5%)

9 (7.3%)

20 (16.3%)

86 (69.9%)

Low Start Group

31 (19.5%)

14 (8.8%)

40 (25.2%)

74 (46.5%)


14 (14.9%)

8 (8.5%)

31 (33.0%)

41 (43.6%)

Allocating resources strategically based on pupil needs

High Start Group

14 (11.4%)

19 (15.4%)

40 (32.5%)

50 (40.7%)

Low Start Group

19 (12.0%)

12 (7.6%)

49 (31.0%)

78 (49.4%)


10 (10.8%)

12 (12.9%)

27 (29.0%)

44 (47.3%)

Structuring the organisation to facilitate work

High Start Group

13 (10.7%)

11 (9.1%)

44 (36.4%)

53 (43.8%)

xxi

Table B: Secondary headteacher responses to items relating to external and

internal collaborations

To what extent do you believe your actions have changed in relation to the following over the past three years?

Improvement group



Low Start Group

28 (17.7%)

21 (13.3%)

47 (29.4%)

62 (39.2%)


14 (15.1%)

8 (8.6%)

40 (43.0%)

31 (33.3%)

Working collaboratively with the Governing Body

High Start Group

18 (14.6%)

20 (16.3%)

32 (26.0%)

53 (43.1%)

Low Start Group

34 (21.5%)

24 (15.2%)

34 (21.5%)

66 (41.8%)


15 (16.3%)

15 (16.3%)

28 (30.4%)

34 (37.0%)

Working collaboratively with the Local Authority (LA)

High Start Group

26 (21.3%)

27 (22.1%)

40 (32.8%)

29 (23.8%)

Low Start Group

24 (15.0%)

7 (4.4%)

26 (16.3%)

103 (64.4%)


10 (10.8%)

6 (6.5%)

18 (19.4%)

59 (63.4%)

Working collaboratively with the SMT/SLT

High Start Group

14 (11.5%)

10 (8.2%)

27 (22.1%)

71 (58.2%)

Low Start Group

34 (21.3%)

15 (9.4%)

39 (24.4%)

72 (45.0%)


8 (8.5%)

18 (19.1%)

26 (27.7%)

42 (44.7%)

Encouraging collaborative work amongst staff

High Start Group

14 (11.4%)

16 (13.0%)

31 (25.2%)

62 (50.4%)

Low Start Group

14 (8.8%)

19 (11.9%)

56 (35.2%)

70 (44.0%)


8 (8.5%)

8 (8.5%)

39 (41.5%)

39 (41.5%)

Working in collaboration with other schools

High Start Group

16 (13.1%)

16 (13.1%)

45 (36.9%)

45 (36.9%)

xxii

Table C: Secondary headteacher responses to items relating to school

improvement

To what extent has your school experienced improvement in the following areas in the last three years?

Improvement group No

change A little Some A lot

Low Start Group 40

(24.2%) 24

(14.5%) 52

(31.5%) 49


26 (34.2%)

15 (19.7%)

22 (28.9%)

13 (17.1%)

Reduction in staff mobility

High Start Group 48

(42.1%) 31

(27.2%) 22

(19.3%) 13

(11.4%)

Low Start Group 38

(22.9%) 27

(16.3%) 61

(36.7%) 40


20 (26.3%)

18 (23.7%)

28 (36.8%)

10 (13.2%)

Reduction in staff absence

High Start Group 46

(40.4%) 32

(28.1%) 24

(21.1%) 12

(10.5%)

Low Start Group 2

(1.2%) 22

(13.3%) 58

(34.9%) 84


12 (16.0%)

6 (8.0%)

21 (28.0%)

36 (48.0%)

Enhanced local reputation

High Start Group 30

(26.1%) 24

(20.9%) 26

(22.6%) 35

(30.4%)

Low Start Group 18

(10.8%) 58

(34.9%) 72

(43.4%) 18


16 (21.1%)

34 (44.7%)

23 (30.3%)

3 (3.9%)

Improved homework policies and practice

High Start Group 39

(33.9%) 36

(31.3%) 27

(23.5%) 13

(11.3%)

Low Start Group 5

(3.0%) 14

(8.4%) 74

(44.6%) 73


4 (5.3%)

11 (14.5%)

30 (39.5%)

31 (40.8%)


High Start Group 23

(20.0%) 22

(19.1%) 45

(39.1%) 25

(21.7%)

Low Start Group 6

(3.6%) 19

(11.4%) 66

(39.8%) 75


6 (7.9%)

14 (18.4%)

29 (38.2%)

27 (35.5%)


High Start Group 28

(24.3%) 25

(21.7%) 41

(35.7%) 21

(18.3%)

Low Start Group 8

(4.8%) 26

(15.8%) 60

(36.4%) 71


11 (14.5%)

9 (11.8%)

34 (44.7%)

22 (28.9%)


High Start Group 24

(20.9%) 35

(30.4%) 32

(27.8%) 24

(20.9%)

xxiii

Appendix XVI: Primary Headteacher

Questionnaire Survey – Wave 1

The Impact of School Leadership on Pupil Outcomes Headteacher Questionnaire – Primary

N = 394 1. To what extent do you believe your leadership practice and actions have changed in relation to the following over the past three years?

Valid Percent Not at

all Very little

Little Partially A lot Very significantly

a) Giving staff an overall sense of purpose 7 10 10 23 42 10 b) Helping clarify the reasons for our school’s improvement initiatives

5 6 6 19 51 14

c) Providing assistance to staff in setting short-term goals for teaching and learning

3 6 8 28 42 13

d) Demonstrating high expectations for staff’s work with pupils

9 9 13 23 33 13

e) Demonstrating high expectations for pupil behaviour

12 10 11 22 28 17

f) Demonstrating high expectations for pupil achievement

8 10 11 17 37 17

g) Working collaboratively with the Governing Body

7 9 13 32 24 15

h) Working collaboratively with the Local Authority (LA)

8 12 18 27 23 12

i) Working collaboratively with the SMT/SLT 5 8 6 19 39 23 j) Integrating school priorities with the National Government’s policy agenda

4 10 13 36 30 8

2. To what extent do you believe your actions have changed in relation to the following over the past three years?


all Very little


a) Giving staff individual support to help them improve their teaching practices

5 9 12 34 33 7

b) Encouraging them to consider new ideas for their teaching

4 6 7 26 45 11

c) Modeling a high level of professional practice 10 10 16 29 26 9 d) Developing an atmosphere of caring and trust

15 11 16 18 26 15

e) Promoting leadership development amongst teachers

6 5 8 21 38 22

f) Promoting a range of CPD experiences among all staff

7 7 10 31 30 16

g) Encouraging staff to think of learning beyond the academic curriculum (e.g. personal, emotional and social education, citizenship, etc.)

6 5 9 24 42 14

3.To what extent do you believe your actions have changed in relation to the following over the past three years?


all Very little


a) Encouraging collaborative work amongst staff

7 9 13 25 37 10

b) Ensuring wide participation in decisions about school improvement

5 9 9 25 38 14

c) Engaging students in the school’s improvement efforts

2 7 12 44 29 6

xxiv

d) Increasing dialogue about school improvement between pupils and adults

1 3 10 38 41 7

e) Improving internal review procedures 2 5 5 33 43 11 f) Building community support for the school’s improvement efforts

3 10 12 44 26 6

g) Utilising support staff skills for the benefit of pupil learning

2 5 6 18 42 27

h) Allocating resources strategically based on pupil needs

6 10 11 30 33 10

i) Working in collaboration with other schools 3 7 11 37 28 13 j) Structuring the organisation to facilitate work

4 8 9 32 33 14



all Very little


a) Providing or locating resources to help staff improve their teaching

5 8 15 32 32 8

b) Regularly observing classroom activities 6 9 17 30 28 10 c) After observing classroom activities, working with teachers to improve their teaching

6 9 18 34 26 7

d) Using coaching and mentoring to improve the quality of teaching

7 8 14 35 30 6

e) Frequently discussing educational issues with staff

9 8 13 29 33 8

f) Buffering teachers from distractions from their teaching

7 7 12 33 33 8

g) Encouraging staff to use data in their work 2 3 5 18 51 21 h) Encouraging all staff to use data in planning for individual needs

2 5 5 19 50 19

i) Incorporating research evidence into my decision making to inform practice

4 10 18 41 22 4

j) Using pupil achievement data to make most decisions about school improvement

4 6 5 18 42 25

6. Please indicate the extent to which you agree with the following statements:

Valid Percent Disagree strongly

Disagree moderately

Disagree slightly

Agree slightly

Agree moderately

Agree strongly

a) I trust most of the staff in the school to do their jobs well

0 0 1 2 20 76

b) I feel quite confident that my teachers will always treat me fairly

0 1 2 5 28 65

c) My teachers would not try to gain advantage by deceiving me

0 1 2 3 29 65

d) I feel a strong loyalty to my teachers 0 0 0 2 11 86 e) I would support my teachers in almost any emergency

1 0 1 2 13 84

f) I have a divided sense of loyalty towards my teachers

62 18 6 6 7 2

g) I am able to discuss my feelings, worries and frustrations with my teachers

4 6 7 22 35 26

h) Teachers are able to discuss their feelings, worries and frustrations with me

0 0 1 9 48 43

7. To what extent do you feel able to:


all Very little


a) Motivate teachers? 0 0 0 15 62 23 b) Generate enthusiasm for a shared vision of the school?

0 0 0 8 56 35

xxv

c) Manage change in your school? 0 0 0 9 51 39 d) Create a positive learning environment in your school?

0 0 0 5 47 48

e) Facilitate pupil learning in your school? 0 0 0 8 58 34 f) Raise achievement on national tests and examinations?

1 1 3 30 45 21

g) Sustain your motivation as a school leader? 0 1 4 25 46 24 h) Sustain your job satisfaction in your leadership role?

0 2 6 27 41 24

i) Sustain your commitment to the teaching profession?

0 2 4 18 41 35

j) Manage multiple accountabilities from diverse audiences e.g. Governing Body, LA, Ofsted?

1 3 6 32 40 18

8. Please indicate the extent to which leadership practice in this school is provided by the following people or groups:

Valid Percent Rarely /

never Infrequently Some Moderate

amount A great

deal All the time

a) Deputy Head 1 2 3 10 33 51 b) SMT/SLT 1 1 3 19 47 30 c) Key Stage Managers 3 1 7 22 45 23 d) Groups of teachers 1 2 12 38 39 7 e) Individual teachers with formally assigned tasks (e.g. subject co-ordinators)

0 0 10 31 47 12

f) Individual teachers acting informally 0 5 23 36 29 7 g) Governors 4 14 23 37 20 3 h) Pupils 1 6 28 39 23 4 i) Support staff 1 4 23 39 29 5 j) School Improvement Partners (SIPs) 22 12 23 25 15 3 k) Local Authority (LA) 6 15 34 32 11 2 l) Parents 6 20 40 26 7 1 9. To what extend does each of the statements below describe the way leadership tasks are distributed or shared within your school?


all Very little


a) Leadership tasks are delegated by the Head or SMT/SLT

1 2 3 27 42 25

b) We collectively plan which individual or group(s) will carry out which leadership tasks

1 4 8 31 40 16

c) The distribution of leadership tasks in this school is “spontaneous”. It is not planned but it usually works out well

25 31 20 18 6 1

d) The distribution of leadership tasks in this school is “spontaneous”. It is not planned and it often leads to conflicts and confusion

60 31 6 1 1 0

e) Most leadership tasks in this school are carried out by the Head and the SMT/SLT

2 4 7 38 37 12

f) Very few others take on leadership tasks 23 20 19 28 8 1 10. To what extent do you agree that members of the SMT/SLT in your school…


Disagree moderately

Disagree slightly

Agree slightly

Agree moderately

Agree strongly

a) Share a similar set of values, beliefs and attitudes related to teaching and learning?

0 0 0 3 24 73

b) Participate in ongoing, collaborative work?

0 0 0 4 28 68

xxvi

c) Have a role in school-wide decision-making?

0 0 1 2 27 71

d) Have a role in the development of pupil behaviour policies?

0 0 1 2 23 75

e) Have a role in the development of policies on lesson planning?

0 0 1 5 25 69

f) Have a role in the development of policies on homework?

0 0 1 6 28 65

g) Have involvement in the school evaluation and review process?

0 0 0 3 24 73

h) Have a role in classroom monitoring and assessment strategies?

0 0 1 4 32 64

i) Have a role in determining the direction of the school?

0 0 0 4 32 63

j) Have a positive impact on standards of teaching?

0 0 0 3 23 74

k) Have a positive impact on raising levels of pupil attainment?

0 0 0 3 22 74

l) Have a role in determining the allocation of resources to pupils?

0 1 1 12 36 50

11. To what extend do you use each of the following to influence or persuade others?


all Very little


a) Rational Persuasion (use of logical arguments and factual evidence)

1 0 2 21 52 25

b) Apprising (explaining how carrying out a request will be beneficial to the person)

0 1 7 38 44 10

c) Inspirational Appeals (appeals to person’s values, ideals or emotions)

1 4 12 40 32 12

d) Consultation (inviting feedback or advice about a proposed course of action)

0 0 1 17 57 25

e) Ingratiation (the use of praise and flattery) 7 16 21 34 20 3 f) Personal appeals (appealing to personal friendship or favours)

25 28 25 16 5 1

g) Exchange (offering something with the expectation of reciprocity at a later time)

23 31 24 18 3 1

h) Coalition building (enlisting the aid or support of others as a means of influence)

8 15 19 41 15 3

i) Legitimating tactics (efforts to establish the legitimacy of a course of action or to verify the authority to carry out the action)

10 18 25 33 12 2

j) Pressure (the use of demands, persistent checking etc.)

18 31 26 22 4 0

k) Personal support (offer of additional resources, empathetic responses)

4 7 9 34 34 12

12. Your school has been chosen because it has made significant improvement or sustained high academic achievement over the last three years. To what extent has your school experienced improvement in the following areas in the last three years?

Valid Percent No change A little Some A lot

a) Reduction in staff mobility 43 18 19 20 b) Reduction in staff absence 44 16 24 16 c) Enhanced local reputation 17 17 33 32 d) Improved homework policies and practice 30 28 28 1 e) Enhanced commitment and enthusiasm of staff 14 13 32 40 f) Promoted an orderly and secure working environment 21 13 23 44 g) Improved pupil behaviour and discipline as a result of a whole school approach

21 15 29 36

xxvii

13. To what extent do you consider that these things have changed over the past three years?

Valid Percent Much

worse now Worse now

No change

Better now

Much better now

a) Pupils’ lateness to lessons 0 1 62 26 11 b) Pupils’ lateness to school 0 4 45 41 10 c) Pupils’ absenteeism (both authorised and unauthorised)

1 6 43 40 10

d) Pupils’ missing class 1 0 81 10 8 e) Pupils’ mobility/turnover 3 15 61 16 6 f) Physical conflict among pupils 0 5 39 36 20 g) Bullying of all kinds among pupils 0 3 44 36 17 h) Vandalism of school property 1 4 55 24 17 i) Physical abuse of teachers 0 3 73 12 13 j) Verbal abuse of teachers 0 5 63 17 14 k) Levels of pupil misbehaviour 0 7 36 36 21 l) Pupils’ motivation for learning 0 3 16 52 30 14. Indicate the extent to which you agree that each statement characterises your school


Disagree moderately

Disagree slightly

Agree slightly

Agree moderately

Agree strongly

a) Pupils in this school can achieve the goals that have been set for them

0 0 1 4 32 64

b) Most pupils do achieve the goals that have been set for them

0 0 0 6 39 55

c) Teachers set high standards for academic performance

0 0 1 5 39 56

d) This school sets high standards for academic performance

0 0 0 3 27 69

e) Pupils respect others who get good marks / grades

0 1 3 11 38 47

f) Lesson plans are regularly discussed and monitored

1 2 3 17 31 47

g) The performance of department / subject areas is regularly monitored and targets for improvement are regularly set

0 1 4 17 35 44

h) Pupils are regularly involved in assessment for learning

0 1 2 17 39 41

i) Class teachers regularly use pupil data to set individual pupil achievement targets

0 1 1 9 33 56

15. Indicate the extent to which you agree that each statement characterises your school


Disagree moderately

Disagree slightly

Agree slightly

Agree moderately

Agree strongly

a) Most teachers in our school share a similar set of values, beliefs and attitudes related to teaching and learning

0 0 1 4 27 69

b) Teachers in our school mostly work together to improve their practice

0 0 1 5 27 67

c) There is ongoing collaborative planning of classroom work among teachers in our school

0 0 2 11 25 62

d) Pupils feel safe in our school 0 0 0 1 17 82 e) Teachers and other adults in the classroom work collaboratively

0 0 0 2 21 77

f) Parents often visit the school 1 1 2 16 41 38

xxviii

g) The school is actively involved in work with other schools or organisations (e.g. networks, GTC, NCSL or other learning partnerships)

1 3 4 15 24 53



Disagree moderately

Disagree slightly

Agree slightly

Agree moderately

Agree strongly

a) Disruptions to teaching time are minimised

0 1 2 7 37 53

b) The school timetable provides adequate time for collaborative teacher planning

2 5 8 19 29 37

c) Our pupil assessment practices reflect our curriculum standards

0 0 4 11 42 43

d) We are able to provide a coherent teaching and learning programme for pupils across the years

0 0 1 6 29 63

e) Pupils of similar academic ability are grouped together for teaching in most subject areas

9 8 10 22 29 21

f) Teachers in this school have a sense of collective responsibility for pupil learning

0 0 1 7 30 62

g) Teachers’ teaching strategies enable pupils to construct their own knowledge

1 0 4 21 51 24

h) There are more opportunities for pupils to take responsibilities for their own learning in school now than three years ago

0 0 1 13 38 47

17. Which of these services do you provide some, or full access to (this might be on site or by referral)?

Valid Percent Full access Some access No access

a) Year round childcare from 8am to 6pm weekdays 28 40 32 b) A varied menu of activities (such as homework clubs, art, sport, music, language) before and after school

51 49 0

c) Parenting support, including structured parenting support programmes

16 59 25

d) Swift and easy referral to health and social services 41 52 7 e) Wider community access to your facilities (e.g. ICT, sports hall) 16 57 27 18. To what extent do these services rely upon…

Valid Percent Greatly To some

extent Not at all Not applicable

(no extended services)

a) An extended schools co-ordinator/manager? 12 24 46 18 b) Partnerships with the local authority, PCT, or voluntary, private or independent organisations?

12 52 25 10

c) Cluster relationships with other schools/Children’s Centres? 12 38 41 10 d) The involvement of teachers to run out of hours activities? 49 41 9 2 e) Your own involvement to lead the strategy for extended services?

39 47 4 10

f) Your own involvement to establish/run services? 29 53 10 8

xxix



Disagree moderately

Disagree slightly

Agree slightly

Agree moderately

Agree strongly

a) Our school provides a broad range of extracurricular activities for pupils (e.g. plays, athletics, music, dance)

0 1 1 8 24 66

b) Our school provides after school academic support activities

10 6 9 30 22 24

c) Most of our pupils participate regularly in at least one extracurricular school activity

2 3 11 26 32 27

d) Most of our teachers participate regularly in at least one extracurricular school activity

7 9 11 17 23 33

20. Indicate the extent to which you agree that each statement characterises conditions in classrooms within your school


Disagree moderately

Disagree slightly

Agree slightly

Agree moderately

Agree strongly

a) Teachers’ workload is quite fair compared with teachers in other schools

1 3 6 9 41 40

b) Teachers in this school teach an excessive number of pupils

46 20 14 11 7 3

c) The size of classes makes unreasonable demands on the time required for preparation and marking

44 18 12 15 8 3

d) The size of classes allows teachers to adequately differentiate their teaching between pupils

2 4 9 22 40 23

e) The amount of administrative work required of teachers is not excessive

6 7 14 18 30 25

f) Teachers’ non-teaching (other than admin.) duties in the school are not excessive

1 2 6 19 42 30

g) Teachers teach subjects or areas of the curriculum for which they have little formal preparation

32 25 14 19 8 3

h) This school has too many pupils who are uncooperative

67 15 4 10 1 2

i) This school has too many pupils who achieve poorly in spite of teachers’ best efforts

45 19 9 19 6 3

j) Teachers have a significant amount of autonomy over decisions about what happens in their classes

1 2 6 19 47 25

k) Teachers have access to the teaching resources that they need to do a good job

0 1 2 9 43 45

l) The atmosphere throughout my school encourages pupils to learn

0 0 0 2 21 77

Sex

Valid Percent

Male Female 39 61

Age

Valid Percent

31-35 36-40 41-45 46-50 51-55 56-60 61-65 2 6 11 17 37 25 2

xxx

Education background*

Percent

Non-graduate Certificate / Diploma

Degree Postgraduate Certificate / Diploma

Masters Doctorate Other qualification

36 66 29 20 0 8 *These figures will not add up to 100 as some teachers selected a qualification more than once How long have you been a headteacher in total?

Valid Percent

0-3 years 4-7 years 8-15 years 16-23 years 24 years or more 14 23 39 19 4

How long have you been a headteacher in this school?

Valid Percent


How long were you a deputy headteacher?

Valid Percent

0-3 years 4-7 years 8-15 years 16-23 years 24 years or more Not applicable 33 47 15 1 0 4

Were you a deputy headteacher at this school before you became headteacher?

Valid Percent

Yes No 22 78


Valid Percent

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 No idea 35 33 18 5 2 2 1 0 0 0

xxxi

Appendix XVII: Secondary Headteacher


The Impact of School Leadership on Pupil Outcomes

Headteacher Questionnaire – Secondary N = 368 1. To what extent do you believe your leadership practice and actions have changed in relation to the following over the past three years?


all Very little


a) Giving staff an overall sense of purpose 9 9 9 27 31 15 b) Helping clarify the reasons for our school’s improvement initiatives

6 9 11 18 42 16

c) Providing assistance to staff in setting short-term goals for teaching and learning

4 8 11 28 41 7

d) Demonstrating high expectations for staff’s work with pupils

11 8 10 20 32 18

e) Demonstrating high expectations for pupil behaviour

12 9 12 23 25 19

f) Demonstrating high expectations for pupil achievement

11 8 11 14 32 25

g) Working collaboratively with the Governing Body

11 11 13 23 25 18

h) Working collaboratively with the Local Authority (LA)

10 17 15 26 19 13

i) Working collaboratively with the SMT/SLT 13 8 9 18 21 31 j) Integrating school priorities with the National Government’s policy agenda

6 9 14 34 26 10



all Very little


a) Giving staff individual support to help them improve their teaching practices

7 9 12 31 34 8

b) Encouraging them to consider new ideas for their teaching

6 5 5 29 42 13

c) Modeling a high level of professional practice 12 10 11 25 31 11 d) Developing an atmosphere of caring and trust

14 11 13 19 28 14

e) Promoting leadership development amongst teachers

7 5 6 20 41 22

f) Promoting a range of CPD experiences among all staff

8 8 8 26 34 15

g) Encouraging staff to think of learning beyond the academic curriculum (e.g. personal, emotional and social education, citizenship, etc.)

6 9 14 32 29 9

3.To what extent do you believe your actions have changed in relation to the following over the past three years?


all Very little


a) Encouraging collaborative work amongst staff

8 9 8 23 44 9

b) Ensuring wide participation in decisions about school improvement

6 9 9 32 36 9

c) Engaging students in the school’s improvement efforts

5 7 19 42 23 5

xxxii

d) Increasing dialogue about school improvement between pupils and adults

3 3 12 38 32 11

e) Improving internal review procedures 3 4 6 17 41 30 f) Building community support for the school’s improvement efforts

6 11 16 34 26 7

g) Utilising support staff skills for the benefit of pupil learning

2 3 5 16 47 26

h) Allocating resources strategically based on pupil needs

9 9 9 32 30 10

i) Working in collaboration with other schools 3 5 10 29 35 18 j) Structuring the organisation to facilitate work

6 6 5 25 38 20



all Very little


a) Providing or locating resources to help staff improve their teaching

5 7 12 31 35 10

b) Regularly observing classroom activities 6 7 11 20 40 16 c) After observing classroom activities, working with teachers to improve their teaching

6 6 14 33 32 9

d) Using coaching and mentoring to improve the quality of teaching

4 7 11 33 36 10

e) Frequently discussing educational issues with staff

8 9 13 29 33 9

f) Buffering teachers from distractions from their teaching

9 5 10 33 34 10

g) Encouraging staff to use data in their work 5 2 4 13 42 34 h) Encouraging all staff to use data in planning for individual needs

5 2 4 18 42 30

i) Incorporating research evidence into my decision making to inform practice

8 9 18 35 21 9

j) Using pupil achievement data to make most decisions about school improvement

5 5 7 20 40 24



Disagree moderately

Disagree slightly

Agree slightly

Agree moderately

Agree strongly

a) I trust most of the staff in the school to do their jobs well

0 0 2 4 33 62

b) I feel quite confident that my teachers will always treat me fairly

0 1 2 5 36 56

c) My teachers would not try to gain advantage by deceiving me

0 1 2 6 43 48

d) I feel a strong loyalty to my teachers 0 0 0 3 18 79 e) I would support my teachers in almost any emergency

0 0 1 4 16 78

f) I have a divided sense of loyalty towards my teachers

54 19 6 10 10 2

g) I am able to discuss my feelings, worries and frustrations with my teachers

7 13 9 26 28 17

h) Teachers are able to discuss their feelings, worries and frustrations with me

0 1 1 13 47 38

7. To what extent do you feel able to:


all Very little


a) Motivate teachers? 0 0 0 15 58 28 b) Generate enthusiasm for a shared vision of the school?

0 0 0 12 49 39

xxxiii

c) Manage change in your school? 0 0 0 6 46 48 d) Create a positive learning environment in your school?

0 0 0 9 49 42

e) Facilitate pupil learning in your school? 0 0 1 14 54 32 f) Raise achievement on national tests and examinations?

0 0 2 20 46 32

g) Sustain your motivation as a school leader? 0 1 1 16 41 41 h) Sustain your job satisfaction in your leadership role?

0 2 1 22 37 39

i) Sustain your commitment to the teaching profession?

0 1 1 12 36 50

j) Manage multiple accountabilities from diverse audiences e.g. Governing Body, LA, Ofsted?

0 1 4 25 42 27




amount A great

deal All the time

a) Deputy Head(s) 1 0 2 5 23 69 b) SMT/SLT 0 0 1 4 35 60 c) Heads of Faculty 0 0 3 24 52 21 d) Heads of Department 0 2 8 25 47 19 e) Groups of teachers 1 2 17 42 33 5 f) Individual teachers with formally assigned tasks (e.g. KS3 co-ordinators)

0 1 14 32 43 11

g) Individual teachers acting informally 1 5 25 36 29 5 h) Governors 4 13 20 31 23 8 i) Pupils 0 5 31 35 26 3 j) Support staff 1 5 25 39 25 5 k) School Improvement Partners (SIPs) 16 19 22 24 15 5 l) Local Authority (LA) 17 26 23 25 8 2 m) Parents 10 30 35 20 5 0 9. To what extend does each of the statements below describe the way leadership tasks are distributed or shared within your school?


all Very little



0 1 2 22 44 31


1 2 6 25 43 23


24 33 24 16 4 1


53 34 10 3 0 0


5 11 14 43 26 2



Disagree moderately

Disagree slightly

Agree slightly

Agree moderately

Agree strongly


0 1 1 3 20 77


0 1 1 2 25 72

xxxiv


0 0 1 1 11 86


0 0 0 2 17 81


0 1 1 6 26 67


0 0 1 7 30 62


0 0 0 3 7 90


0 0 0 1 17 82


0 0 0 3 19 77


0 0 0 3 26 71


0 0 0 3 23 74


0 3 1 18 35 43

11. To what extend do you use each of the following to influence or persuade others?


all Very little



0 0 0 12 51 37


0 1 9 32 41 16


1 3 9 31 39 17


0 0 2 16 55 27


28 26 25 12 6 3


23 34 23 14 5 2


5 14 21 36 18 5


9 18 28 26 15 4


13 27 26 24 8 3


2 9 12 31 35 11



a) More pupils going into further / higher education 18 19 42 21 b) Reduction in staff mobility 32 19 27 21 c) Reduction in staff absence 29 21 31 18 d) Enhanced local reputation 12 15 30 43 e) Improved homework policies and practice 20 36 34 9 f) Enhanced commitment and enthusiasm of staff 9 14 41 36 g) Promoted an orderly and secure working environment 11 16 38 35 h) Improved pupil behaviour and discipline as a result of a whole school approach

12 19 35 33

xxxv


Valid Percent Much

worse now Worse now

No change

Better now

Much better now


1 6 27 48 18

d) Pupils’ missing class 0 4 40 43 14 e) Pupils’ mobility/turnover 1 8 66 17 8 f) Physical conflict among pupils 0 6 45 33 17 g) Bullying of all kinds among pupils 0 4 42 44 11 h) Vandalism of school property 1 5 39 34 22 i) Physical abuse of teachers 1 3 64 18 14 j) Verbal abuse of teachers 1 19 41 28 11 k) Levels of pupil misbehaviour 1 12 28 45 14 l) Pupils’ motivation for learning 0 4 19 56 22 14. Indicate the extent to which you agree that each statement characterises your school


Disagree moderately

Disagree slightly

Agree slightly

Agree moderately

Agree strongly


1 0 0 2 29 69


0 1 1 11 43 45


0 0 1 10 45 45


0 0 0 4 31 64


0 2 8 24 38 28


1 4 6 29 40 19


1 0 1 8 29 62


0 2 3 26 46 24


0 1 2 14 44 37



Disagree moderately

Disagree slightly

Agree slightly

Agree moderately

Agree strongly


0 1 1 8 44 47

b) Teachers in our school mostly work together to improve their practice

1 0 2 8 45 45

c) There is ongoing collaborative planning of classroom work among teachers in our school

0 1 3 15 50 31


0 0 1 14 47 37

f) Parents often visit the school 3 10 13 34 28 12

xxxvi

g) The school is actively involved in work with other schools or organisations (e.g. networks, GTC, NCSL or other learning partnerships)

2 3 2 17 31 45



Disagree moderately

Disagree slightly

Agree slightly

Agree moderately

Agree strongly


0 3 4 18 45 30


3 6 15 27 29 21


1 1 5 24 50 21


0 1 2 7 37 53


3 7 6 14 32 38


0 0 1 12 40 47


0 2 6 36 49 8


0 1 1 18 42 38

17. Which of these services do you provide some, or full access to (this might be on site or by referral)?

Valid Percent Full access Some access No access

a) Year round childcare from 8am to 6pm weekdays 6 30 64 b) A varied menu of activities (such as homework clubs, art, sport, music, language) before and after school

53 47 1

c) Parenting support, including structured parenting support programmes

9 49 42

d) Swift and easy referral to health and social services 30 55 15 e) Wider community access to your facilities (e.g. ICT, sports hall) 43 51 6 18. To what extent do these services rely upon…

Valid Percent Greatly To some

extent Not at all Not applicable

(no extended services)

a) An extended schools co-ordinator/manager? 12 26 41 22 b) Partnerships with the local authority, PCT, or voluntary, private or independent organisations?

9 43 33 15

c) Cluster relationships with other schools/Children’s Centres? 8 39 39 14 d) The involvement of teachers to run out of hours activities? 44 48 5 3 e) Your own involvement to lead the strategy for extended services?

15 54 19 12

f) Your own involvement to establish/run services? 8 50 32 10

xxxvii



Disagree moderately

Disagree slightly

Agree slightly

Agree moderately

Agree strongly

a) Our school provides a broad range of extracurricular activities for pupils (e.g. plays, athletics, music, dance)

0 1 1 5 27 66

b) Our school provides after school academic support activities

0 1 2 12 32 53

c) Most of our pupils participate regularly in at least one extracurricular school activity

1 4 11 24 39 21

d) Most of our teachers participate regularly in at least one extracurricular school activity

3 9 17 28 29 14

20. Indicate the extent to which you agree that each statement characterises conditions in classrooms within your school


Disagree moderately

Disagree slightly

Agree slightly

Agree moderately

Agree strongly

a) Teachers’ workload is quite fair compared with teachers in other schools

1 4 4 9 34 49

b) Teachers in this school teach an excessive number of pupils

39 31 17 9 4 1

c) The size of classes makes unreasonable demands on the time required for preparation and marking

40 28 14 13 3 2

d) The size of classes allows teachers to adequately differentiate their teaching between pupils

3 5 13 24 43 12

e) The amount of administrative work required of teachers is not excessive

2 5 9 14 34 36

f) Teachers’ non-teaching (other than admin.) duties in the school are not excessive

0 3 3 14 32 48

g) Teachers teach subjects or areas of the curriculum for which they have little formal preparation

66 18 6 6 1 3

h) This school has too many pupils who are uncooperative

46 16 12 16 6 4

i) This school has too many pupils who achieve poorly in spite of teachers’ best efforts

37 19 11 21 9 3

j) Teachers have a significant amount of autonomy over decisions about what happens in their classes

1 4 5 23 44 24

k) Teachers have access to the teaching resources that they need to do a good job

1 2 3 10 46 38

l) The atmosphere throughout my school encourages pupils to learn

0 0 1 7 37 55

Sex

Valid Percent

Male Female 63 37

Age

Valid Percent

31-35 36-40 41-45 46-50 51-55 56-60 61-65 Over 65 0 2 11 20 41 24 1 0

xxxviii


Percent




11 83 54 52 6 14 *These figures will not add up to 100 as some teachers selected a qualification more than once How long have you been a headteacher in total?

Valid Percent


How long have you been a headteacher in this school?

Valid Percent


How long were you a deputy headteacher?

Valid Percent

0-3 years 4-7 years 8-15 years 16-23 years 24 years or more Not applicable 15 61 20 2 0 1

Were you a deputy headteacher at this school before you became headteacher?

Valid Percent

Yes No 24 76


Valid Percent

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 25 48 18 4 1 1 1 0

xxxix

Appendix XVIII: Primary Key Staff


The Impact of School Leadership on Pupil Outcomes Key Staff Questionnaire – Primary

N = 606 1. To what extent do you agree that the headteacher in your school does the following things?


Disagree moderately

Disagree slightly

Agree slightly

Agree moderately

Agree strongly

a) Gives staff an overall sense of purpose 0 0 1 4 23 72 b) Helps clarify the reasons for our school’s improvement initiatives

0 0 0 4 20 75

c) Provides assistance to staff in setting short-term goals for teaching and learning

0 1 2 10 37 50

d) Demonstrates high expectations for staff’s work with pupils

0 0 1 4 20 75

e) Demonstrates high expectations for pupil behaviour

0 0 2 5 20 74

f) Demonstrates high expectations for pupil achievement

0 0 0 2 17 81

g) Works collaboratively with the Governing Body

0 0 0 3 15 82

h) Works collaboratively with the Local Authority (LA)

0 0 0 6 21 72

i) Works collaboratively with the SMT/SLT 0 0 0 3 17 80 j) Integrates school priorities with the National Government’s policy agenda

0 0 0 5 29 66

2. To what extent do you agree that the headteacher in your school does the following things?


all Very little


a) Gives staff individual support to help them improve their teaching practices

0 1 3 11 35 50

b) Encourages them to consider new ideas for their teaching

0 1 1 8 30 60

c) Models a high level of professional practice 1 1 3 6 24 66 d) Develops an atmosphere of caring and trust 0 1 2 7 20 71 e) Promotes leadership development amongst teachers

0 0 1 5 20 73

f) Promotes a range of CPD experiences among all staff

0 1 1 7 27 64

g) Encourages staff to think of learning beyond the academic curriculum (e.g. personal, emotional and social education, citizenship, etc.)

0 0 0 6 23 70

3. To what extent do you agree that the headteacher in your school does the following?


all Very little


a) Encourages collaborative work amongst staff

0 0 1 4 24 71

b) Ensures wide participation in decisions about school improvement

0 1 2 7 35 55

c) Engages students in the school’s improvement efforts

0 1 3 15 40 41

d) Increases dialogue about school improvement between pupils and adults

0 1 2 20 39 39

xl

e) Improves internal review procedures 0 0 4 12 39 46 f) Builds community support for the school’s improvement efforts

0 1 3 16 39 42

g) Utilises support staff skills for the benefit of pupil learning

0 0 1 6 24 69

h) Allocates resources strategically based on pupil needs

0 0 1 7 29 63

i) Works in collaboration with other schools 0 0 1 11 32 56 j) Structures the organisation to facilitate work 0 0 1 6 31 63 4. To what extent do you agree that the headteacher in your school does the following?


all Very little


a) Provides or locates resources to help staff improve their teaching

0 1 3 12 33 51

b) Regularly observes classroom activities 1 2 4 14 31 49 c) After observing classroom activities, works with teachers to improve their teaching

1 2 5 17 33 43

d) Uses coaching and mentoring to improve the quality of teaching

1 2 7 17 32 41

e) Frequently discusses educational issues with staff

0 1 2 9 23 65

f) Buffers teachers from distractions from their teaching

1 1 3 14 36 45

g) Encourages staff to use data in their work 0 0 2 6 27 65 h) Encourages all staff to use data in planning for individual needs

0 0 2 7 27 63

i) Incorporates research evidence into my decision making to inform practice

1 1 3 14 38 43

j) Uses pupil achievement data to make most decisions about school improvement

0 0 1 6 20 73

5. Indicate the extent to which you agree that each statement characterises your school:


Disagree moderately

Disagree slightly

Agree slightly

Agree moderately

Agree strongly

a) I have regular opportunities to collaborate with my colleagues (e.g. common planning times)

1 1 2 10 24 61

b) My colleagues and I work together in small teams to accomplish many of our tasks

1 2 2 9 25 61

c) I have sufficient opportunity to prepare for my teaching

1 1 3 11 34 50

d) I have access to useful professional development opportunities

0 1 1 6 28 65

e) I participate in many school-wide decisions

1 1 1 5 20 73

f) My school’s physical facilities allow me to use the types of teaching I consider best

0 2 4 9 34 51

6. To what extent do you agree that the headteacher in your school:


Disagree moderately

Disagree slightly

Agree slightly

Agree moderately

Agree strongly

a) Identifies others’ strengths and weaknesses?

0 0 1 7 26 66

b) Accurately reads peoples’ moods, feelings, or non-verbal cues?

2 2 5 15 34 43

c) Gives others opportunities to speak their minds?

1 2 3 7 30 58

xli

d) Pays attention and listens well? 0 2 3 8 28 58 e) Shows sensitivity and understanding? 1 1 2 8 24 63 f) Asks questions to be sure he/she understands another person?

1 1 3 10 28 58

7. Please indicate the extent to which you agree with the following statements about the headteacher in your school:


Disagree moderately

Disagree slightly

Agree slightly

Agree moderately

Agree strongly

a) I feel quite confident that my headteacher will always try to treat me fairly

1 1 1 2 15 81

b) My headteacher would not try to gain advantage by deceiving me

1 0 2 3 14 81

c) I feel a strong loyalty to my headteacher

0 0 1 4 13 82

d) I would support my headteacher in almost any emergency

0 0 0 0 6 93

e) I have a divided sense of loyalty towards my headteacher

65 11 4 3 7 10

f) I am able to discuss my feelings, worries and frustrations with my headteacher

1 1 3 6 22 67

g) The headteacher looks out for the personal welfare of the teachers in this school

0 1 2 8 19 70

h) The headteacher trusts most of the staff in the school to do their jobs well

0 1 2 5 25 67

8. To what extent do you feel that the headteacher:


all Very little


a) Motivates teachers? 0 1 2 20 44 34 b) Generates enthusiasm for a shared vision of the school?

0 0 2 14 36 47

c) Manages change in your school? 0 0 1 9 32 58 d) Creates a positive learning environment in your school?

0 0 1 9 31 60

e) Facilitates pupil learning in your school? 0 0 1 8 35 56 f) Raises achievement on national tests and examinations?

0 1 2 18 36 44

g) Sustains your motivation as a school leader? 0 1 1 14 31 54 h) Sustains your job satisfaction in your leadership role?

1 1 2 14 33 51

i) Sustains your commitment to the teaching profession?

0 1 2 15 31 51

j) Manages multiple accountabilities from diverse audiences e.g. Governing Body, LA, Ofsted?

0 0 1 5 26 68



Disagree moderately

Disagree slightly

Agree slightly

Agree moderately

Agree strongly

a) Is expert at solving the day-to-day problems that arise in our school?

0 1 1 6 24 68

b) Has the background knowledge to help us find solutions to the most important challenges we face in this school?

0 1 1 5 22 72

c) Is skilful in facilitating our collective problem solving processes?

0 1 2 8 29 60

xlii

d) Helps us clarify our goals for problem solving?

0 0 2 9 30 59

e) Remains calm in the face of urgent problems and crises?

0 1 1 5 22 71

f) Helps us clarify our basic professional values and acts in a manner that is consistent with those values?

0 0 2 6 22 70



Disagree moderately

Disagree slightly

Agree slightly

Agree moderately

Agree strongly

a) Is well aware of the educational policies and procedures related to the work we are doing in the school?

0 0 0 3 16 82

b) Has a good grasp of the basic ideas underlying the kind of teaching we are engaged in at this school?

0 0 0 3 18 79

c) Is up-to-date in the content knowledge we teach to our pupils?

0 1 4 7 29 59

d) Has a sophisticated understanding of good leadership and management practices?

0 0 1 5 22 72

e) Knows how to help us improve the quality of our programmes of work and our teaching?

0 0 3 8 31 58



Disagree moderately

Disagree slightly

Agree slightly

Agree moderately

Agree strongly

a) Teachers in this school really care about each other

1 1 1 7 30 60

b) Teachers in this school trust each other 0 1 2 7 36 53 c) Teachers are able to discuss feelings, worries and frustrations with other teachers

0 1 1 7 26 65

d) Teachers in this school respect colleagues who take the lead in school improvement efforts

1 1 2 6 32 60



Disagree moderately

Disagree slightly

Agree slightly

Agree moderately

Agree strongly

a) If pupils aren’t disciplined at home, they aren’t likely to accept any discipline

24 22 10 19 19 7

b) When I really try, I can get through to the most difficult or unmotivated pupils

1 1 1 7 43 48

c) A teacher is very limited in what he/she can achieve because a pupil’s home environment is a large influence on his/her achievement

22 27 11 23 13 4

d) If parents would do more for their children, I could do more

7 10 7 30 26 20

e) If a pupil did not remember information I gave in a previous lesson, I would know how to increase his/her retention in the next lesson

2 2 2 14 51 30

xliii




amount A great

deal All the time

a) Headteacher 0 0 2 4 25 69 b) Deputy Head 1 1 4 13 38 44 c) SMT/SLT 0 0 6 18 46 30 d) Key Stage Managers 2 2 5 24 42 24 e) Groups of teachers 1 4 18 36 29 11 f) Individual teachers with formally assigned tasks (e.g. subject co-ordinators)

0 2 12 34 39 13

g) Individual teachers acting informally 2 10 24 33 23 9 h) Governors 8 19 22 27 18 5 i) Pupils 5 11 32 29 19 4 j) Support staff 4 13 31 25 20 6 k) School Improvement Partners (SIPs) 10 12 29 27 19 3 l) Local Authority (LA) 4 12 26 35 20 3 m) Parents 15 21 33 24 7 2 14. To what extend does each of the statements below describe the way leadership tasks are distributed or shared within your school?


all Very little



0 2 1 19 40 38


2 7 9 29 35 20


31 31 14 16 6 2


64 24 7 4 1 0


1 3 4 24 45 23



Disagree moderately

Disagree slightly

Agree slightly

Agree moderately

Agree strongly


1 1 1 4 27 67


0 1 1 6 31 62


0 0 1 5 29 65


0 0 1 6 27 67


1 0 1 8 33 57


1 0 3 10 34 53


0 0 0 4 23 72


0 0 1 5 27 67


0 0 0 7 32 61


0 0 0 7 30 63

xliv


0 1 0 6 29 65


0 1 3 13 32 51

16. To what extend does the headteacher use each of the following to influence or persuade others?


all Very little



0 2 2 15 42 39


1 2 5 26 38 28


1 4 9 32 32 22


1 1 3 14 44 37


27 24 23 15 9 3


34 25 20 15 5 2


20 19 21 25 12 3


15 16 20 29 14 6


28 32 21 12 7 1


6 8 14 29 27 16



a) Reduction in staff mobility 42 16 24 17 b) Reduction in staff absence 45 14 25 16 c) Enhanced local reputation 17 12 37 34 d) Improved homework policies and practice 21 22 36 21 e) Enhanced commitment and enthusiasm of staff 15 12 31 42 f) Promoted an orderly and secure working environment 18 11 29 43 g) Improved pupil behaviour and discipline as a result of a whole school approach

17 16 30 38


Valid Percent Much

worse now Worse now

No change

Better now

Much better now


0 3 39 44 14

d) Pupils’ missing class 0 0 71 17 11 e) Pupils’ mobility/turnover 1 12 62 17 7 f) Physical conflict among pupils 0 5 41 37 17 g) Bullying of all kinds among pupils 0 2 42 39 17 h) Vandalism of school property 1 5 55 23 16 i) Physical abuse of teachers 1 2 74 12 12

xlv

j) Verbal abuse of teachers 1 4 66 16 13 k) Levels of pupil misbehaviour 1 7 39 34 19 l) Pupils’ motivation for learning 0 3 20 49 29 19. Indicate the extent to which you agree that each statement characterises the teachers you work with


Disagree moderately

Disagree slightly

Agree slightly

Agree moderately

Agree strongly


0 0 1 4 42 52


0 0 1 7 44 48


0 1 1 6 33 60


0 0 1 4 27 69


1 0 2 10 39 49


1 3 4 18 35 40


0 1 3 16 38 42


0 0 3 16 37 43


0 1 1 8 33 58



Disagree moderately

Disagree slightly

Agree slightly

Agree moderately

Agree strongly


0 1 1 5 32 62

b) The goals I am expected to accomplish with my pupils are clear to me

0 0 0 1 20 79

c) There is no conflict in my mind about what I am expected to do

0 0 2 3 21 74


0 0 0 2 16 82

f) Parents often visit the school 1 3 5 14 33 44 g) The school is actively involved in work with other schools or organisations (e.g. networks, GTC, NCSL or other learning partnerships)

1 1 3 15 30 51

h) Our school provides a broad range of extracurricular activities for pupils (e.g. plays, athletics, music, dance)

0 0 1 6 18 75



Disagree moderately

Disagree slightly

Agree slightly

Agree moderately

Agree strongly


0 1 4 7 41 47


5 6 11 18 28 34


0 1 1 10 41 48

xlvi


0 0 1 3 30 67


5 6 8 20 32 29


0 1 1 7 31 61


0 1 2 16 50 31


0 1 2 16 31 51

22. Indicate the extent to which you agree that each statement characterises conditions in your classroom


Disagree moderately

Disagree slightly

Agree slightly

Agree moderately

Agree strongly

a) My workload is quite fair compared with teachers in other schools

2 7 9 16 35 32

b) I teach an excessive number of pupils 56 15 12 8 6 4 c) The size of my class(es) makes unreasonable demands on the time required for preparation and marking

53 15 12 10 7 3

d) The size of my class(es) allows me to adequately differentiate my teaching between pupils

4 4 9 15 36 33

e) The amount of administrative work required of me is not excessive

7 13 20 18 27 15

f) My non-teaching (other than admin.) duties in the school are not excessive

4 8 15 17 29 27

g) I teach subjects or areas of the curriculum for which I have little formal preparation

45 19 12 13 9 2

h) I have too many pupils who are uncooperative

60 16 8 9 3 4

i) I have too many pupils who achieve poorly in spite of my best efforts

43 22 11 15 7 2

j) I have a significant amount of autonomy over decisions about what happens in my classes

1 2 2 8 37 50

k) I have access to the teaching resources that I need to do a good job

0 1 2 10 40 48

l) The atmosphere throughout the school encourages pupils to learn

0 0 0 4 24 72

Sex

Valid Percent

Male Female 18 82

Age

Valid Percent

30 or under 31-35 36-40 41-45 46-50 51-55 56-60 61-65 Over 65 16 18 14 14 15 14 9 0 0


xlvii

Percent




100 76 30 7 0 0 *These figures will not add up to 100 as some teachers selected a qualification more than once How long have you been a teacher in total?

Valid Percent


How long have you been a teacher in this school?

Valid Percent


How long have you been a key stage manager in total?

Valid Percent


How long have you been a key stage manager in this school?

Valid Percent


What key stage do you manage?

Valid Percent

Key stage 1 Key stage 2 35 65

xlviii

Appendix XIX: Secondary Key Staff


The Impact of School Leadership on Pupil Outcomes Key Staff Questionnaire – Secondary

N = 1167 1. To what extent do you agree that the headteacher in your school does the following things?


Disagree moderately

Disagree slightly

Agree slightly

Agree moderately

Agree strongly

a) Gives staff an overall sense of purpose 1 1 2 7 29 61 b) Helps clarify the reasons for our school’s improvement initiatives

0 1 1 8 29 60

c) Provides assistance to staff in setting short-term goals for teaching and learning

2 4 5 21 38 31

d) Demonstrates high expectations for staff’s work with pupils

1 1 1 7 21 70

e) Demonstrates high expectations for pupil behaviour

2 2 6 11 28 52

f) Demonstrates high expectations for pupil achievement

0 1 1 5 19 74

g) Works collaboratively with the Governing Body

0 0 1 5 24 71

h) Works collaboratively with the Local Authority (LA)

0 0 2 8 32 59

i) Works collaboratively with the SMT/SLT 1 1 2 6 20 72 j) Integrates school priorities with the National Government’s policy agenda

0 0 1 8 33 58

2. To what extent do you agree that the headteacher in your school does the following things?


all Very little


a) Gives staff individual support to help them improve their teaching practices

4 5 7 21 34 30

b) Encourages them to consider new ideas for their teaching

1 3 4 18 32 43

c) Models a high level of professional practice 1 2 3 10 23 61 d) Develops an atmosphere of caring and trust 3 2 5 14 26 51 e) Promotes leadership development amongst teachers

1 1 3 10 27 58

f) Promotes a range of CPD experiences among all staff

1 2 4 14 33 46

g) Encourages staff to think of learning beyond the academic curriculum (e.g. personal, emotional and social education, citizenship, etc.)

1 2 4 16 33 44

3. To what extent do you agree that the headteacher in your school does the following?


all Very little


a) Encourages collaborative work amongst staff

0 1 3 15 33 48

b) Ensures wide participation in decisions about school improvement

3 3 6 17 33 37

c) Engages students in the school’s improvement efforts

0 2 7 23 40 28

d) Increases dialogue about school improvement between pupils and adults

1 2 6 23 41 28

xlix

e) Improves internal review procedures 1 2 3 18 37 40 f) Builds community support for the school’s improvement efforts

1 2 5 19 39 35

g) Utilises support staff skills for the benefit of pupil learning

1 2 4 15 36 43

h) Allocates resources strategically based on pupil needs

1 2 4 17 36 40

i) Works in collaboration with other schools 0 1 3 14 35 46 j) Structures the organisation to facilitate work 1 2 3 14 30 51 4. To what extent do you agree that the headteacher in your school does the following?


all Very little


a) Provides or locates resources to help staff improve their teaching

1 2 4 18 35 40

b) Regularly observes classroom activities 5 5 11 19 29 33 c) After observing classroom activities, works with teachers to improve their teaching

6 7 13 23 29 21

d) Uses coaching and mentoring to improve the quality of teaching

3 4 9 23 33 27

e) Frequently discusses educational issues with staff

1 3 7 16 31 42

f) Buffers teachers from distractions from their teaching

3 4 11 20 32 30

g) Encourages staff to use data in their work 0 0 2 9 22 67 h) Encourages all staff to use data in planning for individual needs

0 0 2 11 28 59

i) Incorporates research evidence into my decision making to inform practice

1 1 3 20 33 42

j) Uses pupil achievement data to make most decisions about school improvement

0 0 1 10 29 60

5. Indicate the extent to which you agree that each statement characterises your school:


Disagree moderately

Disagree slightly

Agree slightly

Agree moderately

Agree strongly

a) I have regular opportunities to collaborate with my colleagues (e.g. common planning times)

3 6 10 19 31 32

b) My colleagues and I work together in small teams to accomplish many of our tasks

1 3 6 17 29 45

c) I have sufficient opportunity to prepare for my teaching

6 7 12 21 30 25

d) I have access to useful professional development opportunities

1 3 5 16 30 45

e) I participate in many school-wide decisions

3 4 8 20 26 39

f) My school’s physical facilities allow me to use the types of teaching I consider best

5 5 8 18 31 33



Disagree moderately

Disagree slightly

Agree slightly

Agree moderately

Agree strongly

a) Identifies others’ strengths and weaknesses?

1 2 3 13 33 48

b) Accurately reads peoples’ moods, feelings, or non-verbal cues?

4 5 9 16 31 36

c) Gives others opportunities to speak their minds?

3 4 5 16 28 44

l

d) Pays attention and listens well? 3 3 5 12 26 50 e) Shows sensitivity and understanding? 3 2 5 14 25 51 f) Asks questions to be sure he/she understands another person?

2 2 5 14 26 52

7. Please indicate the extent to which you agree with the following statements about the headteacher in your school:


Disagree moderately

Disagree slightly

Agree slightly

Agree moderately

Agree strongly

a) I feel quite confident that my headteacher will always try to treat me fairly

2 2 2 6 18 71

b) My headteacher would not try to gain advantage by deceiving me

2 2 3 7 17 69

c) I feel a strong loyalty to my headteacher

2 1 3 11 17 67

d) I would support my headteacher in almost any emergency

1 1 1 4 13 81

e) I have a divided sense of loyalty towards my headteacher

56 15 6 7 6 10

f) I am able to discuss my feelings, worries and frustrations with my headteacher

3 4 5 14 24 50

g) The headteacher looks out for the personal welfare of the teachers in this school

2 3 4 12 28 50

h) The headteacher trusts most of the staff in the school to do their jobs well

2 3 5 12 31 47

8. To what extent do you feel that the headteacher:


all Very little


a) Motivates teachers? 1 3 4 26 42 24 b) Generates enthusiasm for a shared vision of the school?

1 3 4 20 35 38

c) Manages change in your school? 0 1 2 12 36 50 d) Creates a positive learning environment in your school?

0 1 4 19 36 41

e) Facilitates pupil learning in your school? 0 1 3 16 42 38 f) Raises achievement on national tests and examinations?

1 1 5 19 33 42

g) Sustains your motivation as a school leader? 2 3 4 18 32 41 h) Sustains your job satisfaction in your leadership role?

2 3 6 20 32 37

i) Sustains your commitment to the teaching profession?

2 3 6 19 32 37

j) Manages multiple accountabilities from diverse audiences e.g. Governing Body, LA, Ofsted?

0 0 1 9 31 59



Disagree moderately

Disagree slightly

Agree slightly

Agree moderately

Agree strongly

a) Is expert at solving the day-to-day problems that arise in our school?

2 2 5 12 35 44

b) Has the background knowledge to help us find solutions to the most important challenges we face in this school?

1 1 3 9 30 57

c) Is skilful in facilitating our collective problem solving processes?

1 2 5 14 33 45

li

d) Helps us clarify our goals for problem solving?

1 2 5 16 35 42

e) Remains calm in the face of urgent problems and crises?

1 1 2 9 25 62

f) Helps us clarify our basic professional values and acts in a manner that is consistent with those values?

1 1 3 10 30 56



Disagree moderately

Disagree slightly

Agree slightly

Agree moderately

Agree strongly

a) Is well aware of the educational policies and procedures related to the work we are doing in the school?

0 0 1 5 20 75

b) Has a good grasp of the basic ideas underlying the kind of teaching we are engaged in at this school?

0 0 1 5 26 68

c) Is up-to-date in the content knowledge we teach to our pupils?

1 2 5 17 36 39

d) Has a sophisticated understanding of good leadership and management practices?

1 2 3 8 23 64

e) Knows how to help us improve the quality of our programmes of work and our teaching?

1 2 4 15 32 45



Disagree moderately

Disagree slightly

Agree slightly

Agree moderately

Agree strongly

a) Teachers in this school really care about each other

1 2 4 14 37 43

b) Teachers in this school trust each other 1 2 5 16 45 33 c) Teachers are able to discuss feelings, worries and frustrations with other teachers

0 2 2 14 39 44

d) Teachers in this school respect colleagues who take the lead in school improvement efforts

1 2 4 17 42 35



Disagree moderately

Disagree slightly

Agree slightly

Agree moderately

Agree strongly

a) If pupils aren’t disciplined at home, they aren’t likely to accept any discipline

10 16 11 23 23 17

b) When I really try, I can get through to the most difficult or unmotivated pupils

0 2 3 13 44 38

c) A teacher is very limited in what he/she can achieve because a pupil’s home environment is a large influence on his/her achievement

16 25 17 22 15 6

d) If parents would do more for their children, I could do more

6 7 8 30 28 21

e) If a pupil did not remember information I gave in a previous lesson, I would know how to increase his/her retention in the next lesson

2 3 4 21 48 23

lii




amount A great

deal All the time

a) Headteacher 1 2 4 12 30 52 b) Deputy Head(s) 1 3 6 15 38 38 c) SMT/SLT 0 2 8 19 41 29 d) Heads of Faculty 2 1 8 21 48 21 e) Heads of Department 0 1 8 24 45 21 f) Groups of teachers 2 6 23 35 28 6 g) Individual teachers with formally assigned tasks (e.g. KS3 co-ordinators)

1 4 18 34 34 9

h) Individual teachers acting informally 3 12 27 31 22 6 i) Governors 11 19 24 25 17 5 j) Pupils 8 17 36 26 10 3 k) Support staff 10 22 30 23 12 3 l) School Improvement Partners (SIPs) 11 18 30 24 13 4 m) Local Authority (LA) 8 19 29 28 14 3 n) Parents 16 29 28 20 5 2 14. To what extend does each of the statements below describe the way leadership tasks are distributed or shared within your school?


all Very little



0 2 3 18 45 33


8 13 16 28 25 10


32 32 16 15 5 1


51 27 8 9 4 1


2 4 11 37 35 11



Disagree moderately

Disagree slightly

Agree slightly

Agree moderately

Agree strongly


1 3 5 10 36 45


1 2 5 15 36 42


0 0 2 8 31 59


0 1 1 8 32 57


1 2 5 17 35 39


1 2 4 14 35 45


0 0 1 5 23 70


0 2 2 11 34 52


1 0 1 7 27 63

liii


1 3 4 17 35 41


1 2 3 18 34 42


2 2 4 18 35 40

16. To what extend does the headteacher use each of the following to influence or persuade others?


all Very little



0 1 3 16 44 36


1 2 6 26 41 23


3 5 12 26 32 22


1 3 6 20 37 33


26 25 23 17 6 3


27 27 22 19 4 2


15 19 19 29 14 4


9 13 19 34 19 5


17 26 21 21 11 4


5 10 16 30 26 12



a) More pupils going into further / higher education 13 18 44 25 b) Reduction in staff mobility 29 19 35 17 c) Reduction in staff absence 30 23 34 14 d) Enhanced local reputation 12 14 33 41 e) Improved homework policies and practice 24 26 37 13 f) Enhanced commitment and enthusiasm of staff 15 16 40 28 g) Promoted an orderly and secure working environment 15 17 35 34 h) Improved pupil behaviour and discipline as a result of a whole school approach

21 22 31 25


Valid Percent Much

worse now Worse now

No change

Better now

Much better now


1 8 36 42 13

d) Pupils’ missing class 1 6 41 41 11 e) Pupils’ mobility/turnover 1 5 61 26 7 f) Physical conflict among pupils 1 7 48 34 10 g) Bullying of all kinds among pupils 1 5 46 40 8

liv

h) Vandalism of school property 2 12 40 35 12 i) Physical abuse of teachers 1 4 61 22 12 j) Verbal abuse of teachers 4 20 43 26 8 k) Levels of pupil misbehaviour 3 21 32 36 9 l) Pupils’ motivation for learning 1 10 25 49 15 19. Indicate the extent to which you agree that each statement characterises the teachers you work with


Disagree moderately

Disagree slightly

Agree slightly

Agree moderately

Agree strongly


0 1 3 14 44 39


0 1 4 22 45 29


0 1 2 12 40 45


0 0 2 9 32 57


1 4 12 27 37 19


3 7 14 28 32 16


0 1 4 13 33 49


1 2 5 25 40 28


0 1 3 19 34 42



Disagree moderately

Disagree slightly

Agree slightly

Agree moderately

Agree strongly


0 1 4 17 46 32

b) The goals I am expected to accomplish with my pupils are clear to me

0 0 1 6 26 67

c) There is no conflict in my mind about what I am expected to do

1 1 2 7 25 65


0 0 2 13 39 46

f) Parents often visit the school 3 7 14 29 31 17 g) The school is actively involved in work with other schools or organisations (e.g. networks, GTC, NCSL or other learning partnerships)

0 2 4 20 31 44

h) Our school provides a broad range of extracurricular activities for pupils (e.g. plays, athletics, music, dance)

0 1 2 9 26 61



Disagree moderately

Disagree slightly

Agree slightly

Agree moderately

Agree strongly


4 6 12 22 35 21


10 13 21 22 23 11

lv


0 1 5 22 44 28


0 0 2 12 39 47


3 5 8 15 32 37


0 1 4 14 42 39


1 2 7 30 43 17


1 2 4 21 35 37

22. Indicate the extent to which you agree that each statement characterises conditions in your classroom


Disagree moderately

Disagree slightly

Agree slightly

Agree moderately

Agree strongly

a) My workload is quite fair compared with teachers in other schools

5 9 15 18 32 22

b) I teach an excessive number of pupils 32 20 21 16 8 4 c) The size of my class(es) makes unreasonable demands on the time required for preparation and marking

30 19 20 19 9 4

d) The size of my class(es) allows me to adequately differentiate my teaching between pupils

5 10 24 25 26 12

e) The amount of administrative work required of me is not excessive

12 19 22 19 20 9

f) My non-teaching (other than admin.) duties in the school are not excessive

5 10 16 23 27 19

g) I teach subjects or areas of the curriculum for which I have little formal preparation

73 10 5 6 4 3

h) I have too many pupils who are uncooperative

40 22 13 14 7 4

i) I have too many pupils who achieve poorly in spite of my best efforts

42 21 13 16 5 3

j) I have a significant amount of autonomy over decisions about what happens in my classes

1 1 2 8 36 53

k) I have access to the teaching resources that I need to do a good job

1 3 5 10 39 42

l) The atmosphere throughout the school encourages pupils to learn

1 2 5 18 39 34

Sex

Valid Percent

Male Female 46 54

Age

Valid Percent

30 or under 31-35 36-40 41-45 46-50 51-55 56-60 61-65 Over 65 9 20 16 15 16 15 8 1 0

lvi


Percent




7 81 61 17 2 2 *These figures will not add up to 100 as some teachers selected a qualification more than once How long have you been a teacher in total?

Valid Percent


How long have you been a teacher in this school?

Valid Percent


How long have you been a Head of Department in total?

Valid Percent


How long have you been a Head of Department in this school?

Valid Percent


lvii

Ref: DCSF-RR018 -QR

ISBN: 978 1 84775 081 5

© University of Nottingham 2007

www.dcsf.gov.uk/researchPublished by the Department forChildren, Schools and Families

The Impact of School Leadership on Pupil...

Documents

Transcript of The Impact of School Leadership on Pupil...