Quality culture with the capacity to change,
Activity 1.1 Discussion activity
What do you consider to be the necessary components of a quality culture with the capacity to change, improve and reform? What additions, if any, would you make to the following list?
? An open and active commitment to quality at all levels
? A willingness to engage in self-evaluation
? A firm regulatory framework
? Explicit responsibilities for quality control and quality assurance
? Focus on feedback from a range of stakeholders including the pupils, students and young residents
? High commitment to identifying and disseminating good practice
? Prompt, appropriate and sensitive managerial action to redress problems, supported by adequate information.
Justify your choices.
Activity 1.2 Reflection activity
Read Stoll and Fink (1998)
Choose three schools with which you are familiar. Describe each school according to Stoll and Fink’s typology. Take one of the three schools as an example and consider how the typology assists or hinders your exploration of the institutional culture as you know it? Are there elements of the culture that don’t fit into the typology, or have you discovered new elements of the culture/gained new insights?
Share with, and provide feedback to your partner before posting your reflection in your reflection journal.
Activity 1.3 Blog activity
Read Duke (2008) and Stoll et al (2006).
What are the key indicators of successful improvement according to these authors? Are these indicators the same that would prevent decline in schools?
Activity 1.4 Reflection activity
Use the summary of key indicators of successful improvement from Figure 1.1. Work with your partner(s) on this activity: choose an inspection framework from one of your countries. Each of you will map the indicators in Figure 1.1 on the indicators in the inspection framework of the country of your choice.
– Summarize and discuss where you agree/disagree on the mapping of the framework onto the indicators in Figure 1.1.
– Does the inspection framework include indicators on successful school improvement?
– To what extent does the inspection framework prevent decline in schools?
Share with, and provide feedback to your partner before posting your reflection in your reflection journal.
Session 1: Defining improvement and conditions of effective improvement
This first session examines what is meant by improvement and quality and how it might be inspected or quality assured. It briefly considers national and international perspectives on school improvement and their cultures, contexts, processes and approaches are discussed with reference to inspection processes.
As you work through this session and others, it is very important that you continually ask yourself if what you are reading applies to you and your context, and in what way. From time to time you will be given specific in-text reflections that will help you to engage with the ideas in the course. Remember that you can and should discuss any issues at any time with your colleagues online; full information on the online activities relating to this session is given below.
Learning outcomes for this session
This session has been designed to assist you to:
• discern and explore values, attitudes, concepts and practices underlying improvement, inspection and quality assurance;
• understand and analyse the complexity of cultural settings and educational contexts in which the definition of standards and the assurance of quality for personal and institutional improvement in a variety of settings are made;
• facilitate the development of further analytical and critical skills in relation to institutional improvement, judgement and evaluation, data, evidence, institutional self-evaluation and inspection;
• contribute an appropriate framework for the continuing debate about the role and function of Ofsted inspection as it relates to the process of institutional (education and care) improvement and the raising of standards and quality improvement.
Required readings for this session
You will be directed to the following readings:
The required readings for Session 1 are:
Duke, D. (2008) Spotting Signs of Decline. Phi Delta Kappan, 9(5), 667-671.
Stoll, L. and Fink, . (1998) Chapter 14; The Cruising School: the Unidentified Failing School. In: L. Stoll and K. Myers (Eds). No Quick Fixes, London: Falmer Press.
Stoll, L., Creemers, B., Reezigt, G. (2006) Effective School Improvement: Similarities and Differences in Improvement in Eight European Countries, pp. 90-107. In: A. Harris and J.H. Chrispeels (Eds). Improving Schools and Educational Systems; International Perspectives. Abingdon: Routledge. http://leadership.education.ucsb.edu/files/pdf/BookImprovingEducationalSystems.pdf.
1.1 Defining improvement
Improvement (noun) the act or an instance of improving or being improved; something that has been improved; something that improves, especially an addition or alteration that adds to value (OED).
The dictionary definition of improvement suggests that it is an act effected on someone or something. Improvement implies that a person or object in someway changes in a positive way, thereby improving its value. It is the opposite of decline or deterioration or getting worse rather than better. Throughout this session the text will focus on improvement in people and institutions – people with specific roles, such as learners, carers, executive officers – and on organisations and official bodies which comprise educational, charitable or social institutions.
The session will also provide contextual guidance as to the policies and systems which govern the modes of operation both of people and institutions. This implies that change must necessarily take place in order to effect improvement in people and institutions. The session will therefore stimulate judgment and evaluation about the capacity for change inherent in role players, institutions and the systems which support them for as Le Vine and White (1986, p.x) point out for education or care to have a positive effect (improvement) on social and economic development ‘there needs to be motivation to realize potential and effect change, and this has to be culture specific and local in scale’.
The focus in this session’s text on conceptual understanding and critical analysis of modes of improvement and the assurance of quality in institutions and their personnel is designed to act as a prompt to participants to continue the debate so clearly described by Earley et al in the late 1990s thus:
There was a constant tension between what teachers saw as ‘worthwhile’ and ‘not worthwhile’ in Ofsted inspection because of its multiple purposes…Naturally the school wishes to receive a report which says it is a good school which provides a good education, without too many ‘key issues for action’. On the other hand, Ofsted also has a developmental role: its well-known logo is ‘improvement through inspection’. But can the dual purposes of accountability and development be met within the same process?
……..Many of the complexities of Ofsted inspection can be seen as resulting from these two factors. Clearly the public face of Ofsted inspection is one of accountability and it is not surprising that schools saw it this way too. But some more confident schools argued that the process could be seen as an opportunity to examine critically their strengths and weaknesses. The approach adopted depended on schools’ assessment of their performance, their attitudes to Ofsted before inspection and their experiences of the inspection itself (1998, pp.20-21).
The next session talks about a school’s culture to improve. Before reading this section, think for yourself about the elements of a quality culture in working on the following activity:
Activity 1.1 Discussion activity
What do you consider to be the necessary components of a quality culture with the capacity to change, improve and reform? What additions, if any, would you make to the following list?
? An open and active commitment to quality at all levels
? A willingness to engage in self-evaluation
? A firm regulatory framework
? Explicit responsibilities for quality control and quality assurance
? Focus on feedback from a range of stakeholders including the pupils, students and young residents
? High commitment to identifying and disseminating good practice
? Prompt, appropriate and sensitive managerial action to redress problems, supported by adequate information.
Justify your choices.
1.2 Capacity for change in institutional cultures
Stoll and Fink (1998, p.191) seeing that no two schools are the same suggest there may be ‘no one best way to approach school improvement’. As a result they developed a typology of five different school cultures based on the assumption that schools are either getting better (improving) or getting worse (declining). They built on models of school culture developed by Rosenholtz (1989) and Hopkins et al (1994) and argue that if school culture is considered on two dimensions: 1) effectiveness and ineffectiveness; and 2) improving and declining, then five types of school can be identified (see Stoll and Fink, 1998, pp.192-4). The cultural typology devised by Stoll and Fink would seem to provide a useful mode of identifying particular cultural characteristics in education, care, local government and other organisations. As we will argue later, the culture of the organisation is crucial for institutional development.
Effective institutions which are improving are classified as ‘moving’; those which are declining are classified as ‘cruising’. Ineffective institutions which are improving are classified as ‘struggling’, while those which are declining are ‘sinking’. Straggling between effective/ineffective and improving/declining are ‘strolling’ institutions.
The focus of many Inspectorates of Education has traditionally been on ineffective or ‘failing’ schools and more recently on those which are not improving – ‘coasting’ schools – or what Stoll and Fink call ‘strolling’. Studies of declining schools are less common in the research literature but a recent example from the USA is Duke (2010) which is included in the required reading.
Activity 1.2 Reflection activity
Read Stoll and Fink (1998)
Choose three schools with which you are familiar. Describe each school according to Stoll and Fink’s typology. Take one of the three schools as an example and consider how the typology assists or hinders your exploration of the institutional culture as you know it? Are there elements of the culture that don’t fit into the typology, or have you discovered new elements of the culture/gained new insights?
Share with, and provide feedback to your partner before posting your reflection in your reflection journal.
Ouston and Davies (1998) as a result of their research with schools which had undergone Ofsted first wave inspections also proposed a typology of institutions based on their responses to the Ofsted inspection:
a) Developing/reflective schools. These schools were not at risk of failure; they were adequately managed and had acceptable levels of attainment.
b) Complacent schools. These schools were popular with their communities. They had relatively socially advantaged intakes and above-average examination results. They were traditional in their approach and confirmed in this by their enthusiastic parent bodies. They expected the inspectors to confirm their success.
c) Struggling schools. These schools typically served a disadvantaged community and felt that they would never meet what they perceived to be the ‘Ofsted ideal’. They felt constantly under pressure and were generally negative about inspection. They knew they were at risk of failing the inspection and being placed ‘in need of special measures’.
Thus a focus on improvement implies that we must ask about other aspects of the school: its wider curriculum, the personal and social development of students and the values inculcated during the students’ life time in the school. Similarly, improvement could be expressed over the reduction of truancy, disruptive behaviour and anti-social activities such as trafficking in drugs. In Australia, for example, Flynn and Mok (1985) studied over 2,000 pupils in 23 schools who sat the Higher School Certificate and discovered that Catholic schools have unique positive effects upon the academic results of pupils and sought to explain such academic achievement by linking it with the dominant values of each school. Flynn attempted to break down the composition of each school’s culture or climate, arguing that when students are exposed to such cultures their results in their final examinations are improved. Flynn’s ‘map’ of school cultures included the following areas:
a) the pervasive values of the school;
b) the morale and spirit of the pupils;
c) the importance of the development of each pupil; and
d) the pastoral care of the school.
The aspects of improvement that could be listed are endless and in any situation there might be a range of measures that could be adopted to evaluate changes that have taken place. Perhaps it could be useful to attempt a cataloguing of the aspects into which those are internal (e.g. institutional management, cultural perspectives, inter-personal relationships and a caring and supportive environment) and those that are external (e.g. the role of public policy perceptions, examination results, standards of care and evaluation of the outcomes) to the institution.
The context of this widespread focus on improvement is succinctly summarised by Harris and Muijs:
Across many countries, economic, social and political forces have combined to create a climate in which educational reform is expected and in which schools feel continued pressure to improve. The global drive for improved educational performance has resulted in a form of accountability that places tightly prescribed targets at the centre of systemic change. Worldwide educational reform has embraced standardization as the solution to raising standards and improving economic competitiveness (2005, p.1).
Barber (1996) writing almost a decade earlier during the successful period of the school effectiveness movement set out the new responsibilities attached to individual learning institutions as the means of ensuring that all schools must make a difference and that the changes that they made were to be monitored. Sammons (2007, p.60), however, in reviewing the extensive knowledge base developed as a result of the movement for institutional improvement acknowledges that ‘greater emphasis needs to be given to developing policies and creating school systems that include:
• a focus on learning and promote the on-going professional development of practitioners and the development of organisational capacity;
• foster collaboration and create a positive culture for learning with high expectations;
• ensure that planning for improvement is seen as the norm,
• encourage reflective practice and institutional self-evaluation;
• celebrate, study and spread successful practice;
• use both research and inspection evidence to promote improvement’.
1.3 Culture and leadership and management
The culture of an organisation affects everything that occurs within it, but it is particularly relevant to management and leadership and can be a key to the improvement and effectiveness of the organisation. There is a two-way process, with culture being affected by the style and nature of leadership, and leadership and management being impeded or supported by the prevailing culture. Much of the literature on effectiveness and improvement relates to schools, but the principles can be applied to colleges and other educational institutions. The effective schools literature makes reference to leadership being firm and purposeful, involving others in the change process, exhibiting instructional leadership, frequent personal monitoring and selecting and replacing staff. Effective organisations also demonstrate a positive culture where a shared vision is shown, an orderly environment and positive reinforcement emphasised.
Culture and leadership are extremely important in bringing about change and improvement. There is a natural reluctance on the part of some people to change the status quo: they are used to it and it may suit them. In order to bring about change, the culture of the organisation may have to change, and if this is to happen, leadership is very important. Examining the link between improvement and leadership, Hallinger and Heck (2003, 2010) came to the conclusion that leadership is important in three areas:
• establishing the purpose (vision, mission, goals) of the institution
• establishing structures, and
• social networks that foster collaboration, and being people-oriented in what they do.
All of which relate to the nature of the culture of the organisation. Improvement is generally thought to be supported by a number of inter-related key factors. The main ones are: the culture of the institution, specifically a collaborative culture; leadership and the impact of leadership on the culture of the institution; professional development of the staff (becoming a learning community); building on existing goodwill and not forcing people to participate; and building on good practice.
The professional development of staff, including research they undertake in their own institutions, is seen as informing their practice and as likely to aid improvement. External impetuses for improvement initiatives might include partnerships with parents, the community, local business or a university and inspection as a totally external factor could also facilitate institutional improvement. Sometimes inspection can act as a ‘wake-up call’ to an institution and can operate as a change agent either before the inspection, during it or after the report has been submitted with pointers for improvement. However, it is worth remembering that probably the key factor impacting upon this is that of the underlying culture of the organisation. Schein (1985) argued that culture and leadership are two sides of the same coin. He also said that leaders most important – and most difficult – job was to change culture, a point reinforced more recently by Fullan (2003, 2011).
Stoll and Fink (1996) were amongst the first researchers to tease out the link between culture and institutional improvement. They drew up a list ten norms (see Figure 1.2).
Figure 1.2: Cultural norms of improvement
1. Shared goals – ‘we know where we are going’
2. Responsibility for success – ‘we cannot fail’
3. Collegiality – ‘we’re in this together’
4. Continuous improvement – ‘we can get better’
5. Openness – ‘we can discuss our differences’
6. Lifelong learning – ‘learning is for every one’
7. Risk taking – ‘we learn by trying something new’
8. Support – ‘there’s always someone there to help’
9. Mutual respect – ‘everyone has something to offer’
10. Celebration & humour – ‘we feel good about ourselves’
These cultural norms are similar to the characteristics of learning-centred communities and learning organisations (Bubb and Earley, 2007, 2010).
However, the culture of an organisation cannot be seen in isolation from its environment and from the impact of external factors including inspection.
Activity 1.3 Blog activity
Read Duke (2008) and Stoll et al (2006).
What are the key indicators of successful improvement according to these authors? Are these indicators the same that would prevent decline in schools?
Activity 1.4 Reflection activity
Use the summary of key indicators of successful improvement from Figure 1.1. Work with your partner(s) on this activity: choose an inspection framework from one of your countries. Each of you will map the indicators in Figure 1.1 on the indicators in the inspection framework of the country of your choice.
– Summarize and discuss where you agree/disagree on the mapping of the framework onto the indicators in Figure 1.1.
– Does the inspection framework include indicators on successful school improvement?
– To what extent does the inspection framework prevent decline in schools?
Share with, and provide feedback to your partner before posting your reflection in your reflection journal.
1.4 Measuring improvement and effectiveness
One means of looking at the success or otherwise of ‘improving institutions’ has been the attempt to measure or evaluate the added value which an institution offers to its members. Below is the definition of value added offered by Gordon and Lawton (2003, p.258):
Part of the result of some policies of the 1980s encouraging parental choice of school has been the attempt to find ways of providing evidence of school quality. One obvious but unsatisfactory practice is to publish the examination results of schools and the results of national curriculum tests in league table form. An objection to this practice is that such ‘raw scores’ do not give an accurate picture of school quality. To avoid this trap, some assessment experts have advocated that examination results should be published in ‘value added’ form – that is, measuring the difference that schools have made comparing, for example, the results of schools with very similar intakes.
A related methodology for comparing the outcomes or results of one school with another or one institution with another is ‘benchmarking’ which may be defined as a process of measuring standards of actual performance against those achieved by others with broadly similar characteristics. The purpose of benchmarking was intended to lead to identifying good practice and comparisons to assist in raising standards of achievement in any particular school
The provision to schools of national performance data, especially in relation to attainment, has enabled them to compare their own performance against national (and local) norms or averages. Performance and assessment data – in England through RaiseOnline (Raising improvement through self-evaluation) – are now widely used and using effectiveness data for school improvement has become a key activity for both school leaders and governors (e.g. see Kelly and Downey, 2010).
One further consequence of improvement through school effectiveness was noted by Parker (1997, p.9) who commented that:
The teacher is seen as essentially a means-end broker and teaching is conceived as a technical exercise, an applied science, concerned with, judged according to, the criteria of means-end efficiency.
Could external inspection be seen in a similar light? This view of education and teaching as essentially a performance which is assessed externally is considered in a subsequent session, as is the work of Ball who has written about the terrors of performativity (Ball, 2003).
1.5 Summary
This session started with a brief discussion of what improvement of schools entails, discussing the importance of culture and leadership in improvement of schools and how conditions for improvement may be similar or different from conditions to explain decline of school quality. The session finished with a brief explanation of how to measure improvement and quality by using value added measures (this topic will be covered in more detail in session 4). The next session will continue our discussion of improvement of schools; looking into the principles and processes of change.
References
Chapman, C., Armstrong, P., Harris, A., Muijs, D., Reynolds, D. and Sammons, P (Eds) (2011) School Effectiveness and Improvement Research, Policy and Practice, London: Routledge.
Dougill, P., Raleigh, M., Blatchford, R., Fryer, L., Robinson, C. and Richard, J. (2011) To the next level: good schools become outstanding: Research Report, Reading Berkshire: CfBT Education Trust.
Duke, D. (2008) Understanding school decline, International Studies in Educational Administration, 36, (2) 46-65.
European Education Benchmarking System: 2EQBS
Francis, B. (2011) (Un)Satisfactory? Enhancing Life Chances by Improving ‘Satisfactory’ Schools, London: RSA.
Glatter R (2002) Governance, Autonomy and Accountability in Education, Chpt 14 in Bush, T and Bell, L (2002) The Principles and Practice of Educational Management, London: PCP/Sage.
Harris, A. and Muijs, D. (2005) Improving Schools through Teacher Leadership, Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Huber, S. (2004) Preparing School Leaders for the 21st Century: An International Comparison of Development Progress in 15 Countries, London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Kelly, A. and Downey, C. (2010) Using Effectiveness Data for School Improvement, London: Routledge.
Senge, P. (1990) The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization, New York: Doubleday.
Thomson, P., Lingard, B. and Wrigley, T. (2012) Reimagining School Change, in Wrigley, T., Thomson, P. and Lingard, B. (Eds) Changing Schools: Alternative Ways to Make A World of Difference, London: Routledge.
Looking for a Similar Assignment? Order now and Get 10% Discount! Use Coupon Code "Newclient"
