In talking to key stakeholders at the Bishop Pritchard School, comments were made about a particular year group that had the highest proportion of Church going families in it. On the basis of the admission criteria, this year group had 50% of the intake receiving references from a Church leader. The remarks by the deputy headteacher corroborated my suggestion of compliance affecting performance:
“They [year X] are our year group with the least behaviour instances and they are our highest achieving year group. It kinds of fits in with what you were saying.” (Interview transcript, Deputy Headteacher MT, 06/12/12)
The following comments about this year group may reflect a form of compliance:
“… I think generally, they seem, my impression is when I hear staff talk about them, they were more co-operative generally speaking and more receptive I think so…It took them longer to get out of primary school mode, the head of year 6 said that she was quite concerned about them because they are not like other year groups, they are not streetwise and they don’t need to be told off!… I guess it will vary from class to class and from teacher to teacher so, and there are always children in every year who kind of buck the trend, but generally, and
196
going and walking around the school, you know, there’s that sense they’re are not particularly troublesome.” (Interview transcript, School Chaplain VF, 28/02/12)
In chapter 7 section II part e, I noted the conflict between the management of the school and the staff with regard to pedagogy. While the deputy headteacher was keen to promote more of pupil-centred approach to learning (chapter 5 section IV part b) it was not always the lived reality within the school as the teachers often relied on whole class teaching and compliance.
“…here you just need to walk down the corridors; there’s very good order, very controlled, very purposeful environment, lots of progress going on in lessons, but most of the classrooms are in rows, most of the teachers are doing the talking, whilst that’s not the case across the school I would say that if you went and did a snapshot that’s what you would see.” (Interview transcript, Deputy Headteacher MT, 06/12/12).
The argument from those who advocate ‘whole class’ teaching is that excessive group work causes the pace of learning to slow as a result of a decline in the opportunities for absorbing new knowledge together with the use of a more restricted vocabulary. It is held that able pupils are capable of processing a lot of information quickly using an extended vocabulary. Such a model of learning lends itself to a didactic approach within the context of whole class teaching (Phillips, 1996; Boutonnet, 2003; Yandell, 2003). The fact that Ofsted no longer wish to criticise didactic teaching lends further support to this possibility (Ofsted, 2014; 2015). In researching Emmanuel CTC in the North East, Green noted that the school leadership of this high achieving school were very sceptical about pupil-centred learning (Green, 2009a, p.235). This is a huge and controversial area which, however fascinating, is beyond the remit of this research. Nonetheless, it remains a possibility that, perhaps inadvertently, the traditional teaching methods, including pupil compliance, at the Bishop Pritchard School were contributing, at least in part, to the high examination results (see also Arthur and Godfrey, 2005, p.5, covered in chapter 4 section IV part b).
To support this, in observations of classes, I found the children compliant with the requests of the teachers. In this sense my findings supported the findings from Cardus (2011) mentioned earlier. There were few incidences of litter around the building (chapter 7 section II part j) and only a few incidences of bad language. In reporting this finding of compliant behaviour I am aware of what McLaren (1993) refers to as the ‘student state’ whereby pupils appear passive in familiar settings and adopt the “gestures, dispositions, attitudes and work habits expected of ‘being a student’.” (ibid., p.91). However, a further support of compliant behaviour came from the last two inspection reports of the school from Ofsted. The following comments are typical:
“Pupils’ behaviour is good, as reflected in their positive attitudes to learning and involvement in all the school offers…..Pupils contribute very responsibly to the
197
life of the school.” (Ofsted inspection report of Bishop Pritchard School, May 2010, p.5).
And:
“Students are mostly polite, tolerant and respectful. Most show willingness to listen and learn in lessons.” (Ofsted inspection report of Bishop Pritchard School, November 2012, p.5).
Although the pupils were respectful of the teacher and the Church tradition of the school, they were, nonetheless confident to air their views which were critical of Christianity and authority in general. The comments from three boys in a year 9 class shown below give a flavour of this:
“I think that Christianity is hypocritical because it says God loves everybody but manifestly, by reading Leviticus and Corinthians the Bible doesn’t love homosexuals!”
Another pupil says can I have a rant “Obama says that he is in favour of civil partnerships but has left it 100% for each state to decide so has, in effect, not
made any practical commitment whatsoever.”
One pupil says “If Jesus were to come back today, I don’t think that he would
have the same views because the social climate has really changed.” (Lesson
observation field notes, year 9 set 2 and 3 male pupils, 09/07/12).
In using this evidence, I am aware that, according to Freathy (2006), being male and in year 9 were factors associated with the least positive attitudes towards the Bible (Freathy, 2006, p.327).
While the deputy headteacher of the school and others involved with (Church) schools may be reluctant to use the word ‘compliance’ because of its de-humanising undertones (chapter 8 section II part b), as we have noted above, compliance in Church schools need not always be viewed in a negative light (see, for example Reed et al., 2002). The deputy headteacher preferred the term co-operation although he acknowledged that many of the pupils and some staff understood the school systems to be based more on compliance than co-operation.
However, once again, I wonder whether there was something deeper about the concept of compliance which was found within the specific context of the Bishop Pritchard School. This stemmed from the early days of the school when there was perceived to be chaos before Trevor Brown arrived. This situation of perceived bad behaviour would have been etched on the minds of the long serving members of staff who would, as a result, believe that compliance was a good thing and one of the keys to the success of their school. Stories and legends take shape following times of adversity and I suggest that, at the Bishop Pritchard School, the story of the need for compliance had become part of the culture not only for longer serving members of staff but newer staff as well. The reasons are clear; if the school hadn’t developed an ethos of
198
compliance in those days, there would be no school today. The words from James Cartwright (a pseudonym) are apposite:
“And Trevor was appointed and I think straightaway his focus was a change of ethos, culture and habits amongst the pupils. You know, the uniform policy, making sure there was a code for lessons, a corridor code, just looking at all aspects of behaviour here.” (Interview transcript, Long serving member of staff JC, 07/03/12).
The (now executive) headteacher’s perception of the early days was very similar:
“Once we had basic policies we had to make sure that all the pupils followed them without questioning them. Key to this was getting the staff on board and they were really good actually. We got all the policies on behaviour, toilets, uniform, corridors enforced consistently and staff began to see the difference quickly. It was very interesting.” (Interview transcript, Executive Headteacher TB, 21/02/12).
From my own personal experience I can see many parallels with Canon Hall School. On arriving at the school 10 years ago, behaviour was perceived to be a significant problem. My response was to introduce a series of ‘quality standards’33 for every aspect of school life and to put these in the staff handbook for all staff to apply consistently. Many years afterwards, one of the longest serving members of staff, now retired, informed me that it was these quality standards that marked the turning point for Canon Hall school.
With regard to the willingness to comply by submitting to a higher authority, I have already mentioned the tension between league table position and ‘doing the right thing’ (chapter 3 section I part d). Church schools must be about something other than viewing the pupils as raw materials to be turned into profit. As I stand at the school gates each afternoon and watch 700 pupils leave the site I often reflect on the purpose of schooling. I know each pupil by name and, like many headteachers, I also know the likelihood of each one securing the Government benchmark target of 5 or more GCSEs including English and Mathematics. As this thought flashes through my mind, I castigate myself and say to myself that a Church school education should be about so much more than this. Compliance to a higher ideal and to God’s rule is surely essential for all leaders, staff and hopefully children in Church schools. What do other headteachers think?
Headteachers who were surveyed strongly subscribed to the view that children from Church families were more compliant and cooperative than children from non-Church families. 50% of respondents felt that children from Church families were more compliant than children from non- Church families. It naturally follows that children from Church schools are likely to be more
33The ualit sta da d as a list of ite ia that had to e et i o de fo the a ti it u de take to meet the minimum quality required within the institution. There were quality standards on everything ranging from setting homework to teaching literacy.
199
compliant than children from non-Church schools. Again, it depends on the composition of the Church school and the extent that there is a shared culture. 36% of headteachers felt that children from Church schools were more compliant than children from non-Church schools with only 18% disagreeing with this statement.
Of the three learning habits or virtues researched with headteachers, the learning habit which was felt to be most reflective of Church families and Church schools was the learning habit of compliance or, more precisely, cooperation.
While the word compliance would seldom appear in the literature about Church schools or, indeed, in the rhetoric of headteachers of Church schools, it is nonetheless a commonly held view that, in the perception of Church of England secondary school headteachers, compliance is a trait of the children from both Church families and Church schools. This is very significant and a key finding of this thesis.
Compliance was also an underlying theme in the group interview of the six headteachers. The following quotes capture the sentiments of the headteachers represented:
“In this (Church) school there is a calmer atmosphere. Everyone wants to do well, it’s ok to do well, it’s ok to succeed, it’s ok for people to pat you on the back and say well done. In other academies that I have worked in people try and hide their success, people deliberately under-perform in tests because they don’t want to be seen as the school’s ‘boff’.” (Group interview with heads, MR, 19/9/2013).
And:
“We’re now behaving like a Christian school because there is no longer any absence and the kids are interacting well together. We got the parents on our side as well because the way that we deal with parents as well as the kids.” (Group interview with heads, PN, 19/9/2013).
V. Summary
In this chapter I have explored whether the three learning habits (or performance character virtues) suggested by the stakeholders of a specific Church school are supported by the data from this research and also the wider literature. I have also examined whether the specific learning habits identified can justifiably be labelled as distinctively Christian. The next logical question to ask is how does this happen? That is, how precisely does a Church school create a distinctively Christian ethos which inculcates certain habits (or performance virtues) into the pupils in order to support successful educational outcomes?