ECaR manager role

The role of the ECaR manager was seen as central to the management of the programme. As part of the implementation survey ECaR managers asked to specify what their main responsibilities in relation to ECaR were. Most commonly they reported that they were in charge of strategic management, recruitment of schools to the programme (72 out of 81 LAs

reported each), and dissemination and communication (65 out of 81). A minority managed a consortium of ECaR LAs (16 out of 81). Table 3.11 provides a more detailed understanding of the ECaR Managers’ role from the qualitative data, breaking tasks down into strategic and management responsibilities. There was no evidence of any elements of their role that related to delivery of ECaR or training of staff.

Table 3.11 ECaR managers’ responsibilities

Strategy Management

•To oversee the operation of ECaR

•Ensure that the programme supports raising school standards and outcomes

•Develop a strategic action plan for ECaR to contribute to local and national indicators

•Leading and supporting consortium strategy and working relationships

•Line management of TL

•Monitoring and evaluating the programme

•Attending relevant briefing meeting with IOE and NS

•Support/guidance where schools on managing the programme

•Managing the ECaR budget

ECaR managers discussed the support they received from NS and IOE in the qualitative interviews. Guidance on how to effectively manage the programme, training around consortium working, managing TL time and undertaking the NS evaluation were considered helpful. However lack of awareness of the support and the location of training were identified as barriers to accessing training. ECaR managers also suggested that there could be improvements to the training provided, notably improving communication between NS and IOE so that meetings did not cover the same issues and a greater strategic focus on ECaR and the impact for LAs.

Line Managing the Teacher Leader

A key part of the ECaR Manager’s role was supervising Teacher Leaders. (In the survey only one LA reported an arrangement where the management of the TL fell outside of the consortium.) Their views on managing TLs were fairly positive as most of them felt they had had sufficient time (35 out of 39) and knowledge (46 out of 39) and very few (seven out of 39) reporting it difficult to manage TLs. Despite this, in some qualitative case studies it was evident that staff may not have had sufficient time to supervise Teacher Leaders effectively. Difficulties were exacerbated in cases were managing ECaR formed only a small aspect of a wider strategic or management role within the LA. Time spent on ECaR was not ring-fenced and meant that managers did not have time dedicated to ECaR, which sometimes prevented them fulfilling all the necessary tasks, especially if other work needed to take immediate priority. ECaR managers who did line manage TLs, highlighted this as one of their main responsibilities, with tasks described in five main areas:

1. Performance management

ECaR Managers ‘performance-managed’ TLs under standard LA protocols which included, one-to-one meetings to review performance and delivery of the programme, and annual reviews of performance looking at implementation of the programme against ECaR action

plan targets. Some ECaR managers undertook monitoring and quality assurance observations of RR delivery, but where ECaR managers felt they had only a limited understanding of and training in RR they did not conduct observations.

2. Supporting TL professional development

ECaR managers supported TL CPD through ensuring access to the IOE continual training programme and internal LA training to increase TLs’ understanding of the broad literacy context and other literacy interventions. A more arms-length approach was also mentioned where TLs were seen as driving their own CPD based on the reflection and development that had been built into the TL role.

3. Monitoring workload and capacity

TLs were responsible for their own diaries and time, but ECaR managers felt there was a tension between TLs commitment to the role and balancing the diverse tasks it included. ECaR managers aimed to support TLs in managing their workload by helping them prioritise tasks and suggesting ways to reduce workload, which TLs reported as useful. However in some cases, ECaR managers suggested cutting back time on activities which TLs regarded as essential for successful implementation at school level, including additional support for school RRTs who were experiencing challenges in delivering RR.

4. Embedding of the TL role and ECaR within the LA

NS guidance to LAs stressed that ECaR is more effective when it is aligned with other initiatives and understood by all relevant staff in the LA28_{. ECaR managers supported this}

process by ensuring TLs had access to and attended wider primary literacy meetings and training. They also contributed to dissemination activities within the LA using their role and established links to share information on how ECaR relates to other LA interventions and programmes.

5. Brokering the relationship between schools and TLs

ECaR Managers did not work as closely with schools as TLs but would become involved in this relationship when there were disagreements over quality and implementation issues.