The l^evel of Participation of those Involved in the Programme

It has already been shown how the initial machinery of, firstly, the domestic Steering Group and, secondly, the full Steering Group, including the Heads of the Phase 1 schools, was constituted within the LEA. When it came to the task of developing a methodology for the project and drawing up the papers, the procedure was described as follows:

"In the early days I think on average there were something like three of the advisers

and three HMI and often one of the administrators involved in it, but it depended as time went on who was available because we were involved in other exerciser, as well."

(HMI2, interview notes).

As far as the schools were concerned:

"In practice schools, being so heavily committed and so on, did I think rely on the joint deliberations of the Inspectorate and the iEA representatives, advisers and administrators for taking the project forward."

(HMI2, interview notes).

Since the time advisers had available to devote to the project was, as we

have scon,extremely limited, as was the time of HMI, the role of loadcrshit) in the enquiry seems to have been eventually assumed by a small number of people, notably one member of the Inspectorate and one member of the advisory service. As a member of the advisory service observed:

"That was another example of nobody predicting .... the enormous logistics and work load implications of this. It wasn't until (one adviser} got released from most of her other work that things could really begin to move. It wasn't anticipated in the early stages. It was thought that the advisory staff collectively could operate the LEA side of the partnership with the Inspectorate."

(LEA**-, side 1, 630

-€A6).

The member of the advisory service on whom most of the administrative responsibilities eventually fell explained the position:

"The more I became involved in it the more I realised that it had to become almost my first priority at the time. I've always been conscious that I 've neglected a good many other things I should have been doing in order to do this. I am also equally conscious that a lot of my time in this exercise has gone on what you might call the administrative part of it and not the helping of teachers. To a large extent I've had to rely on colleagues to do that kind of helping."

(LEA3, side 2 » 003-012).

Another member of the advisory service referred to the contribution from the Inspectorate as follows:

II_{I think the tremendous contribution that (one} member of the Inspectorate) has made has been that he did produce a structure and an element of direction which I think was sadly missing early on. I think much of the value of the exercise may have sprung from just that one fact."

(LEA2, side 1, O9I-O95) .

An adviser described the working relationship:

"If one has met HMI colleagues before with whom there has been some kind of rapport, you've found a very close working relationship with them anyway. Though the time spent working together on this has been very much more than on anything else, I would suspect. One can

only ray that as far as the LEA is concerned, we have been extremely fortunate - how one is able to say it, I don't know - its the quality of the person you see, the quality of thinking... Wherever he goes he takes the meeting, takes the lead. He's that sort of dynamic person and every­ body stands back and lets him do it. But I don't think the exercise, as it goes through in the schools in the second stage and the third stage, is as dependant. But the thinking was done very much as a partnership. Other HMI colleagues and my own colleagues put in a lot of thinking. I think he has been a figurehead in many ways... I think the exercise has benefitted, because I think a lot of staff from schools, not all, but a lot of them, have appreciated being able to meet somebody with that kind of mind and that kind of thinking, whether they agree or not. On the other hand there is a chance that some people who are a little less sure of themseT ves will shrink and not come forward at all."

(LEA

3

3

Thus the exercise in the LEA came to depend particularly in Phase 1 very much on the strength of two individuals, one of whom assumed much of the administrative responsibility and another who led many of the meetings and contributed much to the thinking behind the development of the papers and instruments of enquiry.

From all the evidence so far reported it is evident that only a small group of LEA advisers and HMI could actually be said to be in 'full* participation in the reappraisal programme. These people were 'outsiders' from the point of view of the school. 'Inside' leadership at the level of 'vicarious consent' was probably attained in the case study school only by the CRAG co-ordinator in the school. There were also in the case study school, however, a smal1 number of informal leaders in the school who could also have been described as participating at a high level.

In the fixed response questionnaire used in the case study school, members

were asked

o f

Tabl e if.

5

Attendance at Meetings Convened

by

o f

2

Subject Departments Number of Meetings 1 2 3 if ₅ 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 _{1 l l} 2 1 2 l 3 1 1 1 if 1 3 5 1 1 1 6 1 1 1 7 1 8 1 9 3 10 11 1

No. of Hespondents: 36; 10 Respondents gave no response

The responses indicate that one of the departments apparently convened as many as twelve meetings, and these were attended by all three members of that department. Other departments seemed t o have convened up to six meetings. Department 11 is, incidentally, a single member 'department'. The variation in the number of meetings actually attended by members of a department may well reflect the difficulty the staff had in organising meetings at times when all departmental members were available.

In addition to meetings of departments of their main teaching subject, some members of staff attended meetings of departments of their subsidiary subjects. This happened, for instance, in Science where four groups (Biology, Chemistry, Physics and Integrated Science) came together and in M o d e m Languages where teachers of French and German met together. Only one member of staff reported attending a meeting of a Department in which they did not normally teach.

A number of meetings of Heads of Departments were convened during the CRAG project. Members of staff from the case study school reported attending up to 10 such meetings at which the project was discussed. The project was also reported to be the subject of discussion at two meetings of the Senior Management Team in the school.

In all 15 members, of staff from the school reported attending the Heads of Department meetings, organised by the i.FA in July 1980. 3 members of staff also attended a meeting for their subsidiary teaching subject or area of responsibility. A second set of meetings held later in the case study schools were similarly attended. 17 members of staff went to the meetings, 5 of them attending two of the scessions in their own school, and 1 attending two sessions a.t the other case study school. The fact that some of the meetings were 'on-site' may have encouraged the increase in number of meetings attended.

Reported participation in the drafting of written material in the school is shown in T a ble 1+.6. From the Table it appears that 27 (73%) of the 37 respondents had been involved in the drafting of their departmental submissions.

The figures in Table l\.6

,

1 schools in which of the staff interviewed reported having been