PSE framework characteristics shaping sense-

aims of PSE as a list of bullet points. These aims were broad, non-specific, and non-measurable statements of intent, focused on supporting, encouraging or empowering pupils. According to the framework, the aims of PSE were to:

•develop learners’ self-esteem and a sense of personal responsibility

•promote self-respect, respect for others and celebrate diversity

•equip learners to live safe, healthy lives

•prepare learners for the choices and opportunities of lifelong learning

•empower learners to participate in their schools and communities as active responsible citizens locally, nationally and globally

•foster positive attitudes and behaviour towards the principles of sustainable development and global citizenship •prepare learners for the challenges, choices and responsibilities of work and adult life. (p. 4).

To provide a rationale for these aims, the document referred to the UN Convention of the Rights of the Child and the Welsh Government’s Rights to Action, emphasizing the importance of including all learners. This was followed by an explanation of learner entitlement, re-iterating the responsibilities schools or other providers hold in protecting the welfare of children and young people. Learner entitlement, for example, has been explained in terms of accessibility, that programmes are to be aligned to learners’ level of skills, knowledge, interest and progress and that ‘learners of all abilities should have access to appropriate assessment and accreditation’ (p.7). This one-page description of how PSE should be delivered suggests a very broad approach, and remains unspecific about what learners are entitled to.

A small proportion of the PSE policy framework document (14%) offered guidance for implementation processes at an organisational level, providing an explanation about how school arrangements might facilitate the delivery of PSE. The text re-iterated the responsibilities of schools and the entitlement of learners, and explained the different resources the Welsh Government provides for schools to support PSE. The text also listed the characteristics of a holistic approach, making reference to both organisational-level (planning for visits) and classroom-level (promotion of positive relationships) changes. For example, the supportive documentation included a PSE action plan that specified priorities and a template for a local policy schools are expected to adapt for their own use.

This template defined PSE as comprising ‘all that a school or college undertakes to support and promote the personal and social development

and well-being of its learners’ (p.1), and encouraged schools to add their school specific definition alongside their own PSE aims and a clarification on delivery, management and coordination. In order to encourage cross- curricular integration of PSE, another supportive document provided an explanation how core curriculum subjects might support the development of skills that relate to PSE. For example, it explained that English contributes to PSE by ‘providing opportunities to develop their understanding of social interaction through collaborative working. The exploration and reflection upon texts dealing with a range of themes can encourage the development of self-knowledge, emotional maturity and empathy with the human condition.’ (p.2). There was also a PSE audit document for use within schools that required subject specialists or departmental leaders to state where their subject contributes to PSE. Although documentary analysis did not attend to how schools used these audit documents, some interviewees referred to these as requiring excessive work on the part of the school PSE coordinator as well as the subject specialist. Extracts from these documents can be found in Appendix 7.

Additional support for implementation at an organisational level was attempted through the provision of various checklists. These required schools to self-evaluate their provision using a monitoring checklist, a checklist for the role of visitors, and a school self-evaluation document that drew on the Estyn framework, encouraging schools to self-evaluate against Estyn inspection criteria to assess the quality of their PSE provision. There was also a checklist for curriculum planning and a checklist for managing PSE. These checklists contained non-specific and un-measurable practice objectives and evaluation criteria, similar to monitoring checklists for classroom processes. For example, criteria for the management of PSE in schools included regular sampling of pupils’ work, PSE lesson observations, obtaining learner feedback and scrutinizing budgeting or the use of resources. The response format was a three point Likert scale which required a decision whether these behaviours were ‘fully in place’, ‘partly in place’ or ‘not in place’.

A large proportion of the main framework document (58%) was concerned with lesson content, usually presented in the form of bullet point lists describing each of the five themes (active citizenship, health and emotional well-being, moral and spiritual development, preparing for lifelong learning, and sustainable development and global citizenship). Approximately 27% of the PSE framework document text referred to ways in which the provision of PSE was intended to be transformed at classroom level. As shown in Figure 4, these were mainly concerned with the skills learners are expected to use and develop. They were listed for each key stage, categorised into: developing thinking, developing communication, developing ICT and developing numeric skills. Each of these categories began with the statement that learners should be given opportunities to develop skills, followed by bullet point lists of the types of skills learners are expected to develop.

Figure 4. Extract from PSE framework document specifying learning outcomes for key stage 3 with regards to skills to be developed and topics to be covered (WG 2008, p.2).

RANGE: Health and emotional well-being Learners should be given opportunities to:

• display a responsible attitude towards keeping the mind and body safe and healthy

• develop positive attitudes towards themselves and others and to understand:

• the relationship between diet, exercise, and good health and well- being

• the effects of and risks from the use of a range of legal and illegal substances and the laws governing their use

• how to use alcohol responsibly and the risks of binge drinking • the law relating to aspects of sexual behaviour

• about contraception, sexually transmitted infections and HIV within the context of relationships

• the features of safe and potentially abusive relationships

• the role of marriage, the importance of stable family relationships and the responsibilities of parents

SKILLS: Developing ICT

Learners should be given opportunities to: • find and develop information and ideas • create and present information and ideas

More details about how such opportunities might be created in the classroom were specified in additional resource documents such as a checklist to identify ways for recognising learner achievement within PSE, and a list for monitoring learner progress. Monitoring checklists to evaluate classroom processes were as unspecific as those aimed at self-evaluating organisational processes for implementation. For example, one of the statements suggested that learner achievement should be measured through teachers sharing learning objectives with pupils. Each of these statements was intended to be self-evaluated, as noted, on a three-point Likert scale as being either fully, partly or not in place.

Additional explanatory documents aimed to provide guidance for the delivery of themes such as violence against women, and a list of collaborative active teaching and learning techniques for PSE, a two-page bullet point list of lesson activities, briefly explaining these activities and what their benefit might be (WG 2008a):

Pairs provide relatively comfortable and secure opportunities for active listening and for learners to offer each other coaching and support. In order to encourage group cohesion and co-operation, random pairs are preferable to friendship pairs (p.1)

Matching requires cards to be made which can be matched together by the learners individually, in pairs or small groups. For example, drug cards may be matched to the effects and risks of each substance (p.2)

It was not evident whether these suggestions were based on evidence and no additional guidance has been provided about how to integrate these individual activities into a whole lesson. Similarly, no explanation was given about how classroom practice using these activities across one or several lessons, might be employed to promote a different form of learning, to encourage the development of certain skills or generate the desired outcomes. These findings suggest that the Welsh Government’s PSE

framework documentation lacks clarity about how PSE is to be enacted in practice. The characteristics that have been observed are unlikely to create a shared understanding between the authors of the policy and implementers, and might contribute to uncertainty about how the policy is to be implemented (Conger 1991; Pfeffer 1992; Spillane et al 2002; Star and Griesemer 1989; Spillane et al 2002).

The PSE policy document referred to four different types of implementers involved in the generation and implementation of the PSE framework at different socio-ecological levels: Whilst the Welsh Government (1) produced the guidance and later provided some additional resources (such as DVDs), schools (2) were required to accommodate the delivery of PSE into their curricular arrangements and fulfil their statutory obligations. Teachers (3) were to use the guidance to shape the delivery of PSE, and support pupils who were expected to acquire certain knowledge and skills and to benefit from the provision.

Although the PSE framework assigned considerable responsibilities to teachers, their role was predominantly described in sentences using passive voice. Such discursive features may unintentionally lead to teachers perceiving themselves as disengaged from the implementation process (Smith 2008). For example, the role of teachers was described as members of an audience for pupils to engage with or as recipients of instructions detailing what should or should not be done. It has been argued that such a presentation of actors as subjects of passive clauses implies that the implementer is affected by the process rather than an active participant (Fairclough 2003). These discursive features may also create a contradiction to the content of the document which suggests that teachers are the key agents expected to take a lead in implementing the PSE framework.

Any references to the Welsh Government emphasized the role and importance of the documentation that it produced to clarify its requirements. There was no indication of an active, supportive role of the Government by using nouns such as ‘we’ and ‘us’. This emphasized that the main responsibility for enacting the policy lies with the schools. The framework

described schools as settings where action takes place and reiterated their obligations throughout.

Pupils were predominantly referred to as learners, and largely portrayed as passive beneficiaries or recipients of support by using statements such as ‘learners should be helped’, ‘learners should be supported ‘or ‘learners should be given opportunities’ (p. 5). This indirect way of referring to support given to pupils seemed to avoid specifying who should be providing this support and how this is to be done. It was unclear why the generic term ‘learners’ occurred throughout the framework document and supportive documentation, whilst LEA and school staff referred to ‘pupils’ during the interviews. This provides an example of the differences between the language used within the PSE policy framework and that used among teachers about practice. It has previously been found that such discrepancies between policy- and practice language might fail to create shared meanings and introduce ambiguity about the changes that are intended (Hill 2001; Lortie 1975; Lave and Wenger 1991; Smit 2005). These differences might also indicate policymakers possibly lacking awareness about practice and suggest that local teacher language and knowledge might only have been taken into account to a limited extent (Smit 2005).

The purpose of analysing Welsh Government’s PSE framework policy documents was to examine the extent to which they provided a guide for professionals to implement PSE in practice and how its features might shape sense-making during implementation. Despite its size the national policy documentation had many gaps. The aims presented in this documentation were challenging, broad, ambiguous and non-specific or non-measurable. Whilst this could be seen as an advantage in that it creates flexibility for teachers to develop lessons they regard as important, it has been found that specific, measurable aims may be more likely to encourage higher performance (Doran 1981) and ensure policies are implemented as intended (Spillane et al. 2002). The guidance for implementation was dominated by a description of lesson content, whilst less attention was given to ways in which this content is to be conveyed to pupils. Suggestions for organisational implementation were briefer still. The implementation of this

policy in classroom practice was intended to be facilitated by a number of checklists with non-specific, non-measurable criteria. The Welsh Government as author of these documents portrayed itself as mere provider of policy documents, whilst schools were described as settings for action and holder of statutory obligations and responsibilities. Despite being regarded as key actors of implementation, discursive features of the documentation might lead teachers to considering themselves as passive recipients of instructions. Such a contradiction provides an example for ways in which characteristics of policy documents have the potential to introduce uncertainty and ambiguity. The development of the PSE framework documentation seems to have omitted considering the importance of different actors and ways in which discursive features might encourage their taking on an active role in implementation. Pupils are portrayed as beneficiaries, where the responsibility for provision appears to remain uncertain. The extent to which these characteristics have been reproduced at a local level will be evident from an examination of the PSE policies written by each of the four case study schools. Findings from school PSE policy analysis will be presented in the next section.

5.1.2. School PSE policies: reproduction of PSE framework