School Organisation, Ethos and Environment ⎯ the School Administration Perspective

Introduction

When reviewing the literature on effective schools, Ainley (1995) noted that they ‘are marked by a sense of community built around a shared purpose reflected in the academic organisation of the school’ (p.36). Modern management literature reflects this principle in its discussion of the need for organisational vision, mission

statements and transparent, articulated values (Albrecht 1994; Swieringa & Wierdsma 1994). The CG School mirrors this theoretical model of modern management in that it aims to provide a ‘religious education within a sound academic and general

education’ (Flynn & Mok 2000, p.78), from which the school identifies clear missions and values that it aims to inculcate. The website of CG School articulates a mission statement that links together a love of God, life, others and learning that is inspired by the life and teachings of Jesus Christ. Common school values are identified and they included community, social justice and spirituality.

Any and all catholic schools ‘have distinctive goals and features that derive from a core of philosophical and theological truths that are central to their character and mission’ (Flynn & Mok 2000, p.29) and are thus characterised by an ethos of

commitment to the education of the whole person. Such an ethos contributes to the position that 'Catholic education integrates total human development ⎯ mind and will, body and soul, intellect and character, the personal and the communal' (Flynn and Mok 2000, p.46) and ‘evidence to show that Catholic schools have effectively passed on the culture and traditions of the Church’ (Rogan 1994, p49). Catholic schools thus make explicit the forms of (Bourdieu’s) the forms of cultural and social capital that they purport to promote. Bourdieu (1990) describes capital as an

accumulation of labour over time that can both reproduce and augment itself. He argues that capital is presented in three different guises ⎯ economic, cultural and social: economic is represented in money and property rights; cultural includes levels of education and associated qualifications that can be converted into economic capital such as jobs and salaries; and social involves obligations such as are represented in the ‘old tie’ connections that facilitate networks contributing to economic capital.

Schools as social organisations are locations where the youth (as students) pass through the halls and experience (to varying degrees) capital as managed, moulded and re-invested resources and assets, particularly in its cultural and social forms. In turn, students are to use their acquired cultural and social capital in a manner that can be converted into economic capital. CG School positions itself as a community that strives for a sense of belonging and engagement that is underpinned by the love of Jesus Christ and his teachings. The purpose of the Catholic school ⎯ to develop and extend the student body’s acceptance and inclusion into the Catholic faith ⎯

represents an activity that carries capital worth comparable to that of a business providing goods and services for consumption; thus, in this it is possible to see how the cultural capital of the school is converted into economic capital.

The Catholic school strives for many ends within a framework that has clear

boundaries. As Harker (1990) points out, the school is required to react and respond to change in external conditions ⎯ economics, technology and politics. It is within these boundaries that CG School is answerable to many stakeholders including the Catholic Church, the state education department, the local diocese, the board of management and parents, teachers and students. Particular initiatives and activities facilitated by the school are often the result of settlements between various

stakeholders and the school gatekeepers and defenders, with the activities being given final interpretation probably by teachers, and most likely in the classroom. The school can perceive the range of conditions through its established habitus, so its responses and activity will reflect the hegemony whose habitus is embodied within the school.

Thus, as a Catholic school SH operates within its own habitus where its activity supports the development and accruing of specific cultural capital while being simultaneously constrained by it.

The organisation, ethos and environment arena of the HPS is where CG School administration and roles, health promoting policies and procedures come together to determine the school culture. In this the HPS model provides a ‘persona’ or image that the school is able to market to its community and a focus for the ways in which the leadership provided by CG School’s administrative team perceives and supports health-promoting activity. Various imperatives of hegemony are able to reassert themselves and commandeer the (HPS) initiatives, and in doing so disrupt the potential for a progressive and emancipatory ideology ⎯ where, in spite of all of the motivation, goodwill and activity, the end point can be seen as essentially about taking on the HPS model without too much change actually happening.

Why the health promoting school ?

Its participation in the Victorian School Survey of Health Promotion in Schools (St Leger & Nutbeam 2000) provided the basis for CG School to consider and evaluate its health-related activities. The survey sought information on whether schools had health-related policies and practices, the notion of their physical and social

environment, their community relationships, health curricula – explicit and hidden – and their relationship with health services.

Liz’s work on the HPS questionnaire helped us to realise that we were already doing many HP activities. We have XYZ policies, we do XYZ activities so there was a feeling that the HPS model could assist us to focus our school’s

activities and that it helped to inform our approach to the students’ health needs (Administration Focus Group Meeting 2).

By completing the survey this school had both a heightened awareness of the scope of its health-related activities and a framework by which it could meld a number of activities that included working with local health agencies, the activities of the school

counsellor, Sun Smart policies, community service and events for parents. The use of the HPS model enabled the school’s work to be reframed. Where it had undertaken activities because the staff ‘knew’ that they were important, there was now a means to link the activities to a legitimating concept (Rissel et al.2002).

The need to have and/or engage in a health education/health promotion program was never contested by the school administration team. Any initiative that purports to enable the wellbeing and health literacy of students (in the first instance) would be difficult for any school to reject; therefore, this school’s ethos of caring was a strong foundation to build upon. The school and its wider community had not debated the need for healthier education per se, only the conditions and its context. It was accepted that these (female) students needed the knowledge and skills not only to protect their own health but to also be able to care for the health and wellbeing of others (Petersen & Lupton 1996). The school actively worked to support students whose health was at risk, to ensure an inclusive and supportive school culture.

This year the group (of students with chronic illnesses) has met for special luncheons organised by one of the teachers with the role of Student Support Assistant. While in a formal sense each student is monitored via our pastoral support structures, i.e. year level co-ordinators, and the class teacher, these luncheons give the students a chance to chat informally with each other, allowing the Student Support Assistant another chance to ‘touch-base’ with these students. Friends of these students are also invited to these luncheons giving recognition to another important support structure in the lives of students with chronic illnesses (Vince’s narrative).

In many ways, the VicHealth survey facilitated a needs assessment for the school. Bradshaw (1972) defined a needs assessment as having four different forms – normative need, felt need, expressed need and comparative need. In this case, the school leaders talked about their ‘felt need’.

The HPS model has helped us to understand how we can be proactive about health issues. We can use it to better meet the needs of our young women (Administration Focus Group Meeting 1).

Since a felt-need assessment enables the identification of wants, the participation in the survey assisted the school to reflect upon its wants.

The HPS model can help us to create a healthy learning environment that includes the chances of successful dealing with the health issues that impact on young people and that the school is well aware of (Administration Focus Group Meeting 2).

Based upon a strong commitment to the wellbeing of the students at CG School, there was now some understanding among the administration team of how it was possible to capture a number of activities at the school, drawing them together in a much more cohesive and dedicated manner.

The HPS model naturally meshes with the school in the first place (it’s a natural progression) and secondly that it is seen clearly as a benefit to undertake that particular program – this is obvious and builds on what is already being done within the school. It will bring out components of the school in a recognised form because it is a part of a (health) program. The school knows that it has many of the aspects of the model and that it can tie them together as a whole to foster the development of the young women in our care (Administration Focus Group Meeting 1).

Further, the school felt that it was in a better position to be able to use limited resources strategically and with contextualised awareness. There was less need to justify; rather there was a greater opportunity to be focused and purposeful (McBride & Midford 1996). The school was able to leave existing projects and activities in place and instead muster activity and resources in ways that were perceived as being more effective and efficient, thereby facilitating economic capital (funding and salaries) and social capital (being able to afford and access a Catholic education) into cultural capital. The school had no intention to ultilise the label of “HPS”. The school used the VicHealth (2000) survey to provide a focus that pulled together a critical mass of existing health-related activity and provided a framework for future activity but without the label.

The claiming of the HPS model represents what Orner (1992) describes as a means to utilise power ‘through the construction of “new” discourses and modes of activity rather than by setting limits on pre-existing ones’ (p.82). Cultural capital is therefore derived from the school’s administration being able to ‘negotiate marketised forms and “work the system” through sets of informed cultural rules’ (Apple 2001 p.415).

Consequences of being health promoting

Given the long history of this school and the way in which it continues to construct and market itself, there is a strong understanding of its purpose ⎯ and this is shared with its students, parents and wider community. Drawing on the position of McGaw et al. (1991) schools should nurture favourable attitudes to learning and need to be effective to a wide range of students, this particular school had to redefine its role in the context of changing times. By identifying the potential for utilising a HPS focus, the school was able to collect and leverage what was a previously diverse and disparate range of resources and activities for a proportional increased effect.:

We have a common approach to health education within the school where we can effectively redirect resources and inform all members of the school community on the basis of being a part of the program (Administration Focus Group Meeting 1).

By using the HPS model in such a way, there is clear alignment with managerial practices. The use of the HPS model to reframe the school’s perceptions of its health activities becomes what Romberg and Price (1983) call ameliorative reform, where the ongoing practices are made more efficient and effective.

It requires a co-ordinated response and a member of staff is required to undertake that role. It creates an opportunity whereby we can celebrate achievements relating to good health and if we had not used the HPS model we may not have normally recognised and celebrated our achievements (Administration Focus Group Meeting 1).

CG School does not see either the need or the requirement to engage in school reform. It is making technical and ‘tweaking’ around the edges, but there is no substantive change to the cultural and pedagogical traditions and beliefs. The held vision ⎯ of the school and of its work being efficient and effective ⎯ is to all intents and purposes borne out through its (relatively) long history and track record in concert with the level of demand for placements for future students. Thus, the school works to ‘preserve knowledge and experience from one generation to the next (re- production)’ (Hawker 1990, p.87). CG School became the embodiment of that legacy, and its valuing of personal health and wellbeing also lays the potential for future generations. CG School articulated its mission as having a caring community ⎯ for both the students and staff. This was seen as a means by which a safe community could be created that in turn could permit and nurture individual differences and talents. By having students who are secure in their faith, and who have academic ability and health literacy, the school contributes to the cultural and social capital of both current and past students, while also shoring up its own.

CG School staff/administration were very aware of the plethora of health issues impacting on young people, and there was a sense of the potential to be

overwhelmed. These health issues are normally outside the realm of their educational and religious expertise, but were perceived as having significant (real and potential) impact for and on the young women in their care. This position means that the school recognises the following advantages.

One aspect of the HPS model is that it gives the school an operating framework. We can learn how to deal with any health issue by having a structure in place that is able to incorporate any new aspects as they come up. We have health in our curriculum, we have polices and access to outside agencies (Administration Focus Group Meeting 2).

According to Goodman (1995), the growth of the ‘expert’ through the industrial age has ‘created a caste . . . who are ready and willing to solve’ (p.19). By creating the health expert as separate from the education expert, there develops a co-dependency. Staff recognise the need for the education system and the school to provide a

protective element through health education and support through the provision of access to counselling services and health care agencies. To this end, the HPS model was useful in helping SH staff to become more confident in how they dealt with contemporary health issues and the health experts.

As school administrators, they were comforted by the fact that many Catholic schools were involved in the HPS movement across Australia. Such involvement provided a degree of assurance that the model was compatible with the ethos of Catholic education.

It was important that the HPS be complementary to what the school community already valued and was willing to support. There is a growing awareness that our young women are potentially affected by any number of health issues and that we needed to be able to respond to these in a way that was both

respectful of them and was conducted in the reflection of the life of Christ (Teacher Focus Group 2).

The challenge for religious schools is to find the balance between the contemporary secular life and role of faith in defining a moral life (Sewall 1999). Nowhere is this more apparent than in health education, and the HPS model provides for

transparency and commonality in its framework while enabling customisation to fit within and support (in this case) Catholic faith and moral education. At CG School this linkage enabled a focus on health issues like harassment, grief and drug education in a manner that provided tangible examples of lived Christian faith,

Administrators for the HPS

Mohr and Dichter (2001), in writing about the development of learning organisations argue that ‘(m)aking decisions without a clear sense of mission or a shared vision can create a battleground for personal interests’ (p.745). The administrative team had been working with teachers and parents to articulate what the CG School

environment would ‘look like’ so that it could support students in their personal, social and academic growth.

The Morning tea was a celebration of M’s life (a sufferer of cancer), the Year 12 unity and compassion, the strength of our community, our health and perhaps an awakening to the reality that illness knows no boundaries whether this be age, gender or status.

I would suggest that . . . we are basically caring sensitive individuals. It is only time constraints, lifestyle commitments or perhaps an enthusiasm in some (that has grown out of being hurt or made to feel vulnerable) that makes it difficult for adults in society to show their care and compassion to such an extent.

For adolescents and young adults the values of care, concern and sympathy for those suffering are imbedded in them. However, they are more heavily focused on self, they act on these values much more readily or profoundly when confronted with other adolescents in need, distress or sickness (Maire’s narrative).

There has been an effort to articulate a vision of how this is achieved, and together with policies and practice how it is communicated to the CG School community in a number of ways, including through the school website, the student diary and weekly newsletters.

There are a number of policies we have already developed that reflect the HPS model and we believe that there are a number of activities that support better understandings of health. All of these are important in that the school

community is able to participate in and celebrate a range of events (Administration Focus Group Meeting 1).

The effective-schooling movement has identified a range of criteria that can be used as measures of how a school contributes to the intellectual growth of students (Ainley 1995; Lee et al. 1993). By demonstrating that teachers and students are engaged in a range of activities at both an individual and a community level, it is possible for the school to view itself as being effective. Additionally, it has been observed that the better the classroom environment, the better is the academic achievement of the students (Cohen & Seaman 1997).

The effective-school movement is firmly grounded in scientific management principles and technocratic style. Based on the assumption that the attributes of

effective schools are universal and transferable and that they can be measured using ‘neutral measures of efficiency and effectiveness’ (Hargreaves 1994, p.58) it follows that all schools have the potential to be ‘effective’. However, Reynolds and Parker