Summary and further reflection

The purpose of this chapter has been to describe the data that was collected in order to address the three research questions of this study. Furthermore it was to shed light on why this data was chosen and how it was obtained.

In addressing the first research question concerning the relationship between SIAS and Ofsted grades, I spent several weeks visiting web-sites, reading inspection reports on the 100 Church schools and transcribing number grades. Although this process was time consuming, it was both straightforward and interesting.

131

For the second and third questions, my research skills in collecting the data were tested more fully. On arriving at the case-study school, the Bishop Pritchard School, I took on the role of fellow traveller with the staff at the school as opposed to an inspector or judge. This approach was welcomed by the deputy headteacher on the first day that I met him and he commented on how helpful the term ‘fellow traveller’ was for his understanding of the research project. I sought to develop an informal, friendly and positive relationship with all staff over the 12 days at the school within an environment where we could learn together and from each other. This role and style was also welcomed by the other staff at the school and as a result the data collection exercise proceeded without hindrance and was fruitful.

Once the email addresses for each of the 100 Church schools were checked and input into the software package, the internet survey was both easy to administer and generated its own results. The group interview with a small sample of headteachers was, once again, relatively easy to set up and, once the headteachers started talking, flowed effortlessly in generating plenty of dialogue and useful data.

Throughout each stage of data collection my own reflections based on Canon Hall (pseudonym

for my second headship school) and St Ainsworth’s (pseudonym for my first headship school)

were woven into the analysis. When reflecting on the large quantities of data that were transcribed, I asked myself whether this situation would be replicated in my experience. I kept a notebook on me at all times in the case-study school and enjoyed copious amounts of time for reflection on the many hours of travelling between my school, Canon Hall, and Bishop Pritchard. The next time that I was at Bishop Pritchard, I would dig further into areas which had thrown up something new or completely changed the way that I had looked at things before. In this way an iterative form of research evolved where I would record and transcribe data from Bishop Pritchard then listen, read, reflect and evaluate in the light of my own experience before returning to Bishop Pritchard School to find out more.

However a deeper problem of a more philosophical nature was beginning to emerge in my mind. In chapter 3 section I part a, I used the phrase ‘talking only with the Sanhedrin’. On reflecting over the data that I had gathered, I was conscious that the suppliers of that data were governors, heads of department, other middle managers, deputy headteachers and a large sample of headteachers. All these roles have a (strong) managerial dimension. Inevitably there would be performance targets assigned to all these posts and to headteacher posts particularly. As already mentioned in chapter 1 section III, the pressure on headteachers to deliver good results is enormous and this pressure will be passed down the chain of command to the English or Mathematics teacher in the classroom with the examination class in year 11. Was I therefore only hearing the managerial view? Was I only seeking out statistics about exams or attendance or exclusions and ignoring the stories of people and the lives behind them? Was I submitting, unconsciously, to the performativity agenda? The words of McBeath began to haunt me, was I: “only valuing what could be measured rather than attempting to measure what was of real value?” (McBeath, 2005, p.1).

132

In response, I make four points. Firstly, the nature of the research questions posed at the start of the thesis necessitate some degree of quantification and measurement through reference to numbers, statistics and trends. This is somewhat inevitable. Secondly, I have been open and transparent about my background, my research philosophy and my theological understanding, none of which are inconsistent with measurements of performance and performativity. Thirdly, in terms of methodology, I have used diverse research methods and triangulated the results. Fourth, and finally, I have acknowledged throughout the dangers of an over emphasis on

performativity to the detriment of the school’s (Christian) ethos which could erode and

undermine the very values necessary for high performance in the first place.

If the data from this study indicates that the managerial stakeholders did not put performance and performativity above the needs of the ‘whole child’ then this would weaken the allegation of an over-emphasis on performativity in this thesis. I briefly re-visit this question in chapter 8 with a short analysis of the stakeholder responses. Before that, it is time to outline what the data obtained showed.

133

7.

Data Analysis

I. What the Quantitative Data shows from