Effective Subject Leadership

Kit Field, Phil Holden, Hugh Lawlor

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2002
• eBook ISBN: 9781134631087
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education General

This book highlights issues which underpin the professional capabilities of existing and aspiring subject leaders. The content is designed to build on the skills, knowledge, understanding and attributes which serving Heads of Department and subject co-ordinators already possess. Sections are provided on: *essential knowledge and understanding for the role *strategic planning and development *monitoring and evaluating teaching and learning *leading and managing staff to raise achievement. The emphasis throughout is on corresponding with the National Standards set by the Teacher Training Agency. Through focused activities the book aims to set challenges in practical contexts and to help subject leaders to plan ahead and improve subject provision in order to raise standards.

Part I
Essential knowledge and understanding for subject leadership

INTRODUCTION

OfSTED inspection evidence and Section 3 of the National Standards for Subject Leaders (TTA 1998a) demonstrate a clear need for knowledge and understanding in order to fulfil the role of a subject leader. The body of knowledge required varies according to many factors: the school, the personnel and the particular subject for which a leader is responsible. The common job-specification provided by most schools for heads of department and subject co-ordinators does assume a common knowledge-base. This link between knowledge and understanding and the role of a middle manager lies at the heart of this new concept of subject leadership.

The role of a subject leader is relatively new in primary schools. Up until the early 1980s, the headteacher was seen to be the key leader in a school. DES (1982) stated clearly that

in all cases the head’s leadership is of paramount importance

and this assertion was fully supported by HMI:

leadership of the headteacher determines the quality of education throughout the school.

(HMI 1984)

Waters (1979) went one step further in claiming that the head occupies the best position to initiate change, development and improvement. Such a level of responsibility has since become impossible to maintain.

However, the introduction of the National Curriculum, following the Education Reform Act (1988), placed huge demands on headteachers, forcing them to turn to teaching colleagues for support. Full coverage of all curriculum subjects requires an understanding of all subjects and their contribution to the wider curriculum: too great a task for the holder of a single post in any school. There has been a need to provide advice and documentation in order to interrelate the constituent elements, and resources have been co-ordinated to ensure that teaching provision covers statutory requirements (OfSTED 1994).

The breadth and depth of knowledge required has led to Paisey’s definition of a one-dimensional ‘congenital approach’ (Paisey 1984, p.35) to leadership being challenged. Until this point in time, much of the literature viewed leadership qualities as being innate personality gifts, leading to a ‘natural authority’. Adair (1988), on the other hand, sees authority being achieved through a combination of position, personality and knowledge.

Headteachers have been compelled to devolve responsibility and the subject structure of the National Curriculum has meant that the usual secondary model of creating subject leaders has been adopted in the primary sector too. In both phases, subject leaders co-ordinate teams, and rely on respect and trust to inspire commitment from that team. Adair sees knowledge as the basis for this respect:

Like courage for the soldier, such knowledge does not make you into a leader, but you cannot be without it.

(Adair 1988, p.17)

Other commentators (e.g. Dennison and Shenton 1987, Gray 1988) also see knowledge to be at the core of effective leadership, whatever the profession. The acquisition and use of knowledge to solve problems are key factors. Gray lists the objectives of any curriculum leader, which include the acquisition of information and skills, improved understanding of roles and relationships, and an awareness of team members’ strengths and weaknesses. With such knowledge, subject leaders can begin to develop the skills to put this to good use.

The TTA’s National Standards for Subject Leaders identify, in Section 3, the bodies of knowledge essential for subject leaders. What the Standards do not do is define the ‘types of knowledge’ required. Sackman (1992) and Ribbins et al. (1991) categorise types of knowledge required to fulfil the role of an educational leader. An awareness of the culture of an institution is of paramount importance. This extends beyond being aware of ‘levers’ (Ribbins et al. 1991, p. 174) which inform a leader who should be approached with an idea; but also how colleagues interrelate and respond to different leadership and management styles. This combination of ‘recipe’ and ‘axiomatic’ knowledge (Sackman 1992) demands a sensitivity and empathy born from experiential learning. Sackman also presents the need for ‘dictionary knowledge’, or what has to be done to meet statutory requirements. In combination with a ‘directory knowledge’, the leader can determine not only what changes should be made to existing practice, but also how the changes can be made. Ribbins et al. (1991) label this combination as ‘decision knowledge’, which requires an understanding of a theoretical perspective as well as practical requirements.

‘Knowing how’ is also essential. Leaders are accountable for performance within their particular subject area. Monitoring and evaluation generate an ongoing, ever changing form of knowledge. It is the product of reflection and the relating of hard facts to theory and a collective vision that produces useful information for the subject leader. Such an approach is particularly relevant when a subject leader attempts to explain how assessment data relate to teaching methodologies employed; a necessary part of realistic target-setting.

Bennet et al. (1994) conclude that successful organisational leaders require greater specialist knowledge and a broader range of related interests than other team members if they are to gain the respect necessary to lead. The knowledge, in all its forms and types, is insufficient to form leaders, but is an essential part of leadership. The knowledge allows for a vision to be articulated and spread throughout the team and the school. The Standards define the body of knowledge, but what follows is a demonstration of how such knowledge can be classified under different types: institutional knowledge, decision knowledge and reflective knowledge.

INSTITUTIONAL KNOWLEDGE

Schooling has undergone huge changes in the last two decades, changes which have led to a shift in terms of the organisational culture of schools. Rarely do schools fit a traditional/classic model (Bennet et al. 1994) as power and authority has been devolved from headteachers to teachers. Bennet et al. (1994) argue that the shift has not been so extreme that heads and governors have adopted a ‘human resources model’, as groups and teams of staff are not able to influence change in a fully democratic way. ‘Systems models’ are more common: managers and leaders have had to come to terms with imposed change and to develop policies and procedures in order to interpret the 1988 Education Reform Act (ERA) in an appropriate way. Subject leaders therefore need to appreciate the organisational structure and culture of their schools as a whole. The subject is, of course, one part of the whole curriculum and must therefore contribute to the ‘direction of change’ (Bennet et al. 1994). Day et al. (1993) note also that, as well as being adaptive and responsive to external influences, the subject leader must be an enthusiastic model of the values espoused by the school as a whole. This is more than understanding the organisational structure and hierarchy of the school, but is also an appreciation of the intricacies of professional interrelationships.

Subject leaders need to be able to recognise and articulate school values, shared norms and the impact of teaching and learning of their subject on the school as a whole (West 1995). Such a knowledge is, of course, active. As Schein (1985) makes clear, the culture of a school is created by leaders’ actions, and is also embedded and strengthened by them.

Such knowledge underpins the leadership style of subject leaders. They should lead in a way which not only reflects the characteristics of the leadership style prevalent in the school, but also serves the needs and meets the expectations of colleagues in a team. A new subject leader, therefore, has to find out staff preferences, existing curricular objectives, links with other subject areas and the resources available (see Dennison and Shenton 1987), which is a confirmation of the need for information explained by Mintzberg (1973).

A head of department in a secondary school is not the only potential subject leader and will draw on the leadership qualities of colleagues within the team. In primary schools, it is not uncommon to be a co-ordinator for more than one subject (see West 1995). Sensible co-ordination and management is also to draw and learn from colleagues’ subject expertise. It is for this reason that any subject leader must have a certain maturity. Subject knowledge must integrate with organisational values. The subject leader is responsible for this process of institutionalising subject knowledge. Day et al. (1993) stress the need to be aware of the relationship between colleagues’ own needs and those of the institution. A subject leader will defend the subject specialist’s viewpoint in whole school discussions, but at the same time will present core values when in discussion with subject specialist colleagues (Harrison 1995a). This obviously extends the repertoire beyond subject knowledge to application and pedagogy. As Day et al. (1993) explain, how a subject is taught transmits values and messages to learners, probably as forcefully as what is taught. It is certainly part of what distinguishes one school from another.

A knowledge of the organisational structure of the school assists in ‘getting things done’. Ribbins et al. (1991) speak of management ‘levers’ (p. 163) which facilitate the setting of targets, the selection of personnel, the allocation and use of resources and the monitoring and evaluation of performance. A good institutional knowledge enables the subject leader to undertake core tasks in what Bennet et al. (1994) refer to as ‘task behaviour’. Knowledge leads to respect for the leader, who consequently is able to initiate, elaborate, co-ordinate, support, encourage or, in short, act as a ‘gate keeper’ for the subject (Bennet et al. 1994, p. 24).

The value of institutional knowledge is immeasurable. How to acquire it is more easily expressed. An adaptation of Harrison’s (1995b) proposals serves as a useful guide. Subject leaders should:

• read the staff handbook
• examine displays
• read inspection reports and relevant statutory guidance
• keep a record of leadership actions taken and responses to them
• talk to the head about particular subject provision and its recent history
• analyse the budget, how it has been spent and in what proportions

A formalised and structured process designed to help the subject leader to acquire institutional knowledge will accelerate the acquisition of essential knowledge and even provide a greater degree of objectivity. Relying purely on experiential learning, or learning by osmosis, will not guarantee equal levels of validity, reliability and objectivity.

DECISION KNOWLEDGE

Packwood’s (1984) case study of introducing staff responsibility for subject development in a junior school throws up an interesting disagreement between teachers and headteachers. Teachers concluded that subject leaders did not require specialist knowledge of the subject, but do need to consider how knowledge is applied. Headteachers, on the other hand, feared that a lack of specialist knowledge could lead to unimaginative, mechanical teaching. More contemporary thought supports the view of headteachers. A sound subject-knowledge ‘will inform their executive decisions and actions’ (Ribbins et al. 1991, p. 173). Guthrie argues that a broader knowledge than merely a subject-specific understanding is necessary to support decision-making: that of ‘instructional and learning theories…the components of curriculum construction and the fundamental importance of subject matter integrity’ (Guthrie 1984, p. 162). These arguments are supported by research findings. Hargreaves (1992) concluded that expertise in a National Curriculum foundation subject leads to team members regarding the subject leader as an expert and a resource.

Too great a focus on specialist knowledge when formulating policy and procedures can, Bennet (1995) argues, lead to teachers becoming over directive. Nevertheless, subject leaders in both primary and secondary phases do occupy a position of authority and, as Everard and Morris (1990) claim, subordinates do expect to be told what to do and how to do it (high task behaviour) at moments of uncertainty or when they lack confidence. Good subject and pedagogical knowledge does enable the level of discussion to be elevated above what Hargreaves (1992) recognises to be common amongst teachers: a...

Table of contents

• COVER PAGE
• TITLE PAGE
• COPYRIGHT PAGE
• FIGURES
• ACTIVITIES
• THE AUTHORS
• ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
• INTRODUCTION
• PART I: ESSENTIAL KNOWLEDGE AND UNDERSTANDING FOR SUBJECT LEADERSHIP
• PART II: STRATEGIC LEADERSHIP AND THE IMPROVEMENT OF THE SCHOOL
• PART III: MANAGING TEACHING AND LEARNING
• PART IV: LEADING AND MANAGING STAFF TO RAISE ACHIEVEMENT
• PART V: LOOKING AHEAD
• BIBLIOGRAPHY