Abstract
In various books and numerous articles, I have argued that School Improvement must concern itself as much with pedagogical purpose as with process. Without that, authors and readers simply fall back on the assumption that the former is identical with the attainment statistics which are the focus of most School Effectiveness studies.
This distinction has never been more relevant. High-stakes schooling, driven by accountability targets, has been thoroughly exposed, not least by Diane Ravitch’s book The life and death of the great American school system, published in 2010. High-pressure test-driven systems produce superficial learning which is cognitively unchallenging, fails to engage young people, and leads towards a narrowing of curriculum. It also neglects the important social and civic purposes of schooling.
The variety of articles in this issue engage thoroughly with such substantive questions, but certainly do not neglect the better understanding of process.
My own contribution is a response to examination data of 16-year-olds in England. It focuses on disadvantaged young people, and also on the government’s drive to remove schools entirely from local democratic control, renaming them ‘academies’ and privatizing their governance. It is now clear that this privatization process is not bringing improved results, either in general or for disadvantaged pupils. It is, however, bringing about a narrowing of curriculum. The pressure to maximize exam success at whatever cost to curriculum has affected many schools, but the problem is far worse in the academies.
Lori Beckett, a professor with extensive prior experience of teacher enquiry in Australia, writes about her introduction of similar processes in northern England, through the Leading Learning project which she has pioneered. This project operates in an area of substantial disadvantage, and seeks to relate teacher enquiry and action research to the cause of school improvement and social justice. It is also operating in a challenging political climate and an education system which has preferred pragmatic guidance to in-depth intellectual development of teachers. Crucially, the project will build up a core of thinking professionals in urban schools, networked across the city.
Aini-Kristiina Jäppinen describes how concepts of distributed pedagogical leadership operate in practice in Finland, in the context of student transitions between stages of education and particularly focusing on the stage after compulsory schooling (for 16–19-year-olds, frequently translated as the ‘upper secondary’ stage). This article sheds light on forms of cooperation and trust in terms of guidance for students. It represents a step forward in thinking about the nature of collaboration and leadership, and its impact on students.
Pamela Woolner and her colleagues, working in English universities and local government, consider the relationship between physical environment and learning. They recognize the importance of physical space, and how it can hinder pedagogical change, but also that changing the physical environment may not lead to changes in teaching or learning. The case studies illustrate how staff and students can be involved in remodelling working spaces for educational purposes.
A very different spatial scale is considered by Paul Clarke, an educational consultant from northern England who is passionate about sustainability and works on environmental education and food production projects with schools in his local area, as well as networking internationally. His article employs the concept of ‘Pop-up farm’ to show how schools within urban areas can become living models of sustainable living.
Bruce Knight and Teresa Moore (Australia), in response to suggestions of a ‘feminized’ teaching profession and boys’ need for male role models, look at the experience and support needs of male beginner teachers. Through questionnaires and interviews, they highlight the importance of mentors but also the importance of avoiding gender stereotypes and essentialized understandings of masculinity.
Tara Concannon-Gibney and Maryjean McCarthy (USA) describe a professional development program concerned with literacy in science classes. They design and evaluate professional development focused on providing explicit teaching of reading comprehension. Their study contributes to our understanding of modes of professional development which can help transform practice.
Finally, I am pleased to include Jonathan Barnes’s review of my own most recent book, Changing schools: Alternative ways to make a world of difference. This book provided the opportunity to work with two outstanding thinkers Pat Thomson and Bob Lingard in editing an international collection of case studies of innovative school change focused on curriculum reform and social justice. The book contains 14 chapters by thoughtful educators in diverse settings, who explain their educational philosophy, describe their practice and analyse change processes. Our own thinking developed considerably in the process of editing this collection and writing the opening and concluding chapters.