 |  |
| www.dg.dial.pipex.com | 592 readers since 19 Aug 2007 |
| |
| www.dg.dial.pipex.com | 592 readers since 19 Aug 2007 |
Plowden (1967) Notes on the text Volume 2 Preliminary pages Foreword and Contents
The 1964 National Survey: Appendix 3 1964 National Survey
Appendix 8 Social services and primary education
Report (full text) about Plowden |
The Plowden Report (1967)
A Report of the Central Advisory Council for Education (England) London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office 1967
Volume 2 Appendix 13
Research Unit on School Management and Government, University of London Institute of Education This Appendix is a preliminary report prepared for the Council by the Research Unit on School Management and Government, University of London Institute of Education. It is the first part of a more extensive study and is based mainly on the views of and information from chief education officers*. The views of teachers, managers and representatives of parental and other organisations will be sought later. Nevertheless it has helped us considerably in our study of factors affecting the status of primary education (See Vol. 1, Chapter 29). We are grateful to the Unit for making this Report at our request, particularly since they originally intended to concentrate on secondary school government. *'Chief Education Officer' is used throughout this Report although some chief officers are called Director of Education, Education Officer or Secretary for Education.
Primary school management Preliminary Report submitted to the Central Advisory Council for Education (England) by the Research Unit on School Management and Government, University of London Institute of Education. (Head of Unit: Dr G Baron) This memorandum has been prepared and written by Mr DA Howell, Research Officer to the Unit. Introduction 1. The Unit's research has been concerned principally with matters relating to the government of county secondary schools but, following discussions with the Department of Education and Science and representatives of the Central Advisory Council, it was agreed that the Unit should submit what evidence it could relating to county primary school management. 2. Over the last few months visits have been paid to some seventy local education authorities. The purpose of the visits has been to discuss general questions of school management and government with Chief education officers and members of their departments, and the staff of the Unit have also had opportunities of studying relevant documents, such as instruments and rules of management, school bulletins, handbooks for managers and governors. It is on the basis of information gained in this way that this memorandum has been compiled. 3. We are very much aware of the limitations of this preliminary report. In particular, restrictions on time have made it impossible to discuss the main issues or to check information with head and assistant teachers or with managers. And we have not included studies of the management of voluntary, controlled and aided schools whose opportunities and problems differ substantially from those of county and county borough schools. We think, however, that the information and opinions given by over two hundred administrative officers concerned with school management reflects closely the 'reality' of the situation in which they work. 4. The authorities visited to date comprise 25 county boroughs, 18 of the outer London boroughs, and 27 county councils. The county boroughs and the counties cannot be regarded as completely representative, but they form at least a substantial proportion of the whole. Most of the county boroughs visited are among those with a population of 150,000 or over, but we have also visited a number of smaller boroughs. The conclusions which we draw relating to school management practice in county boroughs may well be liable to modification if we should find that the authorities which we have not visited (that is principally the smaller county boroughs) display different patterns. It is unlikely, however, that any completely new arrangements will be discovered. The county councils include most of the larger authorities, some medium-sized counties, and a few of the smaller ones. Some of the counties visited are administered completely through a system of Divisional Executives, others have a mixed system of administration, while yet others have no system of delegation to subordinate authorities. 5. We considered it essential to discuss our findings relating to county councils and county boroughs separately. It is clear that geographical facts alone have played a considerable part in shaping overall administrative structures, and especially the school management patterns. In the county boroughs many matters can be referred quickly and directly to the administrative branch concerned, and in more senses than one schools are nearer the authority. It is easy for someone from the education office to look in at the school, or for the headmaster to visit the office. This point has clearly influenced the evaluation of school management in such authorities. Great stress is laid on providing links between individual schools and members of the education committee, and still more with the education office. Relatively little importance is attached to establishing a link between the school and the local community through the recruitment of school managers who are not primarily, or to any great extent, local politicians.
County boroughs 6. Arrangements for school management in the county boroughs visited vary as follows:
Notes 1. Group A includes one authority with grouped bodies recruited entirely from members of the education committee, and one authority which operated a pilot scheme of grouped managing bodies. 2. Five authorities in category A appoint members of the primary schools sub-committee as visitors to individual schools. 3. The authority in category D adopts the practice of appointing one of the managers as clerk or correspondent. County boroughs with one managing body for all schools 7. In the local authorities where the sub-committee serves as the managing body for all schools, it is held that a system of separate or grouped managing bodies would be purposeless. Where the need for managing bodies is not dismissed out of hand, it is argued that the paramount need is not so much to strengthen links between school and the local community, as to ensure that schools have direct access to individual members of the education committee, and to the education office. More than one CEO has said that he makes a point of visiting all the primary schools from time to time, or at least ensuring that his senior officers do. In roughly half these authorities we are told that there is some system of visiting schools by individual councillors, and although a few CEOs think this a useless activity, the majority consider that it has many advantages. It enables councillors to get to know their schools and to deal with local inquiries and complaints. Evidence of interest on the part of the committee improves the morale of the school, and it enables councillors to identify themselves with the individual schools. This is said to be particularly true where a councillor visits one or more schools in his ward, and it is said that many schools are very proud of their council visitor. It is also claimed that this arrangement enables a headmaster to let off steam to a sympathetic and influential listener, but it is thought less likely that heads will discuss their general ideas and plans for running the school, as they can so easily have informed discussions with the 'Office' about such matters. 8. The sub-committee system often seems to be associated with the view, not uncommon in municipal government, that only elected members should be entrusted with responsibility for public institutions. We have heard claims that if elected members of the education committee did not form a majority on school managing bodies this would reflect a gross abdication of responsibility on their part, as non-elected members were irresponsible and might easily take embarrassing decisions. The same arguments are used to justify the sub-committee system, on the grounds that only in this way can elected members of the borough council, who could not attend meetings of separate or even grouped managing bodies, carry out the practice of managers. Further, and somewhat illogically, managers' meetings are not given high priority as managers have little or nothing of importance to discuss. Indeed, in some authorities we have found that the meetings of the primary schools sub-committee are sometimes cancelled through lack of business, and elsewhere last only five or ten minutes. One or two authorities have tried both a single sub-committee and a system of grouped managing bodies. One authority, which replaced its grouped managing bodies by a sub-committee, felt that it could even dispense with appointing individual visitors to schools. A large authority, which for two years ran the pilot scheme mentioned above, decided that results did not justify extending it. It is not uncommonly felt in these authorities that managers are an unnecessary extra tier in the administrative structure, and that the requests of the schools can be dealt with expeditiously by normal administrative and committee procedure. Moreover, reference of requests to bodies meeting only once a term would be quite out of the question, and the CEO and his staff are generally available anyway to discuss any general or particular question which a head wishes to raise. It is said, further, that in these authorities heads have become used to the system and that they do not agitate for separate managing bodies, and that since some of these authorities operate a closed shop system for the appointment of primary school heads many have known no other system of school management. It is also claimed that primary heads are less demanding than their secondary colleagues and much more inclined to take things in their stride. One authority thinks that it has achieved a successful balance between administrative efficiency and individual interest in the schools with its system of school visitors, who are all members of the education committee. This visiting is taken very seriously. heads use their visitors as sounding boards for their ideas and difficulties, and they can be asked, particularly if they are councillors, to give a gentle prod to the education office. Since some of these visitors are councillors and known locally as public persons, it is claimed that parents are not at all reluctant to approach them on any matter affecting their school, and that through their interest in the school visitors are able to perform a genuine public relations or ambassadorial function. 9. The effectiveness of this system in linking individual schools with the education committee and the office was said by one CEO to be more suitable for the smaller and more compact authorities, although he claimed that a grouped system would be better for the larger authorities. However, in the largest county boroughs visited we found that all except one had a sub-committee system. It was one of these authorities which had carried out the pilot scheme referred to above, but in his report on this scheme the CEO said that he could discern no benefits for the schools which had been included. He claimed that the councillors really knew the schools and were points of reference for heads and parents, and that they would take up the head's grumbles with the education office. However, this was clearly not true in another large authority which had a sub-committee system with visitors, where all newly appointed heads were advised that they were not to take complaints about delays or other administrative matters to their visitor. Finally, it is generally considered in the large county boroughs that the institution of a small grouped system would result in a top heavy organisation involving considerable administrative cost with no apparent result. County boroughs with grouped managing bodies 10. The minority of county boroughs visited (9) have a more highly developed system of school management. Of these, five have grouped bodies, responsible for from three to 12 schools (counting a junior and infant school on the same site as one school), three have joint bodies for primary and secondary schools, and there is one county borough with separate managing bodies, each with one of the managers acting as clerk. In this last authority, it is said that with more than 90 primary schools it would be an impossible administrative burden for the staff of the education office to undertake clerking (although the number of administrative officers presumably bears some relationship to the size of the system). In general these authorities think that they have evolved a satisfactory system with roughly the right number of schools in each group; they make the same claim as the authorities operating a sub-committee system, that it enables a balance to be maintained between administrative efficiency and local interest and identification with individual schools. One authority, which had tried a number of experiments, thought that there should not be more than six schools in a group. Another authority claimed that the heads did not mind being dealt with in larger groups, and that in fact they looked forward to their group meetings; they even regarded the waiting room as a sort of club. 11. In these authorities the formal status of managing bodies for primary schools, as measured by provisions of the rules of management, was generally similar with that of the authority's governing bodies for secondary schools; some six out of eight authorities provided for the submission of estimates by individual bodies of managers, seven had identical arrangements for the appointment of heads of primary and secondary schools, and seven again provided that in both primary and secondary schools the managers should have the general oversight of the school and its curriculum. In practice, however, these provisions are frequently dead letters. There seems to be general agreement that it is out of the question to prepare estimates for each primary school, while with regard to the general oversight of the school and its curriculum the managers are solely dependent on the head and what he chooses to put in his report. We have not found that heads' reports lead to managers' indulging in what the CEO or heads regard as interference; in fact, managers tend to be inhibited about voicing views on any matters relating to the school curriculum. Three of these authorities have provision for parents to serve on managing bodies, generally through parent/teacher associations, and in another parents are said to be appointed often. One borough advertises in the local press for prospective managers and claims that it gets four or five applicants for every vacancy. 12. In this group of authorities there are mixed feelings about managing bodies. It is maintained that those prepared to serve are not of high quality, that heads find them of small help or, indeed, have little need to make use of them, or that they do not know how to deal with their managers as individuals, that operating this kind of system can mean a great deal of virtually pointless work, and that most heads would be glad to see it ended. Yet in spite of these disadvantages, the same authorities admit that this system is better than having one managing body for all schools. One authority, which had changed to a grouped system, said that under a sub-committee system only the most vociferous head had anything to say. Heads think that, under a grouped system, managers can give them more powerful support and that councillors, especially women, enjoy their direct contact with schools. In one Borough a more positive claim is made that managers can be particularly helpful in strengthening the schools' links with the community outside. In this authority, however, it is felt that managers are a waste of time because the town is compact and the education committee and the office are in regular touch with the schools. The grouped system of school management is felt to be an over-elaborate way of establishing public relations agencies to represent the schools. Local councillors are said to do this much better, since they are more liable to be buttonholed or harassed by the public than other managers who may be quite unknown persons. Except in the borough which advertised for managers it is often said that it is difficult to recruit suitable people, especially in the more socially depressed areas. As far as the appointment of parents on managing bodies is concerned, there appear to be no strong feelings in general, apart from a suggestion that their interest may be too transient and subjective. In a majority of this group, all managers are appointed through party political channels, but the operation of the party system is considered to be one of the facts of life in urban local government and one which does not necessarily have pernicious effects. Political control of nominations need not depress the quality of school managers, although it is claimed that some would-be managers of good calibre are deterred from offering their services through reluctance to make themselves acceptable to one party or another. In politically marginal boroughs it is said that there has to be a fair amount of give and take between parties in the appointment of managers. It is held everywhere that despite party interest in the appointment of managers, the matters discussed at their meetings are not such as to give rise to any great political dissensions. 13. There is recognition, albeit reluctant and qualified, that managers may have some residual function, either as a safeguard against apparently arbitrary action by the head or the education office, or as a group of friends of the school. However, only in one authority is it claimed that heads are glad to share the responsibility of appointing staff with their managers, or at least with the chairman. Most CEOs in county boroughs have a noticeable lack of enthusiasm for school management, and even where a grouped system exists few positive advantages are claimed for it. The same basic attitude is apparent in the steps taken by the outer London boroughs to inaugurate efficient systems of school management and government. Here, apart from their sole administrative function of the appointment of heads, and occasionally deputy heads, where they follow the practice of the boroughs with a grouped system, managers are said to perform a role in supporting the morale of the school and its head, in giving it a civic status through their appearance on the platform at speech day and other occasions, and in providing a means of greater contact between members of the education committee and the schools. As elsewhere, the success with which these functions are performed depends on the amount of time which managers are prepared to devote to the job. In general, however, the outer London boroughs have not yet considered the implications of their assessments of school management (half the boroughs visited have a grouped system and half a sub-committee system) and this low priority itself appears to be an indication of the general lack of interest in this aspect of educational administration.
Counties Policy 14. The situation is quite different in the counties. The sheer physical distance of some individual schools from the county or divisional education office tends to reinforce the case for having a body of lay support for each individual school. Indeed, we found a virtual unanimity of view in favour of school managers, and in particular of separate managing bodies wherever possible. This consensus may be highly significant since visits have been paid to a wide range of counties, thickly and thinly populated, small and large, and of varying degrees of administrative and social complexity. A number of CEOs have been emphatic that the need to have machinery for lay participation in education, and the considerations relevant to school management in villages and small towns, also apply in large measure to urban areas. They see no overwhelming reason for believing that county boroughs and counties have entirely different problems which it is useless to consider in the light of the same assumptions, although they are not unaware of the grounds upon which some county boroughs reject this point of view. This insistence on the need for local participation is held particularly strongly in the more urban counties. The basic difference between the attitudes found in the two types of authority is that the county boroughs see a justification for school management (where they have any true system at all) in providing a direct link between the education committee and the schools, while counties think that the need is to provide a link between the school and the community. Some counties are very explicit about their priorities, and have taken much more trouble than others to work out a school management scheme based on a coherent philosophy. 15. Almost all counties claim that single managing bodies are their ideal. This is said to be inevitable in rural areas, although even there grouping is not entirely unknown, and in one extreme case we have found one managing body serving no fewer than 21 schools. (This managing body was almost a divisional executive in its own right, serving a very compact and isolated area, with visiting sub-committees to ensure a greater interest in individual schools). Where grouping for management purposes does take place it is said to be the result of traditional or historical practices. On the whole it is heartily disliked and some CEOs have succeeded in establishing individual managing bodies even in fair sized towns. However, in other counties, CEOs feel that they have to accept some measure of grouping, particularly where this is the wish of a large or expanding minor authority. Indeed, most counties are prepared to give some weight to the views of local councils on grouping policy, especially where these are former Part III authorities. Excepted districts virtually go their own way, even if this involves doing what the county regards as undesirable. In some cases grouping policy is associated with the arrangements for clerking managing bodies of which we will have more to say later. Recruitment 16. Statutory practice in recruiting school managers is for the local authority to nominate four members and the minor authority two, for schools in areas administered directly by a county and serving the needs of one minor authority only. When a school caters for more than one minor authority, nominations will be made on a proportionate basis, and in counties with a divisional system of administration the divisional executive will make nominations for two places elsewhere held by the LEA. These LEA nominations are invariably made through local county councillors or locally resident aldermen, who are presumed to be in touch with suitable candidates. There is some suggestion that minor authorities tend to nominate from the ranks of their own members, and to be reluctant to consider the claims of other local residents who might have a contribution to make. Some of these minor authorities have sought to unseat managers in mid-term if they fail to hold their seats on the local council; in these cases the local education authority has had to intervene, pointing out that whatever happens to the composition of the local council, managers are there to serve their statutory term. A number of CEOs expressed their concern about the numbers of elderly managers, and their apparent lack of interest in education. Nominations from county councillors, and from minor authorities, are often scrutinised by the education committee, which may have to take a formal vote on disputed appointments. Only one county of those so far visited asks for details of prospective managers' interest in education, and goes to the point of referring the nominations back, if candidates do not seem to be suitably qualified. There is said to be no general lack of people to stand, except in a few isolated areas. Both in solid working class and middle class areas people are 'falling over themselves' to serve. The shortage of potential managers, so often remarked upon in county boroughs, does not appear to be a problem in the counties. In a few cases nominations are put forward by the CEO himself, who may come across suitable people in his travels around the county. One CEO who did this said that it was undemocratic but effective. He was able to hand-pick people with a positive contribution to make, and thus to produce managers of better than average calibre. Counties where the CEO takes some initiative in suggesting nominations are among the less political authorities, but in other counties nomination can be a live political issue and is left strictly to councillors and local politicians. It is often claimed that local vicars are very much to the fore on managing bodies, especially in villages, and that they are sometimes inclined to run the school too much on their own, having to be reminded from time to time that county schools are not the same as voluntary schools. Occasionally, would-be managers offer their services to the chief education officer and in this event they are usually advised to approach their local county councillor. 17. All authorities were asked how desirable they thought it was to have parents on managing bodies. Four counties have some specific provision to this effect, three of them obtaining nominations from parent/teacher associations, but only one county goes to the other extreme and expressly forbids parents to serve on the managing body of their child's school (in this authority, a strictly constitutional view was taken that parents should voice their complaints and queries either to the head direct or to their elected representatives); elsewhere it was reported that parents are commonly found on managing bodies and that it is almost impossible to avoid this in villages. In those authorities where there is no formal provision for parental membership, the view is often expressed that interested groups should not be directly represented as such, and that parents should serve, like other managers, as individuals. The balance of opinion is clearly in favour of having parents serving as managers. In some authorities, parents are regarded with enthusiasm, and efforts are made to ensure that each managing body has one or more serving on it; others give a more qualified welcome, and a few have serious reservations, generally on the grounds that parents' interest is biased and transient, and too dependent on what their child tells them, while in one case it is claimed that appointment of a representative of a PTA produces the most trying relationships. However, in spite of their shortcomings, most CEOs think that parents are at least more in touch with the school's basic problems than most other managers, who may have had little experience or acquaintance with local authority schools. Parents are also younger than most other managers and can produce a generally livelier discussion. It would be true to say that parenthood is often regarded as a good qualification for school managers. Clerking 18. There are divergent views on arrangements for clerking managing bodies, and on the merits of official versus local clerking systems. Similar counties may opt for entirely opposite arrangements. Some scattered rural counties, for example, have all primary schools clerked from the education office, while other much more compact authorities attach importance to one of the managers acting as clerk. A number of counties have hybrid systems; for example, a divisional officer clerks schools in his area, while a manager or other local person acts as clerk in the directly administered areas of the county. Here the CEO can assess the advantages of both systems. In nine counties schools are clerked either from county hall or from a divisional office. In two other counties all schools are clerked, in principle, from county hall, the county taking over local clerkships as these fall vacant through death, removal or resignation. Two counties have hybrid systems and nine rely wholly or mainly on local correspondents. The arguments for central clerking are that it keeps the managers in touch with county hall and enables authoritative answers to be given to their queries at meetings. It ensures that managing bodies meet, and is good training for the administrative assistants in the education department who are sometimes used for this work. Local clerks may be unbusinesslike or, at the other extreme, legalistic, and the extra administrative cost may be justified by the wider needs of the county's administration as a whole. In favour of local clerking it is claimed that the administrative burden of official clerking would be enormous, and would not be worthwhile, since managers have very little business to transact. In contrast to the argument that it provides officials with good administrative training and an insight into the work of schools, it is dismissed as an 'awful grind', and one which is wasteful of the time of high level staff. It is also said to inhibit managers' discussions and to detract from their independence if they have a man from the office present at the meeting, whose function is perceived as being to tell them what they cannot have. One county tries to meet the acknowledged disadvantages of local clerking by giving newly appointed managers some guidance on the preparation of agenda and minutes, and on means of keeping in touch with the LEA. In a number of areas a modest honorarium is paid to local clerks and this is thought to remind them sufficiently of their responsibilities to the county. Even those authorities which are in favour of local clerking agree that it is not easy to keep track of every managing body in the county and that there may well be cases where managers do not hold their statutory terminal meetings. Indeed, some managing bodies had not met for one or two years and one was said not to have met for ten. One divisional officer who clerked personally all meetings of managing bodies in his area argued that there was no point in having a meeting for its own sake, and that if he had too many schools to clerk, there should be fewer meetings rather than more office staff. Some CEOs try to ensure that they themselves or a senior member of their staff visits all managing bodies occasionally, whether as of right or by invitation. In other counties local clerks and correspondents consult the education office as a matter of form on the preparation of the agenda or on the taking of subsequent action. The limitations of having a completely amateur clerk can be avoided if, as happens in at least one county, members of the county education department act as school clerks, paid or unpaid, in their spare time. CEOs with experience of both systems tend to prefer professional clerking in spite of the increased administrative costs. One CEO mentioned that professional clerking does not cost much more than local clerking, especially if the latter system depends on an unbusinesslike clerk with whom correspondence over the simplest item can be protracted. Careful planning may mean that a clerk can attend two or three managing bodies in a day, even in the more scattered counties, and deal with a number of other matters at the schools. Central clerking is said to be very successful if the representative of the chief education officer regards himself at the meeting as clerk to the managers, rather than as an emissary from the education department, and advises them accordingly. We have spoken to a number of school clerks about the problems produced by these dual claims on their loyalties, and without exception they think that they can adapt themselves to the situation. This consideration, of course, applies just as much to school managers, who sit on county education committees, or indeed to anyone who sits on a parent body and one or more of its subsidiaries. There would seem to be scope for some investigation into the costs of introducing a central system. It may well be true that many local authorities are understaffed professionally, and that if three or four additional professional staff were recruited this might benefit county education departments generally as well as improving the arrangements for school management. On the whole we think that the arguments for professional clerking are strong, in view of the importance of seeing that managers meet once a term both to transact any necessary business, and to take a wider interest in the life of the school. This is not 'meeting for the sake of meeting'. Managers and divisional executives 19. Reservations on the usefulness of managers have come from the CEOs of some counties with schemes of divisional administration where there is said to be much duplication in the membership of managing bodies and divisional executives. In these cases managers may be nothing more than the fifth wheel on the coach, and in some extreme cases it has been maintained that the same people are found discussing the same issues five times (that is, at a managers' meeting, divisional executive sub-committee, divisional executive, county education sub-committees, and county education committee). We have not as yet collected sufficient evidence to justify a substantial discussion on the relationship of managing bodies to divisional executives. However, we have found that CEOs are more inclined in general to argue against divisional executives than against managing bodies on the grounds that the focus of local interest should be the school and that its links with the community should be strengthened. It may be of interest to note that we have come across one county where divisional executives have been rejected in favour of area committees consisting only of local education committee members and meeting once a quarter, and another county which scrapped its area committees, but developed greater powers on managing bodies and increased minor authority representation on them. At this stage we can say only that it is essential to consider the future of managing bodies in relation to the future of local government areas and functions as a whole. Formal powers 20. Why then should managers meet? We can consider this question by reference to the formal powers which managers possess, and the functions which they perform. If we look first at managers' formal powers, there does not seem to be any overwhelming justification for their existence. In comparison with governing bodies, managing bodies may seem at times to be very small beer, and even a comparative study of formal provisions in the rules and articles of government and management provides some evidence of their lower status. For example:
21. In practice the formal powers mentioned are limited by centralised procedures resulting from staffing shortages, central budgeting and bulk ordering procedures, the introduction of capitation systems, and the need to determine building programmes on an overall basis. Initial teaching appointments are generally made centrally by LEAs, and assistant teachers and non-teaching staff are often appointed solely by the head with, at most, the chairman of managers present. Managers are left with some share in the appointment of a headmaster, the occasional appointment of non-teaching staff, approval of school lettings, occasional closures, minor repairs and the approval of special requests by the head for furniture and equipment as their administrative functions. While these relatively trivial matters may leave the managers some little say in running a school, they do not amount to a great deal. The most important function is that of appointing a head, but it occurs so infrequently that of itself it could not justify the existence of managing bodies. Even so, it is worthwhile taking a closer look at CEOs' assessments of managers' share in appointing heads. On the whole they give their managers a qualified welcome. For example, we are told that managers may be both effective judges of personality and safeguards against the appointment of 'yes men'. As representatives of the community they can be concerned, in varying degrees of effectiveness, to see that the right headmaster for a particular school is appointed, but they cannot, unlike the LEA representatives on the selection committee, be regarded in any sense as experts in interviewing. There are said to be some dangers of nepotism and of managers' playing safe. In some areas managers are said not to have the faintest idea how to interview, or to conduct themselves at meetings, even though they take their duties seriously. But if they give a unanimous vote - although this cannot always be guaranteed - this ensures that a newly appointed Head has some local backing. 22. Many of the other powers formally given to managers seem to belong to the days of the school boards, and even where they are not totally irrelevant to present day needs, they do not add up to a real job of work. Examples are rules of management which provide for managers to inspect stock books and registers and to ensure that the school-keeper [caretaker] exercises due economy in the use of fuel and cleaning materials. It can hardly be a matter of surprise if managers complain about being frustrated, although they never seem to suggest any concrete extra powers which they might have, and they rarely carry their frustration to the point of resigning. Informal aspects 23. It may be more profitable to ask about the influences which managers exert, and the extent to which they act as ambassadors or public relations agents on behalf of their school. This aspect of their work is not emphasised in most rules of management, and this lack is particularly important when the rules and instruments are all which most LEAs ever give their managers by way of guidance. Some CEOs have admitted that they might do more to develop informal aspects of managers' work, or to show them where they stand in relation to the administrative system as a whole. Five of the counties we have visited issue handbooks. Some of these are written especially for managers, while others are intended mainly for heads, with a special introduction emphasising how managers can show a general interest in the schools' work in between their terminal [termly] meetings. These handbooks are said to be greatly appreciated. They certainly appear likely to give managers many excellent ideas on ways in which they can make a positive contribution to the work of the school. Two LEAs hold conferences for groups of managers, and the CEOs have been so enthusiastic about these that it is worth quoting from our reports in some detail: 24. In authority A, the chief education officer felt strongly the danger of individual managers not having contact with the authority and its officers. He thought there was a need for means by which chairmen of committees and he himself might meet managers informally to discuss plans and grievances, and to improve their interest in and information on local schools. He thought that the right kind of background would be provided by an exhibition of schools' work, where those concerned could meet for an afternoon and compare notes over tea. The system of conferences that resulted, and which have been held now for ten years, seems to have paid off. With six or seven groups of primary schools meeting at a time it takes three years to cover the county. 25. In authority B, meetings of all managers were held after the triennial elections. This gave new managers a considerable amount of informal guidance, and old managers a chance of keeping up to date. The CEO said that the event was welcomed by managers, and that this was borne out by the attendance figures. Meetings were held at a school which would be especially interesting to managers, for example, a school for handicapped children, or a new comprehensive school. In the morning the managers would listen to two or three speakers, break for lunch, and in the afternoon there would be a question and answer session. The speakers would talk on matters of general educational interest. The CEO in his talk might incorporate some hints on minor administrative detail (for example, the inadvisability of sending an omnibus letter on more than one subject to county hall, as this could cause difficulties and was likely to lead to delay). It was hoped that the morning talks would spark off questions for the afternoon session, answered by a panel which included the CEO, the chairman of the education committee, and two heads: such questions might even include such explosive issues as 'How does one sack a head?' It was thought that this conference added to the good feeling which existed between the committee and the managers, and gave managers a chance to discuss their mutual interests and difficulties. 26. Another county issues a special bulletin to managers and governors on general educational matters twice a year, while a few others let the clerks to managing bodies see the monthly schools bulletins sent to heads which are concerned mainly with current administrative detail. In one county a newsletter is sent to managers by the divisional officers. We are told that this trouble is amply repaid, and produces keener managers who are much better informed on current developments, and able to discuss problems wider than those affecting their own school. Relations with heads and the public 27. CEOs have been unanimous in telling us that in most cases relations between heads and their managers are smooth and harmonious. There is the occasional domineering chairman, but there is generally great respect among managers for the headmaster, and most cases of disharmony are said to be the fault of the authority, or of the head who will not make the special effort needed to gain his managers' confidence. Some heads tend to be rightly suspicious of their managers - in one CEOs words 'Some of them can be quite awful' - while on the other hand, there is said to be a small minority of heads who do not appreciate the importance of carrying their managers with them. Failure to establish good relations with managers can have damaging consequences, particularly in rural areas. CEOs think that the dangers of managers overstepping the mark and trespassing on the head's professional preserves are much exaggerated. Managers are far more likely to be inhibited from asking questions relating to the curriculum, and, like their colleagues in the boroughs, to be dependent for their interest on the contents of the head's report. When reports are full and forthcoming, and include mention of a school's shortcomings, they lead to constructive discussion, and not, as might be feared, to interference in the day to day running of the school on the part of the managers. There is bound to be some ambivalence in the attitude of CEOs when considering managers' general interest in the school and the head's professional autonomy and status, and this is reflected in the varying extent to which CEOs expect to consult their chairman over 'crisis' issues, for example such matters as food poisoning arising from schools' meals, the introduction of sex education, and outbreaks of bullying. While it is assumed that heads should be able to solve most of their schools' problems on their own, CEOs agree that they would be most misguided not to consult their chairman, at least with the intention of informing him of the action they propose to take. Heads can get out of touch with public feeling, and the presence of an effective and interested body of managers can help to overcome this. We are told that some village managers go to great time and trouble to give their head useful and intelligent backing, that they can be helpful in introducing a new head to the village, and that they can bring about a remarkably effective relationship between the parents and the school. It is not thought likely that all members of one managing body will be narrow-minded, and particularly where the head is in a difficult school or an unreceptive area they can be a great source of encouragement to him. Heads who live in the village schoolhouse are sometimes at the mercy of angry fathers, and glad to have the managers on their side, while if the head does not live in the village and act as its general factotum, there is said to be a greater need still for the managers to act as his eyes and ears. Even if managers are not very penetrating they often see things from the point of view of the sensible parent, which is of great benefit to both the school and the education office. 28. CEOs of county authorities are equally emphatic on the importance of managers' ambassadorial functions. We find this unanimity most impressive, particularly as it seems to be shared by their staff who are in everyday contact with managers. We do not think we have been presented with a remote and idealised view, as CEOs have been very ready to talk about managers' shortcomings, examples of which have been quoted. One or two CEOs say explicitly that these aspects of schools management are equally important in the towns although, as we have seen, their colleagues in the county boroughs are, for the most part, not equally concerned. It would have been easy for CEOs to content themselves with vague assertions of managers' usefulness, but we have come across numbers of instances where managers have justified their existence ten times over, in spite of the doubtful administrative case for managing bodies. We are told that, in times of rapid change, managers can be a most potent force in presenting educational problems to the public. Service as managers has completely altered many people's attitudes to education and local administration, and they have in many cases been successful advocates of the needs of their school within the county's system of broad priorities. While they may not know much about education, they are often shrewd and active in public life and able to use their experience to the benefit of the school. They act as a first court of reference over major discipline problems. Parents are happy in knowing that local residents are involved with the school, and that managers can bring the divisional officer's attention to matters affecting their own children. The charge that managers can occasionally be awkward is not an argument against them, as the LEA has to guard against the danger of complacency, and should be happy to welcome suggestions or criticisms from any quarter. This stress on the importance of managers is found equally in all sorts and sizes of county. One interesting regional difference appears to be that in the north there is a greater willingness for managers to concern themselves with the welfare of individual children, in addition to that of the school as a whole. Managers will, for example, have an informal word with difficult parents, or go behind the scenes to concern themselves with the needs of deprived children. This concern may be seen as a valuable legacy of previous hard times, but it is only fair to say that the opinion was expressed in other authorities that education welfare officers or child care officers should be able to cope with these individual problems. Conclusion 29. The data and views collected so far need to be treated with some considerable caution. They form only about a third, and possibly not a fully representative third, of the first stage of our research. Had we spent the last few months interviewing heads or managers, or sitting in on meetings of managing bodies, we might now be presenting a markedly different picture. We do not, therefore, consider that we can draw more than entirely tentative conclusions at the present stage, but we think that the information and the assessments we have heard have been based on more than hearsay or second-hand evidence. Everywhere we have interviewed the staff of education departments directly concerned with school management, where the CEO has not handled this himself. Some CEOs have expounded their philosophy of school management in considerable detail, and we have been able in some places to discover how far current practice is formed by the CEO or the chairman of the education committee. In some LEAs we have been confronted by a number of officers who have not been slow to disagree among themselves on almost any aspect of school management. These disagreements have been most illuminating. As the interviews have progressed, we have been better able to exploit the most promising questions, and in general we think that we have succeeded in getting CEOs and their staff to ventilate their views on every important facet of school management. 30. It is quite clear that county borough and county CEOs look at school management in entirely different lights. Up to a point, this is an inevitable consequence of geographical differences, and even of different committee systems. In the counties, with committee meetings held at longer intervals and with many schools at a considerable distance from their administrative centres, there must perforce be more delegation to the individual school. The approval by the Department of Education and Science of schemes of school government which provide for large groups, with a majority of education committee members on the governing body, appears at least to suggest official acquiescence in the prevailing county borough philosophy. It would seem to apply even more forcibly to managing bodies in the boroughs. Local authorities here are, of course, following what is allowed to them by the Education Act, 1944. It may be said that if a school has its individual visitor it is given some sort of status even when forming part of a grouped system of school management, and arguments against individual managing bodies or bodies with small groups are almost universal in the Boroughs. But is this the whole of the story? Some county CEOs do not accept this, and they consider that the need to establish links between the school and the community is just as urgent in urban areas. This would seem to be supported by the minority of county boroughs which has a working system of school management with small groups, if not with individual managing bodies. 31. Much has been made of the argument that administrative cost would prevent the establishment of more highly developed systems of school managements in the boroughs. We think that this argument needs to be scrutinised closely, and it might also be worthwhile considering the possibility of using a manager to act as clerk, as is already done on one borough authority. 
|
