Changing Ill-disciplined Schools.
What about when discipline problems appear endemic; that whole schools have discipline problems? How many of such schools there are I don't know. However, if we make the assumption that poor discipline is a key factor in schools being deemed inadequate we can look to Ofsted findings. Clearly defining exactly what we mean by inadequate is important. When Ofsted changed its criteria in 2010 the number of schools listed as "inadequate" rose dramatically from 4% to 10%. I have some strong reservations about the validity of Ofsted's inspections but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt for a moment and accept the figure of 10% for "failing schools". What is to be done about these?
Listening to interviews with educationalists about "turning round" schools (educationalist = a professional who makes a living out of education without actually teaching anybody anything) one thing is stressed more than any other - the appointment of a Headteacher with a very clear view about change and has the firm backing of the Board of Governors in this. One may also suppose that the Head must then build up a commitment to this change from other school staff. Together, they can then move forward in improving the performance of the school. After this, I am not at sure that what the Head actually does, in terms of the mechanisms of change, makes a great deal of difference. Any problem that becomes a clear focus of attention, and is given priority in resources and energy is likely to improve. I strongly suspect that this lies behind the achievements of the "management gurus" who, over the last quarter of a century, have brought us all manner of "management philosophies" -Just in Time, Lean Manufacturing, Six Sigma, Theory of Constraints, and all the rest of them. What seems to be important is not the precise management tools deployed; instead it is the strong, united commitment of all levels of management to the favoured way forward. It is not about rationality; it is about belief. If you are in a company where the news is that if you don't turn things around so you are profit in three months time then Head Office will close you down, having something to believe in, setting aside your disbelief, becomes crucial in getting you through the next few weeks. It is a commonplace to assert that organizational change requires a "change champion" but, as one senior executive told me "You don't need a champion; you need a zealot.
The same sort of thing, I suggest, applies to changing schools. The zealous Head inspiring key champions with a determination to change things around. When I listen to these "outstanding" Heads interviewed on the radio, they seem to have a variety of different cures that they espouse. However, I have never heard any of them say that that the introduction of corporal punishment would have helped them to do better or to do it faster. From my point of view I would favour Heads creating support structures and personnel to help the weaker teachers to perform better and to back them when they are struggling to do this.
Do we always have change Headteachers in order to secure change? Must it be some outsider with a vision who must come in to replace the current Head? Or is it possible to give existing Heads a new vision and enthusiasm to change things themselves? This is something I have never heard anyone discuss and perhaps it is something worth studying. But not by me. I'm finished with my thoughts.