In-School Management - A Critical Review 1997-2003

In-School Management A Critical Review 1997-2003

‘Professionalism – Putting Policy into Practice’.

In the context of the Report by HayGroup Management Consultants “Defining the Role of the Primary Principal in Ireland”, I.P.P.N. recognised that the important issue of In-School Management needed to be critically reviewed.

A Sub-Committee prepared this position paper – “In-School Management – A Critical Review 1997-2003”, to examine those issues that needed to be addressed to maximise the potential of the existing In-School Management structures for the benefit of all involved in primary education. (This sub-committee was led by Pat Kavanagh, Wexford).

“In-School Management – A Critical Review 1997-2003”, will be submitted to the D.E.S, Management Bodies, and the I.N.T.O. It is essential that any review of the In-School Management should involve I.P.P.N. in a meaningful way.

Principals and Deputy Principals are invited to reflect on this document and to convey their comments to the I.P.P.N. by post or e-mail (ref “I.S.M.”).

In-School Management A Critical Review 1997-2003

Contents Page No. Introduction

1

Section A Documentation: P.C.W. ‘96 Tuarascáil ’96 Eolas ‘97 Solas ’97 Board of Management Handbook D.E.S. Circ ‘/97 Report on the Role of Primary Principal ’98 Report of the Public Service Benchmarking Body 2002

2 4 5 6 7 8 9

16 Defining the Role of the Primary Principal in Ireland 2003 (HayGroup Management Consultants) 17 Section B Analysis & Comment : Critically addressing issues that need to be addressed re I.S.M. in 2003.

Monitoring of the ‘Revised Arrangements for In-School Management (1997) Financial Considerations Teachers and Posts Time Core Issues to be Addressed Conclusion

21 22 23 25 27 30

Introduction

The In-School Management proposals set out in the Programme for Competitiveness and Work (1996) were accepted by the I.N.T.O. and the Management Bodies. They were voted on and accepted by the membership of I.N.T.O.

This restructuring of In-School Management arose from the recognition of the changing role of the Principal. It was signalled in the OECD Report 1991 which recommended that “it is important to develop a stream of middle management in the larger schools”. Subsequently the White Paper “Charting our Education Future (1995)” contained the Government’s targets for major changes in relation to school management.

After almost 5 years in operation, it is time to critically look at how the I.S.M. restructuring proposals and their implementation have impacted on schools, and especially on Principals and Post-Holders. Further, the extent to which the implementation of the proposals to date has met the objectives of the Government, the Management Bodies and the I.N.T.O. should also be assessed.

This position paper examines the documentation made available to teachers and Boards by the Parties to the Agreement at the time, the subsequent Report on the Role of the Primary Principal 1998. This paper critically assesses the situation regarding the implementation of InSchool Management proposals in the 2002 context.

1

Section A - Documentation P.C.W Feb ’96 Proposals for agreement on pay and conditions of Teachers

In school Management 1.

The proposals in this document are aimed at improving significantly, through restructuring in-school management in primary schools and

1.2

respond to teacher union claims for improved career structures opportunities for teachers increased payment for post holders

The objectives of this restructuring – as set out in White Paper ‘Charting our Education Future’: •

matching the responsibilities of the posts more clearly to the central tasks of the school and the clear specification of responsibilities for various posts.

•

focusing on the provision of opportunities for teachers to assume responsibility in the school for instructional leadership, curriculum development, the management of staff and their development, and the academic and pastoral work of the school.

•

the establishment of selection procedures for vice-principals and post-holders, with the aim of ensuring that the most suitable people are appointed.

2.

Conditions Governing Proposals

2.1

The revised in-school management arrangements are proposed by the official side subject to the Teachers’ side accepting the following conditions relating to (a) (b)

2.2

the responsibilities and duties attaching to the posts appointment to the post

Responsibilities/Duties 2

(i) (ii) (iii) (iv)

The Principal, Deputy Principal, holders of post of responsibility will together form the in-school management team.

The Principal has overall responsibility under the authority of the Board for the day to day management of the school.

Before taking up an appointment, post holders will enter into a contract to undertake the duties of the grade to which they are being appointed.

Duties will be assigned, following a consultative process, by the principal such as to ensure that the necessary tasks, duties and responsibilities to meet the pastoral, curricular and administrative needs of the school are undertaken

2.3

‌ However, duties to be assigned should be commensurate with the relative levels of responsibility to be undertaken in the school. The duties should also be in line with general duties and responsibilities appropriate to the grade as agreed between the relevant management bodies and teacher unions and the Department which would be reviewed on a regular basis.

2.4

The duties of a post may be varied from time to time, following a consultative process, as the needs of the school require subject to the revised post carrying, in general, the same level of responsibility as the previous one.

4.

Monitoring of the revised arrangements for in-school management

4.1

The proposals on in-school management involve substantial additional payments to Principals, Deputy Principals and other post-holders aimed at significantly improving inschool management in primary schools. The Government needs to ensure that the objectives of in-school management restructuring as set out in the White Paper will in fact be achieved.

4.2

‌ Certification will be sought that the school authorities are satisfied that, insofar as possible, the necessary in-school management duties are being carried out through the schools’ in-school management arrangements.

4.4.1 In conjunction with school management and teacher organisations at national level, the Department will examine the operation of the revised in-school management arrangements on a regular basis with a view to ensuring that the system is operating satisfactorily.

3

I.N.T.O

Tuarascáil March ‘96

Promotions “The changes being proposed in the area of posts and promotions will have an impact on the entire education system”.

“For the first time more than 50% of teachers at primary level will be promoted”. “… posts will carry an increased allowance … up to 30%. However, they will also carry with them new challenges and more responsibility”.

The aim behind these additional responsibilities is to create a new management team within the school made up of the Principal, Vice Principal and additional post holders.

NOTE The I.N.T.O. recommended that its members vote in favour of the P.C.W. agreement and the majority did so.

4

I.N.T.O./EOLAS 3/97 (May ’97) Referring to DES Circ 6/97 Revised in-school management structure in primary schools.

In a questions and answers format, EOLAS addressed certain issues: Q1.

What are the criteria for appointing a teacher to a post of responsibility?

A.

… Circ 6/97 specifies three criteria. (a) (b) (c)

Q5.

capability and willingness to undertake the duties attaching to the post. length of service or experience in the school. interest in a particular area within the list of duties.

Cir 6/97 makes some very important points in relation to the duties:-

• … that it open to a teacher or the Board of Management to seek a review of the duties

assigned.

• … reasonableness in terms of the amount of duties allocated.

Circ 6/97 provides that the time required to perform duties should be reasonable and proportionate to the level of allowance to be paid.

• consensus in terms of decision making.

Q15. Will existing post holders have to take on additional duties for the increased allowances?

A.

The new contract will involve :New duties or a re-statement of existing duties depending on local arrangements.

Principals in particular have taken on many increased responsibilities in recent years and while a new contract is envisaged this does not automatically mean that specific new duties will be assigned. Circ 6/97 recommends that the time required to perform duties should be reasonable and proportionate to the level of allowance paid.

Q16. How is the new contract to be drawn up, both for new post holders and for existing post holders? Is there a special form?

A.

Both parties should clearly understand and accept the terms of what is being agreed and how such an agreement is being recorded.

The contract may be revised by either party in accordance with the provision of Circ.

6/97.

5

C.P.S.M.A./SOLAS INTO/Management Procedure for Appointment to Posts of Responsibility (Ref. 5/97) Section A. 1(d)

Post Description

Schedule of Duties … In-school management should generally be responsive to the flexibility and change that may be required from time to time.

2.

Review of Duties Assigned to Posts It shall be open to either party, either management or post holders, to initiate a review of the duties assigned to the post.

Reasons for review could include: • • •

Review of level of performance of duties Review of time required to perform duties – to ensure that time required is reasonable and proportionate to the allowance Review in the context of changing needs of the school.

Once a review has been initiated there should be (a) (b)

Consultation between the parties Agreement between the parties before any change can be implemented.

6

Board of Management Handbook (1997 C.P.S.M.A) 4.

Selection Procedure (c)

The selection of the successful candidate shall be based on the following criteria :(i) (ii) (iii)

capability and willingness to undertake the duties attached to the particular post; length of service or experience in the school; interest in a particular area within the list of duties.

Board of Management Handbook (2000 C.P.S.M.A) 9.

Selection procedure for appointment to posts of Deputy Principal, Assistant Principal and Special Duties Teacher

(h)

The selection of the successful candidate shall be based on three criteria. Each of the criteria are of equal weighting. The criteria are as follows: (i)

willingness to participate in the schools middle management structures by undertaking the additional responsibilities specified in the list of duties

(ii)

Experience gained through length of service in the school

(iii)

Capability to perform the duties attaching to the post.

NOTE Was there consultation/agreement between the D.E.S./CPSMA/I.N.T.O. for the change in wording evident in the 2000 Handbook?

7

D.E.S. Circ 6/97 Implementation of revised in-school management structures in primary schools 2.

Purpose of revised arrangements … designed to match the responsibilities of the posts more closely to the central tasks of the school, and the clear specification for various posts, focus on the provision of opportunities for teachers to assume responsibility in the school for instructional leadership, curriculum development, the management of staff, and the academic and pastoral work of the school, establish selection procedures for vice-principals and post holders with the aim of ensuring that the most suitable people are appointed.

4.

Selection procedure (c)

The selection of the successful candidate shall be based on the following criteria: (i) (ii) (iii)

5.

capability and willingness to undertake the duties attaching to the post length of service or experience in the school interest in a particular area within the list of duties

Appointment of successful candidate (d)

Before taking up an appointment, the post holder will enter into a contract to undertake the duties of the grade to which he/she is being appointed.

8

Report on the Working Group on the Role of Primary Principal (1998) This Report was researched and agreed by representatives of the D.E.S., Management Bodies, I.N.T.O. and other educational partners and the Department of Finance. It was launched by Minister for Education, Mr. Michéal Martin T.D. The Report examines the Principal’s role as manager, administrator, curricular and instructural leader, etc.

The Report refers frequently, and in detail, to the importance of the In-School Management Structure and the functioning and impact of this major change in the internal operation of schools.

(P.9) Management change 1.4.5 Perhaps the single biggest change in the internal management of schools is the development of middle management structure (P.C.W./6/97) This development has provided Principals with a substantial opportunity to create a culture of shared responsibility. At the same time Principals have the substantial task of developing the management structure in schools.

The Education Act (1998) 2.2.4 Whereas Section 22 deals with the function of both Principals and teachers, Section 23 sets out the functions that apply to Principals in particular.

Section 22 (2) (d) “[The Principal and teachers shall] subject to the terms of any applicable agreement and their contract of employment, carry out those duties that – (i) (ii)

in the case of teachers are assigned to them by or at the direction of the Principal, and In the case of the Principal, are assigned to him or her by the Board”.

2.2.5 The Act also outlines certain powers and rights of the Principal Section 23 (3) provides that – “For the purpose of carrying out his or her functions under this Act, a Principal shall have all such powers as necessary or expedient in that regard …”.

2.2.6 In carrying out their function, Principals should be supported by their Deputy Principal and holders of posts of responsibility, where such exists. It is the responsibility of the Deputy Principal and post holders to carry out tasks and duties assigned to them by the B.O.M and to be accountable to the Principal (on behalf of the B.O.M) for completing these tasks and duties.

9

Section 23(6) of the Education Act provides specifically that“Wherever practicable, the Principal shall, in exercising his or her functions under this section, consult wit teachers and other staff of the school”.

Thus, the Principal, in leading the school community, must be an effective manager of the school as an organisation, create appropriate structure and procedures and delegate tasks and responsibilities”.

2.3.1 Emerging from these policy perspectives, Principals are expected to: •

Provide strategic management for the school.

•

Manage the teaching staff, the middle management team and the support staff in the school; create an environment supportive of the professional development of the teachers in the school.

•

Ensure the administration of the school is carried out.

Curriculum Leaders 3.3.4 In large schools the Principal may provide for the development of curriculum leaders or co-ordinators in particular areas of the curriculum. A curriculum leader may have a special interest in a subject, or have developed a level of expertise in a particular area.

The role of curricular leader is not to take responsibility for teaching but to act as a coordinator and support for other teachers in a particular area. This involves collating materials and resources, having discussion and dialogue among staff on the subject area, preparing materials for staff meetings, making presentations to other staff members and attending relevant courses and seminars.

3.4.5 The role of the Principal is to facilitate the work of curriculum leader or co-ordinator and ensure that, while leaders provide support in different curriculum areas, the whole teaching staff are involved in the process of curriculum implementations.

Implication of the role of the Principal as instructional leader 3.6.1 Delegation:- The delegation of duties and areas of responsibility to the Deputy Principal, Assistant Principal and Special Duties Teachers is central to the effective functioning of the school and to providing the necessary support for the Principal in carrying out of the role of instructional leader. Guidelines should be formulated to enable middle management to operate effectively as a team and to disseminate examples of good practice in delegation.

10

4.3.6 The Principal and the post holders form the management team in the school and in line with established practice in schools, specific tasks – (including those highlighted in other parts of the Report) are delegated on behalf of the Board, by the Principal to these post holders ‌ 4.3.7 Regular meetings of the members of the in-school management team are an important tool of management in school.

4.3.39 All Principals have to optimise the use of time that they have available to them. In larger schools, delegation of tasks to holders of posts of responsibilities and support staff is essential.

Supports for the Principal 4.5.1 Structures are in place to assist Principals in the administration and management of the school. These structures include the middle management/post of responsibility structure in place in 75% of schools (covering 94% of pupils), support staff, and Board of Management who have their own assigned functions and responsibilities. It is through these structures that much of the day to day management and administration of the school should be carried out. The Group noted that new middle management structures were agreed by the Government and partner unions as part of the new agreement . . . The Group expressed the view that the structure may not yet have achieved their full potential, with the result that an undue burden of school management and administration fall on the Principal in these cases.

4.5.2 While the Principal, as day to day manager of the school, is responsible to the B.O.M for the management and administration of the school, some of the tasks outlined (4.4.1) above should be delegated to other members of the school community, including post holders, the school secretary and/or caretaker, where there is one in the school. Other tasks must remain the responsibility of the Principal and this is reflected in the management structure of primary school.

Deputy Principal 4.5.6 Submission to the Group highlighted the important role of the Deputy Principal in supporting the Principal in his/her leadership and management role.

There is also a reference in some submissions to the desirability of releasing Deputy Principals in larger schools from teaching duties.

4.5.7 The Deputy Principal acts as the Principal in the absence of the Principal and assists him/her in the fulfilment of his/her role. The Deputy Principal occupies a position of vital importance in the administration and development of the school.

4.5.9 . . . The role of the Deputy Principal in particular needs to be examined in the context of the middle management structure.

11

Administration and Management 4.6.2 . . . All schools with more than two teachers have a middle management structure in which Principals must rely to assist them in carrying out a number of functions associated with the school management and administration. The Group considers that, in the Principal’s and the school’s interests, the opportunity presented by the new management structure, agreed under the P.C.W 96, must be taken immediately. In order to facilitate the change of culture which may be required in many schools, the Group recommends that professional development courses should be provided for all post holders, including the Deputy Principal.

[Release time for Teaching Principal] 4.6.3 . . . to help ensure that children receive their full entitlement of teaching time, needs of the children for continuity in teaching.

Communication with teachers 5.2.2 Education Act (23) “Wherever practicable, the Principal shall in exercising his or her functions under this section, consult with teachers and other staff of the school”.

5.2.3 Given the importance, extensive nature and large volume of the communications with other teachers, it is desirable that formal systems of communications are established.

Formal systems of communication should include for example, staff meetings, meetings with post holders . . .

Support for the Principal : Human Resources 5.9.1 Depending on the size of the school, Principals have a number of individuals and groups in which to draw as they discharge their responsibilities in regard to communications. The first and most important is the teachers and in particular, the post holders in the school. The middle management structure that has been developed in bigger schools has the potential to alleviate a proportion of the Principal’s workload as regards communication.

For example, a post holder who has responsibility for a particular curriculum area or subject should also be responsible for communications regarding that particular area or subject.

Time for communication.

5.10.3 There is a general recognition that formal communication systems should be in place in all schools and that in particular, time should be available for communications. The difficulties facing administrative and teaching Principals are different in this regard.

The Group considers that time for meetings is essential and that, insofar as there is confusion regarding the provision of time for meetings, this should be clarified. School 12

plans should include specific provision for a variety of meetings each term. The arrangements for these meetings should be designed so as to minimise disruption of class teaching time and in accordance with agreed procedures.

The Group also considers that each school should have in place a mechanism for communicating with the post holders and the teachers in the school, in a formal way.

6.2.4 Providing appropriate leadership will continue to be problematic, unless management responsibilities can be redistributed and some administrative tasks reallocated.

6.2.5 Management . . .

In a system where curriculum development and managing the pace and direction of change are rapidly becoming the norm, working with and through middle management structures and personnel, where applicable, will be critical as part of shared responsibilities and leadership within the school community. This reallocation of functions arising from the creation of the middle management structure should enable Principals to devote more time to strategic planning and orchestration of reform efforts, but will also provide significant challenges to Principals’ people management skills. An important dimension of the redistribution of responsibilities is adequate time for thinking and planning for principals.

6.2.6 Administrative responsibilities . . .

Routines will need to be regularly reappraised as well as adequate support systems put in place to ensure that Principals can develop administrative duties while continuing to ensure that they are completed efficiently and effectively.

Principals’ professional development 6.5.1 Professional development of Principals . . .

It will involve development and experience gained as a teacher and possibly also as a post holder . . .

6.5.2 It is reasonable to expect that as post holders receive professional development and progress through the middle management structure they will acquire many of the skills necessary for Principalship.

The existence of a middle management structure provides not only a structured career path but also a training ground for future Principals.

13

Conclusions and Recommendations to the Report.

7.2.1 Middle Management The delegation of duties and areas of responsibility to the Deputy Principal, assistant Principal and special duties teachers is central to the effective functioning of the school and to providing the necessary support for Principals in carrying out their role. In this context, the Group considers, in particular, that: (4.6.2)(3.6.1) • • •

the Principal’s role as instructional leader may provide for the development of curriculum leaders or co-ordinators in particular areas of the curriculum some of the day-to-day management and administration tasks of the school should be delegated to the middle management structure the middle management structure should be used to relieve the Principal of substantial administration and communications responsibilities, as the post holders will be responsible for these aspects of their particular areas of responsibility.

The Group also considers that, in the Principal’s and the school’s interest, the opportunity presented by the new middle management structures, agreed under the Programme for Competitiveness and Work, must be taken immediately. In particular, the Group considers that guidelines should be formulated to enable middle management to operate effectively as a team and to disseminate examples of good practice in delegation.

(3.6.1) 7.2.2 In many schools a change of culture may be required to facilitate the transformation to a fully functioning middle management structure. In order to ensure that the structure functions effectively, it must be supported, developed and managed, particularly in the early stages, and reviewed from time to time to ensure that it is achieving its objectives. In this context, development of a team management approach is often the most suitable way forward. The group recommends that professional development courses should be provided for all post holders, including the Deputy Principal, with a view to enabling schools to forge effective middle management structures.

7.2.3 The Group recommends that the changing role of the Principal and the manner in which new middle management structures are being approached and implemented in schools be the subject of systematic inquiry to inform policy and professional development programmes particularly for Principals and middle management personnel.

7.5.2 Time Children are entitled to receive four hours, forty minutes teaching time during the school day. While many of the administrative and day-to-day management tasks of the Principal can be discharged outside of the school day, the Group acknowledges that some of the functions of the Principal, and in particular those related to the role of 14

instructional leader, may have to be discharged during the school day. At the same time, as mentioned earlier, other members of the school community often assist Principals in carrying out some of their functions.

“To help ensure that children receive their full entitlement of teaching time and their needs for continuity in teaching”.

(4.6.3) 7.7.2 There is a general recognition that formal communications systems should be in place in all schools and that, in particular, time should be available for communications. The Group considers that each school should have in place a mechanism for communicating with the post holders and the teachers in the school, in a formal way.

The Group also considers that time for meetings is essential and that, insofar as there is confusion regarding the provision of time for meetings, this should be clarified.

School plans should include specific provision for a variety of meetings each term.

The arrangements for these meetings should be designed so as to minimise disruption to class teaching time and in accordance with agreed procedures.

7.8.3 The Group recommends that professional development courses should be provided for all post holders, including the Deputy Principal, with a view to enabling schools to forge effective middle management structures.

Costed recommendations 7.

The Group recommends that professional development courses should be provided for all post holders, including the Deputy Principal, with a view to enabling schools to forge effective middle management structures. (cf. Paragraph 4.6.2). Indicative costings £522,000 per day, with substitution £1,242,000 per day.

8.

The Group recommends that aspiring Principals be facilitated to acquire qualifications relevant to the management of schools. (cf. Paragraph 6.5.5).

9.

The Group considers that time for meetings is essential and that, insofar as there is confusion regarding the provision of time for meetings, this should be clarified. School plans should include provision for a variety of meetings each term. The arrangements for these meetings should be designed so as to minimise disruption to class teaching time and in accordance with agreed procedures. (cf. Paragraph 5.10.3)

15

Report of the Public Service Benchmarking Body Appendix J – Generic Job Profiles of Education Sector Grades Among the Generic Observations for Principals, Deputy Principals, Assistant Principals and Special Duties Teachers, were the following: Principal •

Principals hold prime responsibility for the successful running of the school and management of its resources, including budgets. To this end they must motivate, lead by example and guide staff to ensure that pupils are educated to the best of their abilities.

Teaching Principals must balance the teaching requirements of their particular class with the responsibility of managing the whole school.

[Page 260] Deputy Principal •

Deputy Principals, along with the Principal, share responsibility for the efficient running of the school. Jobholders are required to contribute to the setting of school targets and standards and may be required to attend and contribute to the Board of Management.

Often they are fully accountable for particular areas of the whole school plan and certain resources.

•

As with Teachers, Deputy Principals are primarily responsible for the planning, organisation and running of their own class and also the coaching of other teachers, substitutes or ancillary staff.

[Page 261]

Assistant Principal •

Assistant Principals are required to contribute to the setting of school targets and standards. They may be required to sit on the Board of Management and with this jointly hold responsibility for decision making effecting all children, teachers, parents, etc, connected with the school. As with Teachers, Assistant Principals are primarily responsible for the planning, organisation and running of their own class and also the coaching of other teachers.

[Page 262]

Special Duties Teacher •

Special Duties Teachers are part of a larger team, which includes the Principal, Assistant and Deputy Principals, Special Needs Teachers, Board of Management and other colleagues. Jobholders have responsibility for the planning, organisation and running of their class in order to meet the overriding purpose of the job to educate children.

Jobholders are also accountable for their particular area/s of special duties.

[Page 262]

16

Defining the Role of the Primary Principal in Ireland A Report by HayGroup Management Consultants (February 2003)

I.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Conclusions and Recommendations Conclusions: •

There is a strong perception throughout the ranks of Principals generally that the role has become extremely difficult if not impossible to deliver on effectively. [page 5]

Recommendations: •

V.

A set of clear-cut policies and processes in the management of professional staff should be developed centrally, and introduced on a consistent, national basis to guide principals in their efforts to affirm good practice, motivate, and challenge underperformance. [page 6] THE VARYING STRANDS OF PRINCIPALSHIP

We have formed the view that it is not possible for a Teaching Principal to deliver on the expectations for the role, both in terms of teaching and administration / management, without consistently exceeding the agreed working hours on a consistent and ongoing basis. Even where normal working hours are exceeded (a normal event for a large majority of Principals), there are many issues that need to be attended to during school hours, necessitating the Principal leaving the classroom. This is clearly detrimental to the interests of pupils, and also unsatisfactory for the Principals. [page 14]

VI.

THE CHALLENGES WITHIN THE ROLE

Human Resource Management: Our research also suggests that the resource represented by the middle management levels within schools is not always fully utilised. These roles attract allowances in salary terms relative to other teachers, (amounting, by the Department's estimates, to over €50 million per annum). The degree to which Principals can effectively delegate significant accountabilities to these roles, and hold them accountable to deliver against those accountabilities, must be recognised as a key success factor in the running of the school. There is evidence in our research of significant variance in the degree to which Deputy Principals / other Postholders 17

are providing the ideal level of support to Principals. It is difficult, therefore, to be able to quantify the return which the Exchequer is receiving for its investment in this layer of management.

Principals referred to a reluctance by Postholders to expand or change their areas of responsibilities as the needs of the school change, in order to make in-school management more effective. [page 18/19] IX. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Conclusions: •

There is a strong perception among Principals that while they can delegate responsibility to middle-management roles (e.g. Deputy Principal, Special Responsibility Teachers) for specific tasks, such as library management etc., these post holders generally play a more limited role in terms of school management and administration than might be desirable.

Given the significant cost of the allowances offered for such posts, this raises the question of the value for money which is being obtained from this layer of management within the system.

•

The role of Principal requires the management of a broad range of relationships within the school and outside of it and the competencies required to manage these relationships are complex and demanding and require careful identification and development. [page 35]

Recommendations: •

Further study should be undertaken of the role of middle management within schools, particularly of the role of Deputy Principal, with a view to positioning it as a more challenging and developmental role. That review should also take into account recruitment and appointment procedures and guidelines. [page 36]

18

APPENDIX I MAIN ISSUES ARISING FROM THE SURVEY Delegation of Responsibility to Teachers Many Principals refer to the accountability of delegating responsibilities to teachers, especially those holding Posts of Responsibility. [page 41] Access to Staff for Management Meetings Principals highlighted the difficulty in holding regular meetings with staff to coordinate the work of the school and to ensure resources are being effectively utilised. A key issue for Principals in this regard is the degree to which they are dependent on staff goodwill to hold meetings outside of class times, allowing a virtual veto of such productive arrangements to individual staff members who may be uncooperative. [page 43] Staff Perceptions of Role Boundaries Some Principals expressed a belief that some staff hold conflicting perceptions about the role of Principal. On the one hand they are seen as being responsible and accountable for the effective running of school, but on the other hand their role does not extend to any interaction involving a review of the contribution of individual teachers, as this would represent an infringement of “professional independence�. [page 46]

APPENDIX II MAIN ISSUES ARISING IN FOCUS GROUPS AND ONE TO ONE DISCUSSIONS Role Clarity: Allied to the role ambiguity of Principals appears to be the lack of clarity regarding the role of middle management within schools. Thus, Deputy Principal and Assistant Principal posts appear to have widely differing ranges of responsibility. This makes it very difficult to plan for the delegation of functions in a systematic and generic way across the Primary Education 19

sector. There appears to be a strongly held view that this layer needs specific analysis, development and support as a matter of some urgency. [page 48]

APPENDIX III STAKEHOLDERS CONSULTED BY HAY GROUP DURING THIS STUDY

•

Serving Principals

•

Department of Education and Science (DES)

•

Catholic Primary School Management Association (CPSMA)

•

Irish Primary Principals Network (IPPN)

•

Irish National Teachers Organisation (INTO)

•

National Parents Council (NPC)

•

Colleges of Education

20

SECTION B – ANALYSIS & COMMENT Monitoring of the revised arrangements for In-School Management The P.C.W ‘96 listed two aspects of monitoring “to ensure that the objective of I.S.M restructuring ... will in fact be achieved”.

(4.1) (1)

(2)

Certification will be sought that school authorities are satisfied ... that the necessary In-School Management duties are being carried out ...

(4.2) In conjunction with School Management and teacher organisations at national level, the Department will examine the operation of the revised In-School Management arrangements on a regular basis with a view to ensuring that the system is operating satisfactorily. (4.4.1)

The structural and monetary changes arising from the P.C.W ’96 have now been in operation for over 5 years. To-date neither of these forms of monitoring or assessment of the operation of the new In-School Management Structures have been undertaken. Nor has any other form of monitoring or assessment has been put in place by the Parties to the Agreement.

It should also be noted that in the documentation D.E.S. circulars, CPSMA/SOLAS or I.N.T.O Tuarascáil/SOLAS in 1996/97 – no mention was made of these P.C.W clauses agreed regarding certification by Boards, or National level reviews by the Education Partners.

The Report on the Role of the Primary Principal (which involved D.E.S. Finance, CPSMA, INTO and others) can be read to mean that the I.S.M restructuring, whatever its envisaged benefits, was not working satisfactorily.

1.

“The Group noted that new middle management structures were agreed by the Government and partner unions as part of the new agreement …. The Group expressed the view that the structures may not yet have achieved their full potential, with the result that an undue burden of school management and administration fell on the Principals in these cases”.

(4.5.1)

2.

There are no guidelines for the development and operation of the In-School Management structure in schools.

21

3.

No in-service/professional development courses have been provided for Principals and post-holders in the matter of I.S.M, “to facilitate the change of culture which may be required in many schools”.

(4.6.2)

Financial Considerations The proposals in the P.C.W. were aimed at improving significantly, through restructuring InSchool Management in primary schools.

[P.C.W.] From the viewpoint of the D.E.S. and the Department of Finance, there were considerable cost implications in the proposed restructuring of In-School Management.

The Government’s viewpoint – and obviously of the D.E.S – was stated clearly in the P.C.W ’96, section 4.1.

The proposals on I.S.M. involve substantial payments to Principals, Deputy Principals and other Post-Holders aimed at significantly improving I.S.M. in primary schools.

The Government needs to ensure that the objectives of I.S.M. restructuring as set out in the White Paper will in fact be achieved.

“Perhaps the single biggest change in the internal management of schools is the development of middle management structure as set out in P.C.W.” (Report 1.4.5) The proposals envisaged that Post-Holders,- by taking up specific duties and responsibilities in curricular, administrative and pastoral areas and participating in the In-School Management Team, - would, while providing support for the Principal and reducing his volume of work, also have benefits for the Post-Holders themselves professionally, personally and financially, at the same time adding to the overall benefit of the whole school.

It can happen within the restructuring that a Deputy Principal’s allowance can be almost 60% of a Principal’s allowance. It can also happen in a middle sized school that the total allowances of Special Duties Teachers on a staff can exceed the allowance paid to the Principal.

22

The actual, as opposed to the envisaged, impact in the workload of the Principal arising from the I.S.M. restructuring in the P.C.W., taking into account these financial comparisons, would need to be critically examined.

In effect, it could be argued, the implication of the I.S.M structures from any angle – appointment of post-holders, monitoring, meetings, I.S.M. team meetings, evaluation, etc, etc – all have added considerably to Principals’ responsibilities and workload – rather than reducing them.

Consequently, the allowance Principals were awarded under the P.C.W. failed to take the subsequent increased workload arising from I.S.M. into account.

The absence of inservice and guidelines have further added to Principals’ stress levels.

It should be noted that the 1998 Report costed professional development courses for Principals and all post-holders – with full substitution at £1,242,000 per day.

No guidelines have been developed; no professional development courses on I.S.M. have been held.

The small cost of professional development courses should be placed in the context of the yearly cost to the exchequer of the payments of allowances to Principals and post-holders this year – and over the 5 years of I.S.M. Teachers and Posts – Nature and extent of duties 1.

Teachers applying for posts are fully aware that (a) the added responsibilities and duties being undertaken mean additional payment/allowances. (b) the duties and responsibilities involve additional time. (c) in the context of the P.C.W, their Union has voted for that Agreement and its InSchool Management elements.

2.

The process is detailed with requirement/provision for input by all staff in the Schedule of Duties from which specific curricular, administrative and pastoral duties are assigned to each post by the Board prior to posting by the Board.

3.

The procedures regarding appointment are detailed. There is time for applicants to clarify any queries regarding the posted duties prior to formal application.

4.

The interview offers an opportunity to the applicant to clarify any questions regarding the duties before entering further in the process.

5.

In the interview, the applicant is questioned on the criteria – particularly their capability and willingness to perform the duties attaching to the post. The applicant also knows that all posts involve participation in I.S.M. structures.

23

6.

The decision of the Board to offer the post to a particular Teacher allows the applicant time to review their decision and seek any clarification required. (This also allows for an objection to be lodged by another Teacher to the Board’s decision).

7.

The successful applicant enters willingly into a contract to fulfil the duties set out, and clearly listed.

8.

It is open to the Post-Holder to initiate a review of the duties assigned to the post.

Post-Holders may have curricular duties relating to particular areas of the curriculum: “The role of the curricular leader is not to take responsibility for teaching but to act as a coordinator and support for other teachers in a particular areas. This involves collating materials and resources having discussion and dialogue among staff on the subject area, preparing materials for staff meetings, making presentations to other staff members and attending relevant courses and seminars�. (Role of Primary Principal 3.34).

Post-Holders would also be responsible for communications regarding that particular area or subject.

It could be envisaged that accountability would entail reporting to staff meetings, staff sub-committees, to the Principal, and a yearly written report to the Board.

Regarding the frequency of meetings: this could vary with the size of school, e.g. weekly meetings of Principal, Deputy Principal and Assistant Principals, monthly meetings of the In-School Management Team and monthly meetings with individual Post-Holders, other meetings as necessary.

NOTE: Post-Holders should realise that their input makes a difference to the school and in particular to learning and teaching, and should receive credit for that valuable input.

24

Time

Circ. 6/97 provides that the time required to perform duties – should be reasonable and proportionate to the level of the allowance. (See also EOLAS 5/97).

It is obvious that the issue of time in relation to the duties and the issue of In-School Management meetings– when they should be carried out; these were issues that were not adequately addressed or fudged by the Partners at the time and continued to be, to this day, with consequent problems arising regarding the overall implementation of the InSchool Management proposals as set out in the P.C.W. ’96.

Referring to time for carrying out duties and meetings of In-School Management Team, the Report of the Working Group (1998) makes reference to a number of issues.

“To help ensure that children receive their full entitlement of teaching time and their needs for continuity in teaching”.

(4.6.3) Children are entitled to receive four hours forty minutes teaching time during the school day.

While many of the administrative and day-to-day management tasks of the Principal can be discharged outside school time, the Group acknowledges that some of the functions of the Principal may have to be discharged during the school day.

(7.5.2) There is general recognition that formal communications systems should be in place in all schools and that; in particular, time should be available for communication. The Group considers that each school should have in place a mechanism for communicating with Post-Holders and the Teachers in the school in a formal way.

(7.72) Principals, whether Teaching or administrative, have to give time outside of school hours to carry out their duties and responsibilities.

Post-Holders also have to give time outside of school hours to carry out their duties and responsibilities.

How many hours outside of school hours is expected of Principal or other Post-Holders who are paid a specific allowance for carrying out their duties?.

In calculating the number of hours relative to the allowance paid, a parallel could be made with the rate per hour of €37.00 recently agreed for supervision duties, or other amount.

If duties are to be carried out during class contact time, this can have consequences for the Post-Holders’ class contact time and pupils’ full entitlement of teaching time:

25

If Teachers are to meet for In-School Management meetings during class time depending on the number of Post-Holders - this can be detrimental to class learning and school discipline.

It might be suggested by some that other Teachers, e.g., next door, should watch over two classes Or Infant Teachers supervise after their classes have gone home Or Supplementary Teachers e.g., Learning Support, Resource, etc, should supervise the classes.

The fact that the Post-Holders are in receipt of additional payment for carrying out their duties and that the Teachers who may be called on to free them up are not in receipt of any additional payments should be considered.

The above should not preclude occasional exceptional arrangements.

The question of whether or not the notice of duties posted made reference to time – the fact that the post would require time outside of class contact time to carry out duties and to partake in In-School Management meetings, or whether these matters were raised by the interview panel as a matter of one of the criteria listed might be considered by some to be relevant. On the other hand, applicants were aware that the post involved additional duties that entailed extra time and additional payments and that these could scarcely be carried out within the Post-Holder’s class contact time.

If Teachers have concerns about the amount of time needed outside of class contact time to carry out their duties, the following arrangement could suggested; 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

List duties set out for the Post.

Record duties carried out and time taken and indicate whether class contact time, school time outside of class contact time or time outside school hours.

Similarly, meetings of In-School Management Team – as a whole, or in subcommittees: the time taken and the nature of the time.

Maintain this record for a set period and then review individually and collectively with Principal/Board and make necessary adjustments.

It is open to Post-Holders to request a review of duties, as it is also open to the Board.

“Review of time required to perform duties-to ensure that time required is reasonable and proportionate to the allowance”.

(Circ. 6/97)

26

Core Issues to be Addressed What are some of the core issues that urgently need to be addressed in any re-evaluation of the impact of I.S.M. on Primary Schools in 2003.

Many issues were identified in the 1998 and recognised as needing to be addressed by all the Educational Partners.

1.

Transparent agreement, without ambiguity or fudging between the D.E.S., Management Bodies and the I.N.T.O. so that all members of Staff, Principal and PostHolders have clear guidelines and policies as to the proper and effective functioning of the I.S.M. structures in schools.

2.

Structured and costed in-service/professional development courses for Principals and Post-Holders as the I.S.M. Team.

These professional development courses – and full participation in I.S.M. should result in benefits for all participants:- Principals learning how to delegate and devolve ownership, Post-Holders learning how to assume ownership and accountability, the I.S.M. Team involving the whole school.

Further, full participation in professional development and I.S.M. should also result in the acquisition of many of the necessary skills and experience that would consequently encourage more to apply for principalship in the future.

“The existence of a middle management structure provides not only a structured career path but also a training ground for future Principals”.

[6.5.2 “Role of Primary Principal] This aspect is especially relevant in the context of the fall off in the numbers of teachers applying for Principalships.

3.

Review procedures (of duties assigned to Posts) The existing procedures should be critically examined to ascertain if they facilitate the necessary changes in duties arising from rapid changes in schools both curricular and administrative. The requirement that there must be ‘agreement’ between the parties before any changes can be implemented can lead to situations where it is difficult to implement necessary changes because some Post-Holders may obstruct movement.

Review should be carried out each year following appraisal, evaluation of the implementation of duties and the recognition of the need for changes.

4.

Does the Board have authority to instruct the D.E.S. to cease payment of a PostHolder’s allowance if it is satisfied that the duties contracted are not being carried out?

Guidelines should address this issue, and set clear procedures that protect all parties.

27

5.

The issue of ultimate responsibility: the level of responsibility attaching to the PostHolder for duties contracted, and attached to the Principal regarding the implementation/completion of these duties.

6.

Appraisal/Evaluation: The need for clear evaluation policies and procedures, e.g. PostHolders and Principal, Post-Holders, Principal and Board, Principal & Board. What is the aim of evaluation? What are the criteria to be addressed in an evaluation? How often should this evaluation take place?

7.

Accountability: of Principals to the Board; of Post-Holders to the Principal and to the Board, to the I.S.M. Team and the Staff. How is that accountability determined and structured? e.g. the Post-Holder report to Staff Meetings? written report to the Board?

8.

The problems that can arise from Post-Holders going on career break, secondment, etc, regarding the system of ‘Acting Up’ with the Post passing on almost automatically to the next senior teacher. Duties previously assigned to the original Post-Holder taking their capabilities, willingness and interest into account, being ‘passed on’ to a teacher who may not have the same capabilities for interests.

9.

Time: (i)

recognition and provision for the time taken by Principals to carry out their role, and particularly Teaching Principals. Define ‘reasonable and proportionate to the allowance’.

(ii)

Guidelines, policies and provision for the arrangement for time for meetings of In-School Management Team, Senior Management Team, Middle Management Team, of Principals with individual Post-Holders, etc. When do these meetings take place: before school, after school, lunchtime, as a segment of staff meetings, during class time, other time?

(iii)

Guidelines and policies regarding time for carrying out duties by Post-Holders: define ‘reasonable and proportionate to the allowance’; time expected to be committed outside of class time, outside of school time.

Address the provision for elements that may have to be carried out during class time.

28

How have In-School Management impacted on Schools?

For Teachers: The Agreement has opened access to additional allowances, improved career prospects, experience and personal and professional development by engaging in new duties and responsibilities. There have been problems in relation to the level of engagement in the duties assigned, involvement in the In-School Management Team, the issue of accepting responsibility and accountability, the issue of time.

For Principals: The Agreement has brought increased allowances, the potential to devolve duties and thus reduce the burden in administrative, curricular and pastoral areas; the potential to build, within a whole school context, a School Management Team involving all Post-Holders. Problems have sometimes related to the failure to delegate, to allow the PostHolder to take ownership, among other issues. There has also been the issue of the absence of guidelines and clarity regarding devolving duties v devolving responsibility, allocating time to meet Post-Holders, and time to hold In-School Management Team meetings.

Principals also face additional work pressures in the setting up, operation and monitoring of the whole I.S.M structure, during years when their workload has increased enormously.

Principals have been left somewhat in a vacuum without guidelines or advice in relation to the implementation and operation of the I.S.M. structures once in place.

For Principals, Post-Holders and staff in general: the lack of any in-service provision relating to I.S.M. structures and issues is inhibiting development.

For Boards of Management: The issues of ultimate responsibility for the operation of the In-School Management structure in the absence of clear guidelines; e.g. if a Post-Holder persistently fails to carry out the duties contracted, can the Board advise the D.E.S. to terminate the allowance? What are the consequences of such action? How to evaluate, and how to carry out reviews?.

The issues regarding the perceived benefit to schools from a major For the D.E.S.: investment in I.S.M. in 1996/7, (continuing and growing over the past 5 years) and the reality; the steps needed to maximise this investment in people to the benefit of all Teachers and pupils and schools.

I.S.M. structures are working well in some schools, working somewhat in others, and in others, not working at all. “The change of culture which may be required in many schools�, was identified as a problem by the ’98 Report on the Role of the Primary Principal.

What is needed, as a matter of urgency, is a full review of the operation of the In-School Management structures involving all the Partners; comprehensive guidelines followed immediately by in-service for Principals and Post-Holders to achieve the full potential of the 1996 proposals.

29

Conclusions The changes introduced by the restructuring of I.S.M. in 1997 were generally welcomed by teachers. More Posts were created, allowances were increased, and resulting in more than 50% of teachers at primary level being promoted. Detailed procedures were set out regarding schedules, duties, and appointment to the Posts.

“The changes in the area of posts and promotions will have an impact on the entire education system” (Tuarascáil March ’96).

Five years later the I.S.M. restructing is established in schools. How effectively is it working and delivering on the aims and objectives for which it was set up?

The enormous changes in recent years arising from the Revised Curriculum have in research, in-service, planning and implementation created huge workloads for Principals and added to that, the challenges to implement an effective I.S.M. structure in schools.

The Report on the role of the Primary Principal “expressed the view that the structures may not yet have achieved their full potential, with the result that an undue burden of school management and administration fall on the Principal in these cases”.

(4.5.1) That was 1998, what has been done to address the problems recognised?

Are Post-Holders with positions of curricular, administrative and pastoral responsibilities having a measurable influence on the quality of learning and teaching, on the organisation of the school as a whole?

The potential was there in the original Proposals. It has not been realised. The new structures, though detailed in establishment of posts, were not developed by the Partners, though they were fully aware of the problems and deficiencies in implementation.

No guidelines were issued as to best practice for effective In-School Management; no inservice was provided for Principals or the whole In-School Management Team. The difficult issues of time, accountability, evaluation and review were never addressed.

It is time – after 5 years, that the partners address the problems and deficiencies in the InSchool Management structure by carrying out – as a matter of priority – a complete review of its operation and its impact on Principals, Post-Holders and the quality of learning and teaching in the whole school community.

30