Positive primary, negative secondary – attitudes to target setting in schools
Linda Hammersley-Fletcher and Jean Mangan
Institute for Education Policy Research, Staffordshire University
Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Annual
Conference, University of Manchester, 16-18 September 2004
Abstract
Recent educational policy in England has focused on measurable targets set by
government for the performance of each sector of education (Gorard et. al., 2002). This
paper is an investigation of target setting at the subject leadership level comparing and
contrasting the experiences of primary and secondary schools. The data are drawn from
interviews and from a small scale questionnaire survey. We explore teachers’ views about
target setting in their schools, the relationship of targets to planning, the types of targets
utilised and their relative importance. There was evidence from all the schools that
teachers are feeling obliged to respond to targets and most were to some extent
measuring the standing and success of their school community in the light of their
school’s achievement against government targets.
In terms of national test results both the primary and secondary schools in our sample
represented a similar range of results but despite this, primary teachers talked much more
positively about the current state of their schools. The interviews collected suggest that
primary schools rely more heavily on a mixture of target setting, monitoring and
assessment techniques which point towards a strong ethos about the whole development
of the child. In contrast, secondary schools rely more on the data from test results to
evaluate their own practice. Primary schools also appeared to have a more developed
notion of what planning involved and in some cases re-ordered the structure of the
school so that particular teams could concentrate on the issues around this. Responses
taken together indicate that the primary teachers saw target setting and planning more
positively, in particular in relationship to its consideration of resources (such as staff).
Often the senior managers in secondary schools believed that target setting and planning
was engaged in with more clarity, involvement and to cover further into the future than
the subject leaders themselves indicated. Thus clear understandings of target setting and
planning were more likely to be limited to the senior management team rather than held
throughout the school. We conclude that primary teachers had more positive attitudes
towards the team they work within and this was linked to more positive attitudes towards
targets and planning. We also argue that our findings reflect the more collaborative and
communicative nature of primary education.
Author for correspondence:
Dr. Linda Hammersley-Fletcher
Institute for Education Policy Research
Staffordshire University
Leek Road
Stoke-on-Trent
ST4 2DF
Positive primary, negative secondary – attitudes to target setting in schools
Tel. 01782 294909
Fax 01782 294085
e-mail [email protected]
1)
Introduction
Recent educational policy in England has involved various forms of ‘top-down’ policies
from central government in particular the introduction of the national curriculum and
attainment targets for various key stages. Additionally, policies such as the literacy and
numeracy hours and more recently the Key Stage 3 strategy can be argued to have
reduced the independence of schools and teachers. This policy led environment has
provided the context for target setting within schools. Target setting is not restricted to
secondary schools whose pupils are working towards passing GCSE examinations.
Gillian Shepherd, as Secretary of State for Education, stated that: ‘Particularly
encouraging is evidence that the approach is just as relevant and useful in primary
schools as in secondary schools.’ (Ofsted,1996). Thus both primary and secondary
sectors are involved in target setting. This paper compares the experience of target
setting in primary and secondary schools using data from interviews and questionnaire
responses. It also considers the debate about the potential dysfunctional effects of target
setting on teachers approaches to their work.
In section 2 a background to this issue is provided through a discussion of current
literature considering the arguments for target setting, the criticisms of the approach and
evidence on implementation. Section 3 explains the methods employed to gather data.
Section 4 considers our findings, firstly considering influences on the plan, secondly what
the plan involves, thirdly looking at the implementation of targets. The final section
presents our conclusions and policy recommendations.
2)
Literature Review
Measurable targets for assessing the performance of each sector of education were first
set for English schools by the government in 1991, but this has developed since 1996
with a series of government initiatives aimed at persuading all schools to set targets
Flecknoe (2001). Targets are reported in published school league tables at both primary
and secondary schools level (in particular, the average Standard Assessment Tests (SATs)
score at the various key stages at primary level and the percentage of pupils achieving
5+A*-C grades at General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE) at secondary
level). As the DfEE (1997) stated ‘target setting is a key tool for raising expectations and
standards’. Thus targets may be viewed as a system which can induce more effort from
teachers. In addition setting targets may be seen as a means by which the ideals of
government, governors and parents can be encapsulated and then used to hold teachers
accountable. This relates to ‘principal-agent theory’. Targets may focus agents’ (in this
case teacher’s) efforts on the particular outcomes sought by principals (in this case
government, governors or parents), providing that the incentives given are sufficient
(Davies et.al., 2004).
One criticism of target setting has been the idea of public service motivation (Francois,
2000). This suggests that specifying precise targets to be achieved will undermine the
motivation of individuals who have previously been stimulated by ideals of social benefit
ahead of personal interest (House, 1996; Adnett, 2003). Davies et.al. (forthcoming)
suggest that in their sample most teachers, as agents, were attempting to adjust practice in
line with the principals, that is the government’s intentions and conclude ‘there may be a
danger that the policy is too successful as it erodes teachers’ self-direction’. This is an
1
Positive primary, negative secondary – attitudes to target setting in schools
important issue as according to the Audit Commission (2002) teachers’ loss of selfdetermination has been a major cause of teachers leaving the profession.
Further dysfunctional effects of target setting on teachers are identified. First, targets that
specify only a few outcomes may lead teachers to put undue effort into achieving these at
the expense of others. Fielding (1999) asks ‘How many teachers, particularly those of
younger children, are now able to listen openly, attentively and in a non-instrumental,
explorative way, to their children/students without feeling guilty, stressed or vaguely
uncomfortable about the absence of criteria or the insistence of a target tugging at their
sleeve’ (p. 280). Second, the relationship between a measured indicator and the
educational outcome may become less reliable as targets create incentives for
dysfunctional behaviour (Reay and Wiliam, 1997). Notably, teachers will ‘teach to the
test’ and be faced with incentives to target students who are on the margin of achieving
these targets. Third, if teachers feel the incentives are insufficient they may be alienated
rather than encouraged by the process. Davies et. al. (forthcoming) provide evidence
suggesting that practice in target setting differs between high and low achieving schools,
with the former having more pupil focused target setting. They suggest that one
plausible interpretation is that the current incentives provided by the target setting system
and difficulties faced by the low achieving schools make it less likely that teachers will be
able to implement an effective target.
Whether the target setting approach is successful in its own terms and whether this is
achieved without significant dysfunctional effect is likely to depend on how this is
implemented in schools. A theme in the literature is the need for targets to emerge from
a participatory and collegiate process if they are to be effective. Clarke and Christie
(1995), write of the importance of teachers hearing their own voices in the decisionmaking process. They stress the need to discuss as this will enable the establishment of
common values. The evidence on practice is mixed. Giles’ (1995) research shows that
that teachers involvement in the planning process was patchy. In his sample of teachers
holding a variety of middle and senior management positions at both primary and
secondary schools 70% had been involved in producing their development plans, but less
than one third of respondents had a copy and only around 40% knew their three key
school development targets. Bremmer and Cartwright (2004) report findings in which
82% of year six primary school teachers considered they had been involved in the target
setting agenda. Their research project suggested that ‘target setting had been used
successfully by schools to improve performance, not only in end of Key Stage
assessments but also in a range of managerial and development issues.’ However,
Wiggins and Tymms (2002) provide evidence that the publishing league tables for
English primary schools have lead to these schools perceiving key performance indicator
systems as being significantly more dysfunctional than Scottish primary schools. There
was no significant difference at the secondary school level where both systems publish
league tables.
Davies and Ellison (1999) write of the confusion arising from the use of such phrases as
‘strategic planning’, ‘target setting’ and ‘development planning’. They propose a model
for school with three interactive planning activities reflecting different time scales: shortterm operational targets, medium-term strategy and longer-term futures perspectives. In
their sample of forty schools few reported having anything but than operational plans
and in many cases these were too detailed and unwieldy to be used as a working
document. They stress the need for the plans to be connected. Blanchard (2003) also
stresses the need for connectivity and suggests that targets have to be translated into
2
Positive primary, negative secondary – attitudes to target setting in schools
reality in dynamic and responsive ways that link whole school and personal targets.
Writers such as Gray et al (1995) and Bremner and Cartwright (2004) have stressed the
need to restrict the number of targets set to ensure that they are both possible and
effective. Brady (1999) reports on the Australian experience where the numbers of
specified outcomes in schools has been reduced.
3)
Method
Data were collected during 2001/2002 from primary and secondary teachers whose
schools were participating in a Local Education Authority (LEA) subject leadership
training programme. The LEA has promoted the use of pupil attainment monitoring
systems provided by the Curriculum, Evaluation and Management Centre at the
University of Durham. The participating schools and teachers cannot, therefore, be
regarded as representative of all schools in the LEA, or nationally. We collected data
through a questionnaire and semi-structured interviews. The schools varied by size, the
percentage of children eligible for free school meals and the average attainment of pupils
on leaving each school. The percentage of 16 year-old students at the seven secondary
schools who achieved 5 or more GCSE grades A* - C ranged between 30 per cent and
70 per cent. Four of the secondary schools achieved less than the county average which
is 48% and 21 out of 60 respondents to the questionnaire replied that their school
achieved less than national average of 50% in that year.
The examination performance of the average of the schools in the sample was compared
to the national average. The results are summarised in table 1.
Table 1. Comparison of schools in the sample to national examination results
Questionnaire
Interviews
Primary
Same
Same
Secondary
Slightly above
Slightly below
At primary level the key stage 2 results were considered and at secondary level GSCE
performance (both in terms of those achieving 5+ A*-C grades and the average grades.
Although the schools in our secondary samples were not quite representative of the
national average, the direction of bias differed between the interviews and questionnaires.
We might expect to find differences in practice and viewpoint within this range of
schools and teachers.
Our interview data are collected from 5 primary schools and 7 secondary schools. The
interviews were conducted with subject leaders attending the training programme, subject
leaders not attending the programme and senior school managers responsible for coordinating the programme in school. Our intention was to interview one teacher from
each of these categories in each school. However, this was not possible in four instances,
leaving a total of 32 interviews, each of which lasted approximately 30 minutes.
Background data were collected and the structure of the interview was designed to enable
cross-reference with the questionnaire data. Interview transcripts were first analysed on a
question by question basis to identify similarities and differences between the responses.
We then sought to identify any connections between the similarities and differences that
emerged in response to each question. Once this analysis was complete we compared the
findings from the interview data with those from the questionnaire.
3
Positive primary, negative secondary – attitudes to target setting in schools
The questionnaires were completed by teachers who were attending the training
programme (21 primary school teachers and 41 secondary school teachers). This
represents a response rate of just under than 30%. The questionnaire included 38
questions, many with subsections. Background data were collected on the school and the
teachers (e.g. age, length of time in teaching, responsibilities). The response rate to the
questions and subsections was very high. The questionnaire was analysed for the
frequency of different responses and associations between different responses were
explored using cross tabulations. Statistical significance was investigated using the one
tailed Fisher exact test.
The questions were largely concerned with target setting rather than longer run strategic
considerations. Respondents were asked questions at the school level where appropriate,
but most of the questions were posed at the subject/pastoral level in which the
respondent had, or hoped for, responsibility.
4)
Findings
A]
How the development plan is devised
Teachers were asked both through interview and questionnaire about the influence
external and internal bodies had on the development of target setting and planning. This
section deals first with external influences and then with the internal influences
comparing evidence from the questionnaires and interviews and from each school sector.
i)
Influences from outside the profession
As part of the questionnaire teachers were asked a number of questions relating to the
development of strategy. From the responses given to these questions it was possible to
gauge teachers views on the extent to which they believed external factors influenced the
work of schools. Despite government agendas for educational change not all primary and
secondary teachers rated ‘government advice’ as ‘very important’. Primary teachers
thought it more important then secondary with 76% responding ‘some’, ‘important’, or
‘very important’, compared to 59% of secondary teachers. Nevertheless at interview there
was a greater acknowledgement of government effects as one primary teacher pointed
out, schools feel bound to carry out government agendas.
“…if the government suddenly said next year has to be history,
history, history then we’d do history, history, history”
primary subject leader
This statement begins to illustrate the feeling held by some teachers in this study that to
an extent they were ‘dancing to government agendas’. Neither primary nor secondary
schools considered LEA influence as greatly important but the primary schools did
report them having influence on deciding targets.
“…I think it’s very much government led because they set targets
which means the LEA has to set their targets which means we have to
set targets and if we don’t achieve ours, the LEA doesn’t achieve theirs
and so on…”
primary subject leader
Both primary and secondary school responses indicated that the governors, parents or
pupils had some impact on the development of school targets was relatively small. This
was somewhat in contrast to the evidence produced from the interviews as here teachers
4
Positive primary, negative secondary – attitudes to target setting in schools
indicated that parents did have an influence. This was because these factors were
regarded as influential on the choices parents make over schools for their children.
“…I think we feel the pressure as teachers trying to get our pupils to
work harder…there’s more awareness isn’t there of outside
targets…parents look at them don’t they and think ‘oh they’re not very
good this year I’m not sending my child there’ so…we do perform to
targets”
secondary subject leader
Additionally one primary teacher pointed out that although agendas may be imposed
from agencies external to the school that didn’t mean the school shouldn’t take
responsibility for ensuring that targets were relevant and understandable for pupils.
“…in terms of being a school it is our responsibility to make the
targets meaningful in terms of meeting the needs of the children in our
school and I feel that we do that.”
primary subject leader
This demonstrates an emphasis and consciousness within primary schools to make all
that they do relevant to the children that they teach which was not articulated as clearly
within the secondary school sample studied. Such an emphasis might be understood in
the light of a raft of government initiatives to which primary schools have been subject.
ii)
Influences from inside the profession
Questionnaire respondents were asked on a scale of 1-5 (‘no effect’ to ‘very important’)
how important various internal factors had been in encouraging changes in thinking
about strategic planning. Primary school teachers were more likely to reply that
‘discussion with colleagues’ was ‘very important’ (57% compared to 23%) the differences
in reply being significant at the 1% level. Senior managers and subject leaders were
considered important by both groups, with these primary schools placing more
importance on the former and secondary on the latter.
All the data highlighted some major differences in the way target setting is influenced by
internal mechanisms between the two sectors. In contrast to the primary schools the
secondary school interviews demonstrated less clarity about their planning especially
when it came to issues outside their own classroom, although in some cases this was
something they were working on.
“I certainly think…prior to OfSTED the department were alerted to
their individual planning and made to ensure that planning was
followed on a day to day basis…I feel that we are getting somewhere
as a department although it is not a shared responsibility so it tends to
be that the head of department takes the main work, takes on the
planning of schemes and then as individual teachers you do your own
day to day planning sort of planning long term is less discussed it isn’t
really such a concern”
secondary aspiring subject leader
There was some suggestion that secondary schools shared information on a ‘need to
know’ basis and that teachers might not want to become more involved. These responses
5
Positive primary, negative secondary – attitudes to target setting in schools
were interesting when compared with those from the secondary school senior managers.
It seemed that often the senior managers believed that planning was engaged in with
more clarity, involvement and to extend further into the future than the subject leaders
themselves indicated.
“…the last two school development plans have been written by the
heads of department so rather than ‘this is the school development
plan here you go, go away and get on with it’ I’ve held heads of
department meetings when they’ve come and brought their ideas…”
secondary senior manager
However whilst clearer understandings of planning in the secondary schools were more
likely to be limited to the senior management team there were signs that in some cases
this situation was changing. The questionnaire asked whether there had been an increase
in the role of target setting in subject leaders’ planning and more secondary teachers
reported this to be the case (80% compared to 55% primary teachers). This was also
reflected in the interview responses.
“…before I became head of department here it was very much…just a
head of department who would sit down and map out the progress, it
was only on a year basis…I wasn’t involved I wasn’t allowed to be
involved I didn’t know, whereas now it’s much more the emphasis
from the school is discuss it at team base level although as head of
department you will have your own views discuss your views with the
rest of the team to see if they’ve got any they can add to it…”
secondary subject leader
It seems that the senior managers believed that discussing implementation of plans was
the way in which colleagues could get involved. In contrast the interviews with primary
schools suggested that they were more likely to discuss issues beyond implementation.
They were jointly involved with policy and planning development as well partly because
of their relatively small size.
“ …the size of the school necessitates you working together…you
can’t work in isolation you’ve got to work with your year team then
you’ve got to work within your key stage…”
primary subject leader
Secondary teachers were conscious of the benefits of more collaboration and discussion
but felt the pressures of time made such efforts very difficult, especially in large
departments.
“…I still wish there was more time we do our best, I mean I do a
certain amount myself I might plan the schemes of work initially but
then I like to discuss”
secondary subject leader
From this data it seemed that the primary schools in our sample had a more developed
notion of what planning involved and in some cases indicated that primary schools
would re-order structures within the school so that particular teams could concentrate on
the issues around planning whilst still consulting colleagues.
6
Positive primary, negative secondary – attitudes to target setting in schools
“…we’ve actually re-structured the management team of this
school…we now have a variety of teams throughout the school…one
of those teams is actually called the strategic planning team…we meet
regularly and look at a whole host of planning issues…as we go
through the year…we actually develop and refocus…”
primary subject leader
Primary schools are relatively small institutions where staff meetings are likely to involve
the whole staff. Thus even if teachers were not directly involved in planning it would be
unlikely that they were totally unaware of school plans and initiatives. However
secondary schools being on the whole larger institutions, are more likely to gather such
information from departmental meetings and therefore be dependent on the extent to
which the head of department is clear about such knowledge and is prepared to share it.
Planning activities are also more likely to take place exclusively within senior
management teams rather than through involving the whole staff.
B]
What planning involves
This section looks at firstly how plans are drawn up and then about considers how
targets are prioritised in order to accomplish the aims of the plan.
i)
Drawing up plans
Figure 1. Percentage replying true to statements describing various aspects of
planning
100
80
60
primary
secondary
40
20
af
f
de
ve
lo
pm
en
t
t
bu
dg
e
st
id
en
t
en
ifie
s
re
al
is
tic
re
s
pr
es
su
tim
e
st
af
f
un
se
de
ve
lo
pm
en
tw
or
k
ar
ed
sh
cl
ea
rv
is
io
n
vi
si
on
0
The questionnaires asked for responses related to how the plan is drawn up and its
content and are illustrated in figure 1. Primary school teachers were more likely to reply
true to all of these. In two questions (the plan ‘sets out development work in detail’ and
‘identifies the staff time involved’) the differences in responses were individually
statistically significant at the 5% level. This figure demonstrates the importance attached
to all aspects of developing planning in primary schools and in particular development
7
Positive primary, negative secondary – attitudes to target setting in schools
time, the clarity of the vision expressed, being realistic, collaborative and dedicating staff
time to do it. During the interviews a number of primary teachers talked about their
increasingly careful planning and how this impacted on the clarity of their approach to
learning and teaching both at subject and at a school level.
“I think (planning has) become more precise in that staff have really had
to think about what they are teaching and why it is being taught… so
things are being pinpointed much more specifically now than they
used to be and therefore having direct influences on teaching what
goes on in the classroom both for a whole class and also for individual
pupils”
primary subject leader
The use of targets in order to meet the needs of the operational plan was also apparent.
“…targets (need to be) measurable so that you can actually say yes I’ve
achieved that…being realistic with the number of targets… ”
primary subject leader
The questionnaire data showed that the secondary schools in our study were setting a
higher number of objectives on average (4.4, compared to 3.6 in primary). A large
percentage of secondary school teachers replied that academic targets (Table 1, rows 1-4)
were set, while a larger percentage of primary teachers replied that non-academic (rows 5
and 6) were set.
Table 1. Types and measurement of target
Row
Type of target
Replied to some to
Replied all measurable
Primary
Secondary
Primary
Secondary
1
Proportion of pupils
gaining more than a
particular level
57%
85%
21%
61%
2
Average outcome for
whole cohort
62%
82%
22%
47%
3
Individual Pupil targets
33%
83%
16%
37%
4
Targets for the process of
teaching and learning
52%
90%
5%
26%
5
Entitlement targets
91%
62%
21%
3%
6
Enrichment targets
57%
40%
16%
8%
Results were significantly different at the 5% level or higher for targets 1, 3, 4 and 5. The
replies to whether the targets set were measurable showed a similar pattern, but also
indicated that targets were more likely to be measurable in secondary schools (the
difference was significant at the 1% level for target 1 and 5% for target 5).
ii)
How targets are prioritised
8
Positive primary, negative secondary – attitudes to target setting in schools
Teachers were asked about target setting and the relative importance of particular
measures. The questionnaires asked teachers to indicate the importance of those targets
based on the percentage of pupils gaining high grades; targeting those pupils with average
grades; targets related to pupil behaviour; those related to pupil attendance; and targets
related to the development of social skills. On a scale of 1 to 5 from ‘no effect’ to ‘very
important’, the majority of teachers in both primary and secondary schools replied that
each type was ‘important’ or ‘very important’. However, secondary school teachers were
more likely to reply that the academic targets were very important, whereas the primary
were more likely to give this response for behaviour and social skills. There was little
difference in responses on attendance. Figure 2 illustrates these responses. The difference
was statistically significant at 5% for pupil behaviour and at 1% for social skills.
Figure 2. Percentage of teachers replying very important to statements describing
various measures of school improvement.
80
60
primary
40
secondary
20
ki
lls
ce
cia
so
te
n
at
ls
da
n
ou
r
vi
be
ha
ge
er
a
av
hi
gh
gr
a
gr
ad
de
s
es
0
These results may reflect differences in attitudes at primary school level. Here parents are
still likely to be very involved with the school and indeed primary schools work in a more
‘family like’ atmosphere which may mean that they place greater importance on social
and enrichment skills. As secondary schools see children who have largely passed
through basic social skills development these may not be quiet such a prominent focus
for development. In addition secondary education is geared towards GCSE examinations
and ensuring pupils leave school with the necessary skills to enter the world of work or
higher education. As a consequence they may have a tendency to concentrate their
efforts on academic skills. These views were illustrated through the interviews in both
primary and secondary schools.
“…we set targets that every child as they go through the school gets
the opportunity to experience a multi-cultural artistic experience…and
co-ordinating for residential visits…to ensure that every child has the
opportunity to experience an outdoor educational visit…”
primary subject leader
“…other things take precedence … (non-academic targets) have been
something which has possibly been overlooked and although the
9
Positive primary, negative secondary – attitudes to target setting in schools
departments are aware of the importance of such things you know
making sure that their students have access to the non-curricular
aspects it’s just that they’ve got it in their mind but don’t necessarily do
it…”
secondary subject leader
The primary schools in our sample seemed to be providing young children with security,
confidence in handling themselves and a breadth of experiences to excite and entice
children to learn. By the time these children have reached secondary education the focus
has shifted significantly in terms of examinations, results and the world of work. Thus
the focus of both these stages of education is somewhat different.
C]
Implementation of the plan
This section explores how schools check that they are meeting the targets set and the
extent to which this is a collaborative process.
i)
Use of and tracking of targets
Formal tracking of targets was apparent in both school sectors but particularly in the
secondary schools. Interview data demonstrated that in secondary schools, data analysis
tends to happen at the more senior levels of the organisation.
“…I track the CATs, SATs teacher assessments at KS3 and then look
at the targets that we put in for that particular year…and then match
them with the actual results”
secondary senior manager
In primary schools tracking is conducted by all staff through gathering test results
together and through monitoring their particular subject responsibility.
“…every year we actually look at the end of key stage SATs and we do
graphs based on overall attainment in each subject…
primary subject leader
However there was an indication of philosophical resistance to testing in the primary
sector.
“…there’s been a big shift…towards examinations and tests and at
the end of the day they are not necessarily better thinkers for it…I
think you’ve got to…get the children…to the process now of we can
look at independent work, so they have, it’s been
evolutionary…because the children have achieved the targets that we
set out to do we’ve been able to move them along”
primary subject leader
It appeared that primary schools looked at target setting in a different way to secondary
schools. For primary schools it is more a joint involvement adapted to the benefit of a
more rounded education. Primary teachers not only have subject responsibilities but they
also have a class responsibility that involves them in delivering the whole curriculum
(academic and non-academic), thus they have an interest in the outcomes of all areas.
ii)
The extent of collaboration about implementation of targets
10
Positive primary, negative secondary – attitudes to target setting in schools
The questionnaires sought to clarify the ways in which teachers identified themselves as
part of a team. Thus they were asked whether ‘members of the team are aware of
objectives’; ‘members of the team know how objectives will be evaluated’; ‘members of
the team will put aside their personal beliefs’; ‘the work of the team is strongly influenced
by agreed long-term aims’; ‘measurable targets will keep members focus on key
objectives’; ‘the team leader regularly reminds the team of objectives and targets’; and
‘there is strong agreement within the team about appropriate objectives and targets’.
Responses were on a likert scale of five from ‘strongly agree’ to ‘strongly disagree’. Again
primary teachers were more likely to ‘strongly agree’ to most of these questions (figure 3).
Figure 3 The team and objectives and targets
40
30
primary
20
secondary
10
t
m
en
re
e
er
ag
in
d
ct
iv
je
ob
ke
y
re
m
es
s
ai
m
ew
lo
ng
te
rm
m
vi
tio
te
a
al
ua
ev
aw
ar
en
es
s
n
0
For the last question, ‘there is strong agreement within the team about appropriate
objectives and targets’ there was little differences in the ‘strongly agree’ replies, but
primary teachers were more likely to reply ‘agree’ (67% compared to 51%). This evidence
again demonstrates the clearer lines of communication and collaboration fostered within
primary schools.
Interviews also highlighted the greater communication and sharing within the primary
sector.
“…since I’ve been here the collaboration has been very good very
constant because it has to be because working with so many different
adults and different groups and children going off for this special
lesson or that special lesson you have to work together as a team”
primary subject leader
Whilst such collaboration may be more easily achieved in the primary sector, the unity
and clarity this encourages would also seem likely to be of benefit to the secondary
sector. Teachers were asked about the frequency of thirteen particular forms of
collaboration in their subject teams. Overall, a higher proportion of primary teachers
replied ‘frequently’ to eight out of these thirteen. The difference was more striking when
11
Positive primary, negative secondary – attitudes to target setting in schools
asked of the importance of collaboration, when primary teachers were more likely to
reply ‘important’ in eleven out of the thirteen forms.
The interview material identifies similar issues.
“…if there’s been a particular difficulty with a particular lesson I’ll go
to see (other teachers) and I’ll explain to them what’s gone on and they’ll
come up with their ideas on perhaps things I could change or how I
could improve it”
secondary subject leader
“We’ve as a whole been working on the schemes of work in the last
two years although it’s the overall responsibility of the subject coordinator it tends to be talked about collaboratively…and…there is
always a report to the governors so there is input there as well”
primary subject leader
Secondary schools were collaborating over particular issues related to delivery of their
subject. It is clear that the primary schools in this study are much more positive about
working collaboratively and identifying with their colleagues on a wider basis.
In general teachers reported using data systematically for identifying the average level of
performance, ability group performance and individual pupil performance as a stimulus
for changes in schemes of work, changes in collaborative practice and as a stimulus for
changing assessment practice. The orientation of secondary schools to their position and
image in the market is much more clearly alluded to than in primary schools. Secondary
schools want data that is quantifiable and covering the academic fields of education
which are widely valued as important by society. On this basis social and enrichment
targets can be seen as ‘soft’ and therefore less appropriate for the market orientated
secondary sector.
iii)
The outcome of target setting
More directly, respondents were asked which of a series of eight statements best
described the effect of recent target setting on their subject or pastoral area. Most
teachers gave a positive reply, but primary school teachers were far more likely to give
the most positive reply (that it had a strong positive effect for most pupils), 55%
compared to 22%. Using Fisher’s exact test, this difference is significance at the 5%
level.
Similar trends were apparent from the interviews with primary teachers showing
enthusiasm and secondary responses being slightly more reserved in their support.
“…we are being asked to state more definitely what we are doing
rather than going our own sweet way as we used to…just to record in
detail what is being done…it’s to ensure that the pupils have a good
rounded education…academic performance… also… opportunities…
like music drama and PE….and I think that’s very important that
those targets should be set because it covers the whole curriculum”
primary subject leader
12
Positive primary, negative secondary – attitudes to target setting in schools
“…I think as overall targets I think they are probably ok and
everybody strives to be better so you need to have targets don’t you”
secondary subject leader
5)
Conclusion and Recommendations
It was argued earlier that targets force schools to achieve outcomes dictated from outside
the school (Davies et.al., 2004). In addition the imposition of targets (DfEE, 1997) has
met with some philosophical resistance from teachers and was seen particularly in the
responses at interview from primary respondents. However evidence from this study
indicates that primary schools may be adapting their target setting to better meet the
needs of ‘the whole child’ and matching these to whole school development issues which
have been arrived at collaboratively. In contrast there was evidence that secondary staff,
particularly those within departments, were lacking in self-determination as planning was
taking place within senior management (an issue highlighted as problematic by the Audit
Commission, 2002). If collaborative implementation is as important as Clarke and
Christie (1995) argue then the primary schools in this study are likely to fair better as they
are more actively developing common values than secondary schools reported doing.
This would seem to confirm Bremmer and Cartwright’s (2004) findings. Also schools
seemed to be concentrating on operational issues rather than strategic plans. Whilst
primary schools did refer to strategic planning, in general it was not clear that such
planning was fully understood by schools in more than an operational context, as Davies
and Ellison (1999) also found.
To conclude this research indicates that these schools were generally positive about the
target setting process. This was particularly true for the primary schools who looked at
target setting in its widest format considering the development of the whole child and
wider curriculum needs. Primary schools appeared to have fewer targets, as the literature
recommends (e.g. Gray et al 1995). The responses given suggest that a primary school is
an easier establishment in which to communicate and collaborate in terms of size and
philosophy. Primary school staff have been subject to heavy scrutiny over time and this
may have lead to them being more open to intrusions into the sanctity of classroom and
to become more aware of the wider aims of the school. Moreover, despite the pressures
of testing and the various government initiatives that have been forthcoming in recent
years (Flecknoe, 2001) primary schools appear to be able to view the child more
holistically. In contrast the secondary schools in this study appeared to be much more
focused on examination results and public image and this may be to the detriment of
wider considerations. Senior managers in secondary schools were more removed from
subject leaders and departments than in the primary schools and we suggest that closer
collaboration in secondary schools rather than setting large numbers of targets may be
more successful in establishing the co-operation and understanding of staff.
6)
References
Adnett, N (2003) Reforming Teachers' Pay: incentive payments, collegiate ethos and UK
Policy, Cambridge Journal of Economics (forthcoming).
Audit Commission (2002) Recruitment and Retention, London: Audit Commission.
Blanchard, J (2003) Targets Assessment for Learning and Whole School Improvement,
Cambridge Journal of Education, 33(2), 257-271
13
Positive primary, negative secondary – attitudes to target setting in schools
Bremmer I.and Cartwright D. (2004), Target setting in Primary Schools: the big squeeze,
Education 3-13, 32 (1), 4-8.
Davies B. and Ellison L. (1999) Strategic Direction and Development of the School, Routledge,
London
Davies P., Coates G., Hammersley-Fletcher L. and Mangan J. (2004) When ‘becoming a
50% school’ is success enough: a principal-agent analysis of subject leaders’ target setting,
(forthcoming)
Department for Education and Employment (DFEE) (1997) From Targets to Action,
London: HMSO.
Department for Education and Employment DfEE (1997) Setting Targets to Raise
Standards, www.dfes.gov.uk
Flecknoe, M. (2001) Target setting: will it help to raise achievement? Educational
Management & Administration, 29(2), 217-228.
Floyd, S. and Wooldridge, B. (2000) Building Strategy from the middle: reconceptualizing the
strategy process, Sage: Thousand Oaks, Ca.
Francois, P (2000) ‘Public service motivation’ as an argument for government provision,
Journal of Public Economics, 78, 275-299.
Giles, C (1995) School-based planning: are UK schools grasping the strategic initiative,
International Journal of Educational Management, 9(4), 4-7.
Gorard, S, Sewyn, N and Rees, G (2002) “‘Privileging the visible’: a critique of the
National Learning Targets”, in British Educational Research Journal, 28(3), 309-326.
Gray, J., Reynolds, D., Fizgibbon, C., and Jesson, D. (1995) Merging Traditions; The
Future of Research on School Effectiveness and School Improvement, London,
Cassel.
House, ER (1996) A Framework for Appraising Educational reforms, Educational
Researcher, 25(7), 6-14.
Luyten, H (2003) The Size of School Effects Compared to Teacher Effects: An
Overview of the Research Literature, School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 14(1), 3151.
Ofsed (1996) Setting Targets to Raise Standards: A survey of good practice. London DfEE
Wiggins, A and Tymms, P. (2002) Dysfunctional effects of league tables: a comparison
between English and Scottish Primary schools, Public Money and Management, Jan-Mar, 4348.
14