Distributive leadership by Hill West Primary School

Hill West Research Papers

Transformational Leadership Versus Distributive Leadership â&#x20AC;&#x201C; encouraging senior leaders in educational contexts to interact through the medium of conversation to share knowledge and grow intellectual practitioners at all levels

By Dr. Beth Clarke June 2009

Contents

Page

Introduction

3-5

Literature Review

6-9

Methodology

10 - 13

Presentation and Analysis of Data

14 - 18

Conclusion

18 - 20

References

21 - 22

Appendix 1

Appendix 2

Appendix 3

25 - 26

Appendix 4

27 - 28

Introduction

As a newly appointed primary Head Teacher I have been surprised to discover the proportion of time I spend considering ways in which I can engage all staff in intellectual thinking. This leads me to question the effectiveness of our current leadership style in terms of ‘true’ distribution. As a result, this research project will focus on how senior leaders in educational contexts interact through the medium of conversation to share knowledge and grow intellectual practitioners at all levels through a distributive model of practice.

Theories of leadership have been fast to emerge, (NCSL). For the purpose of this study I will be analysing two distinct models of leadership, transformational and distributive leadership. I will then consider these leadership styles in the context of the power and transmission of knowledge. My research questions will ask, what is the prevailing leadership style in my own school setting and how much intellectual work is taking place based on the number of open questions and knowledge statements shared amongst staff.

Transformational leadership argued Bennet et al (2003) can be described as a prescriptive model of school leadership which emphasises a number of strongly person-centred dimensions, including building a vision, establishing a commitment to shared goals and providing intellectual stimulation. “The transformational leader, then, is charismatic and works, not by force, but through the articulation of a vision that others are prevailed upon to subscribe to” (Bennet et al, 2003, p.2).

Distributive Leadership however recognises that even charismatic leaders, cannot lead alone and questions the validity of delivering a vision from on ‘high’. Distributive leadership argued Bennet (2003) “…suggests that leadership might be exercised by many different people at different times, and in relation to different issues, depending on the circumstances and the demands of each occasion” (p.3).

As a practicing Head Teacher I recognise that since my appointment, at the point of amalgamation, I have been endeavouring to make the shift from the transformational style of leadership towards a more distributive leadership style in an attempt to involve all staff in an intellectual process.

Leadership in educational studies suggested Gunter (2001), can be seen as the process and product by which powerful groups are able to control and sustain their interests. This control is derived from a firm knowledge base that is carefully guarded. The transmission of knowledge is controlled through access to learning (Young, 1998). The transformational style of leadership, where the Head Teacher holds the knowledge and uses this knowledge to develop the school vision and development plan, suggests little transmission of learning.

Connell as early as 1983 argued, that there is a need to stand outside the traditional power structures that have created and sustained intellectual work as an elite activity and see it instead as a labour process or a job in which there is equivalent manual activity (writing) and abstract activity (thinking). Intellectual work at all levels could surely be an outcome of distributive leadership?

But how do we create the climate to foster intellectual work for all staff? If a knowledge worker such as a Deputy Head Teacher in a meeting is in receipt of a prescribed framework that has already been decided and therefore just describes rather than critically evaluates the task in hand, then there is no intellectual work to be done and the result of this is an elite organisation with the power / knowledge base positioned at the top of the hierarchy (Gunter 2003).

In the four sections that follow I will refer to the relevant literature. Then I will explain the methodology used to carry out this research project, justifying the research tools. â&#x20AC;&#x153;The researcher should enter the field with pre-established hypothesis to be testedâ&#x20AC;? (Denscombe 2003, p.203).

The conceptual framework upon which the research is structured is that interactions that are based on the sharing of knowledge and the asking of higher order open questions as opposed to managerial process led questions may lead to intellectual thinking for all staff (please see Appendix 1). This study therefore sets out to ascertain the number of higher order knowledge statements and open questions asked of, and by staff, in their formal and informal discussions with the Deputy Head Teacher.

I will conclude the study by analysing the findings of the research drawing on any comparisons or contradictions with the literature studied identifying ethical considerations. I will address the research questions by identifying the prevailing leadership style evident in my own school and the effects of this style on encouraging intellectual work at all levels. I will draw the research together in my conclusion and recommendations for future practice.

Literature Review

This literature review will explore published research and focus on three over-arching themes. Firstly it will discuss the model of transformational leadership, secondly it will analyse the distributive leadership model and finally it will examine the power of knowledge within an educational organisation.

Transformational Leadership Gunter (2001) criticised transformational leadership as a model of leadership derived in science laboratories which presents leadership as being a leader through appointment to a post within an organisational structure and prescribes what that leader does by abstracting tasks and behaviours. It exaggerates agency in ways that objectifies, and hence undermines, professional relationships between Head Teachers and Teachers.

Bennet (2003) supported this view and argued that in a transformational leadership model leadership is concentrated in the hands of one, or perhaps, a small number of individuals. Leaders set direction and create the culture â&#x20AC;&#x201C; the norms that constrain and prescribe the actions of others to which they have to conform and follow. Transformational leaders argued Bennet (2003) source the change and transformation and the follower is essentially a passive participant in the process. Even when an individual member of the organisation generates ideas for change, their implementation is dependent on the approval of the leader. Depending on the degree of direct control that the leader seeks to exercise, she or he may be seen as the apex of a hierarchy or as the centre of a web.

Having said this however Goddard (2003, cited in Bennett) adds an additional perspective to transformational leadership. Goddard (2003) argued that transformational leadership sees Head Teachers as not being content with being the only leaders in the school Rather the Head Teacher facilitates the development of leadership abilities within all staff. She or he does this by identifying and articulating a vision for the school, conveying expectations for high levels of performance, and providing both intellectual stimulation and individualized support.

Yet it would be fair to argue that a transformational style of leadership, whilst encouraging intellection thought and action at all levels would do so in a very controlled and prescriptive context.

Distributive Leadership “Distributive leadership concentrates on engaging expertise wherever it exists within the organisation rather than seeking this only through formal position or role” (Harris, 2004, p.13).

Harris (2004) suggested that distributing leadership equates to maximising the human capacity within the organisation. A consequence of distributive leadership is that all personnel become managers because the possibility is opened up that management as a function ceases to be the monopoly of a cadre of elite career specialist.

Gronn (2003) supported the view of Harris (2004) stating that a key facet of distributive leadership is the relinquishing or dispersal of power. A distributed view of leadership demands that we reconsider the ‘leader’ as simply the ‘Head Teacher’ and recognise the leadership potential in all.

Macbeath (2005) undertook a study into distributive leadership with 11 schools. From this study he derived 6 models of distributed leadership ranging from the most formal models with a top down approach through to the cultural model where leadership was intuitive, assumed rather than given, shared organically and opportunistically and embedded in the school ethos.

The literature suggests that distributive leadership can mean different things to different organisations. For me, distributive leadership is about creating intellectual, reflective thinkers who are able to openly challenge, support, innovate and discuss opinions based on a sound theoretical understanding of the issues. I would argue that to achieve this a cultural model of distribution is necessary. â&#x20AC;&#x153;Distribution culturally sees the strength of the school as located in its collective intelligenceâ&#x20AC;Ś.â&#x20AC;? (MacBeath, 2005, p.362)

Knowledge is Power In the two models of leadership discussed it is possible to see very different approaches to the sharing of knowledge and the encouragement of intellectual thinking.

Gunter (2001) argued that field activity can only be understood by a theory of knowledge production that enables an interplay between objectivity and subjectivity so that the binaries which establish oppositions are eliminated. Those who write and are written about, those who use theory and those who produce it, those who research about and those who research with, can all be part of the same story.

Understanding intellectual work requires a sociological interrogation of practice in order to describe and understand the complex motivations of individuals and the structures they inhabit. Educational leadership is a competitive arena in which struggles are not just about material gain but also symbolic capital, or authority and prestige (Gunter, 2001). This is linked to who is accepted as having legitimate views, who is listened to, who is published, who is read and who is talked with and about.

Bourdieu (1990) argued strongly that agents within educational settings take up positions in a struggle for distinction through their social interactions and encounters. This theory of practice enables knowledge production about and within leaders and leadership in educational studies to be described and understood.

In summary therefore, the development of intellectual thinkers and workers is dependent on the open sharing of knowledge and a realisation that all field activity can only be truly understood and therefore improved upon with an understanding of theory - an interplay between objectivity and subjectivity. The aim of this study therefore is to identify the prevailing model of leadership in evidence within the school that I work and the extent to which it suits the production and sharing of knowledge leading to an intellectually thinking organisation.

Methodology

In the previous sections I have explored the theoretical framework that underpins the work upon which my analysis, conclusions and recommendations are based. This section concerns itself with the methodological procedures that were used.

Case Study A case study was conducted with a Deputy Head Teacher, new to post. Flick (2006) argued that the aim of a case study is to precisely describe or reconstruct a case – a case meaning a person and or a social community or organisation as the subject of case analysis. Case studies are preferable with small – scale research projects suggested Denscombe (2003). “The value of a case study approach is that it has the potential to deal with the subtleties and intricacies of complex social situations. This potential comes from the strategic decision to restrict the range of the study to just one or a few cases” (Denscombe, 2003, p.37, 38).

The aim of this research was to identify the prevailing leadership style in one organisation and to analyse that style to see if it best met the conditions necessary to encourage and foster intellectual work at all levels. In order to explore this fully it was necessary to identify a suitable qualitative, humanistic research tool.

Research Tools This research was humanistic and qualitative in nature. Observations argued Grbich (2007) are a commonly used tool in qualitative research. “Observation offers the social researcher a distinct way of collecting data. It does not rely on what people say they do, or what they say they think. It is more direct than that” (Denscombe, 2003, p.192).

The advantages of observation as a research tool purported Flick (2006), over and above, interviews and narratives is that these approaches merely make the accounts of practices accessible instead of the practices themselves.

In my role as research I designed a systematic observation schedule concerned with analysing the sorts of questions asked to staff and the type of knowledge shared (see Appendix 2). I then set about observing the Deputy Head Teacher colleague in three different situations using the observation schedule as a record (see Appendix 3).

Participant Observation I was intent on being a participant observer, where my identity as a researcher was openly recognised. “By participant observation we mean the method in which the observer participates in the daily life of the people under study…” (Becker and Geer 1957 : 28). I ensured that I faded into the background and became to all intents and purposes, invisible. In order to do this I had to consider three key issues 

Unobtrusive positioning



Avoiding interaction



Length of time spend observing

Conversation Analysis Ethnomethodology is a study of the ways in which people make sense of what other people do in the processes of social interaction. Central to the success of this small – scale study was the analysis of conversation and the spoken word. Through analysing the types of questions asked and the level of knowledge imparted through

conversation, it was going to be possible to identify a preferred leadership style and the level of intellectual thinking being encouraged. “The central goal of conversation analysis is the exploration, through the use of the spoken word, of the procedures which speakers use to communicate in a variety of socially mediated situations” (Grbich 2007, p.136).

Ethical Considerations As a social researcher I was conscious of the need to operate with honesty and integrity (Denscombe, 2003) ensuring an ethical approach to the collection of the data, the analysing of the data and particularly in this instance, the dissemination of the findings. Colleagues were asked for their consent to be part of this study and were made aware that I was a participant observer (BERA, 2004). Their anonymity was guaranteed although I was aware of the problems associated with context in qualitative data and research such as this. As with much qualitative research this study produced information largely about a single participant. When you study a single case or a limited number of cases in well – defined fields it is much easier to identify the “real” person from the context information included (Flick, 2006). As a direct result of this I have given careful consideration to the way in which I will disseminate my findings ensuring that colleagues are not made to feel that the research in any way criticises our existing leadership practices but rather clearly identifies our strengths and future actions.

Limitations of the Study This research was limited in its methodology. When opting for a case study approach argued Denscombe (2003) the social researcher is likely to confront scepticism about the findings – scepticism that arises from doubts about how far it is reasonable to

generalize from the findings. One research tool was relied upon to generate information and draw conclusions and so the reliability of research could be called into question. Because participant observation relies so crucially on the researcherâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;selfâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; as the instrument of research, it becomes exceedingly difficult to repeat a study to check for reliability (Denscombe, 2003). However the design of an observation schedule was to counteract some of these criticisms. The observation schedule used and the conceptual framework upon which it was based could be further developed and used for more extensive research in the future.

Presentation and Analysis of the Data

To aid the reader the presentation and analysis of data has been sub-divided. The first section cites evidence gained from analysing all of the questions asked and the second section analyses the production of and sharing of knowledge between the staff (for detailed analysis see Appendix 4).

The purpose of the research was to investigate how senior leaders in educational contexts interacted through the medium of conversation to share knowledge and grow intellectual practitioners at all levels through a distributive model of leadership. The hypothesis upon which the research was structured was that interactions based on open questioning and the imparting of knowledge would lead to higher order intellectual thinking. The Deputy Head Teacher was observed in three different contexts. 

The staff room during lunch



During regular leadership and management time



Chairing a senior leadership team meeting

Questioning Questions asked by the Deputy Head The Deputy Head Teacher asked 57 questions during the observation.

The majority

of questions asked (29) were posed whilst the Deputy Head was carrying out her leadership and management duties. This was followed by her asking (23) questions whilst chairing the senior leadership team meeting. The fewest questions (5) were asked in the staff room during lunch and all of these questions were closed questions

focusing primarily on social interactions and functions. For example, ‘Did you have a nice weekend’, ‘how was the wedding?’

Of all the questions asked, the majority were managerial in nature and very much process led. Of the 29 questions asked during the Deputy Heads leadership and management time 26 of these questions were closed. For example ‘how long is the application process for web-site of the week’, ‘have you received the reference I sent you last week’, ‘are you enjoying your lesson this afternoon’, ‘are you o.k?’ During this time 3 of the questions posed were open questions and gave the respondents the opportunity to expand on their answers but none were of an intellectual nature.

During the senior leadership team meeting, 23 questions were posed by the Deputy Head Teacher. Once again the majority of these questions were closed questions and called for no justification or critically evaluative response. For example the Deputy Head Teacher spent the first ten minutes of the meeting re-confirming the leadership team commitment. This activity had scope for intellectual dialogue yet she asked… “our leadership team commitment states that we should critically challenge one another, are we doing that?” “our leadership team commitment states that we should praise one another frequently. Do you agree that we are doing that?” The senior leader’s response in each case was “yes” and at no point were they encouraged to justify their responses or site examples of impact or effectiveness. Similarly, closed questions were posed during the scrutiny of pupil’s work that followed, for example ‘is there a date and a title on every piece of work’?

5 Open questions were asked during this meeting but respondents were not urged to expand on their responses to questions. For example the Deputy Head asked

“what are your impressions of what you have seen?” The response was “these books are much better now that they were two years ago”. The Deputy Head accepted this response and moved on to question the next leadership team member. During this meeting 3 questions were posed by the Deputy Head that were intellectual and pedagogical in nature and what I observed was that she often did not give the respondents time to answer these questions – interrupting and answering herself to fill the void of silence.

Questions asked by the Staff The staff asked 23 questions during the observation.

The majority of questions

posed (14) were asked during the senior leadership team meeting. Of all the questions asked by staff in an informal exchange none were intellectual or pedagogical in nature and only one was an open question seeking an evaluative response. This question took place in the staff room when a teacher, looking for reassurance, asked the Deputy Head to comment on a child’s piece of writing. Yet on the whole, the types of questions asked were managerial and very much process led. For example, “are you using this room now”, “how shall we do this then”, “shall I work with him”, “how long have we got”?

Sharing Knowledge Knowledge shared by the Deputy Head The Deputy Head teacher shared 27 knowledge statements whilst being observed. Of the 27 knowledge statements shared the majority were communicated in the senior leadership team meeting, followed closely during leadership and management time. However of the 27 knowledge statements shared 23 of them were managerial and

process led and only four of them were of an intellectual or pedagogical nature. Of those four all took place in the senior leadership team meeting and formed the summary or concluding statement to the meeting. For example the Deputy Head teacher said, â&#x20AC;&#x153;it is evident from what we have all seen that we need to develop the identification of success criteria by teachers and pupils across the school in order to improve our assessment for learning strategies and mark to specific learning objectivesâ&#x20AC;?.

Knowledge shared by the Staff The staff shared 39 knowledge statements in total whilst being observed. Significantly here the number of knowledge statements cited from staff during the Deputy Head Teacherâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s management and leadership time were identical in number to the statements cited during the senior leadership team meeting. Yet all of the intellectual and pedagogical knowledge statements were shared during the senior leadership team meeting. This seems to suggest that although members of the senior leadership team are beginning to become knowledge producers and users we are yet to disseminate this out to all staff.

Conclusion

Although this preliminary study was limited by a number of constraints including the timescale, word count, and the number of observations undertaken, it had two clear aims. The first was to ascertain the prevailing leadership style in my own school setting and the second was to identify whether or not this leadership style was creating intellectual, knowledge thinkers at all levels - true distribution of leadership and power. As a newly appointed primary Head Teacher striving for a successful school I am convinced that intellectual work leading to enlightenment and understanding for all staff is essential.

Although I was aware that I had adopted a transformational style of leadership at appointment I was certain that I was making an assertive effort to become distributive. However the evidence gained in the study pointed very convincingly to the fact that the prevailing leadership style continued to be quite prescribed and transformational in nature.

The findings cited in the previous chapter support the work of Gunter (2001) and Bennet (2003) who identified that transformational leadership is a model of leadership that enables and supports existing power structures to be maintained and developed aiding whole school management. Of all the questions asked during the research observation and of all the knowledge statements shared the overwhelming majority were of a managerial nature and were concerned with following a process or a routine. In fact the number of questions or knowledge statements of an intellectual or pedagogical nature were startlingly low.

Harris (2004) suggested that distributive leadership means multiple sources of guidance and direction, following the contours of expertise in an organisation, made coherent through a common culture. I subscribe to this and for me, distributive leadership is about creating intellectual, reflective thinkers who are able to openly challenge, support, innovate and discuss opinions based on a sound theoretical understanding of the issues. I would argue that to achieve this a cultural model of distribution is necessary where the â&#x20AC;&#x153;collective intelligenceâ&#x20AC;? of the school is fully utilised (MacBeath, 2005).

The conversation analysis in this study however indicated that cultural distribution was not the prevailing leadership style. Staff were not openly sharing their expertise or discussing issues in any great depth. Instead the transformational style of leadership that had been adopted had led the staff to converse about managerial tasks where the production and sharing of knowledge was negligible.

These findings are in contrast with the arguments of Goddard (2003) who stated that the transformational leader is not content with being the only leader in the school but facilitates the development of leadership abilities within all staff by providing both intellectual stimulation and individualized support.

In this study limited evidence

could be found to substantiate these claims. For example of the 57 questions asked by the Deputy Head teacher only 3 were of an intellectual nature and similarly of the 23 questions asked by the staff 0 were of an intellectual nature. Having said this however, of the intellectual knowledge statements cited, all were during the senior leadership team meeting suggesting that the transformational style of leadership was in fact developing leadership abilities in others but in a measured and controlled manner.

There is most certainly, I believe, a need to stand outside the traditional power structures that have created and sustained intellectual work as an elite activity and see it as an integral part of the role of all practitioners involved in the education of young people. What we need is less emphasis on restructuring hierarchical leadership and more courage to enable all staff to work on developing learning processes in the contextual settings in which they are located. This approach would focus schools on pedagogy rather than mundane day-to day management issues (Gunter, 2003). “In particular, I argue for conceptually informed practice that embraces a radical professionality in which educational professionals are users and producers of leadership knowledge, and that the site for knowledge production is a collaborative and shared space for knowledge workers in schools” (Edwards, 2000b cited in Gunter 2001).

Recommendations My role as the researcher within this small - scale study has fuelled my desire for further action – based research. It has made me reflect on my own leadership style and question my current practice. The conceptual framework upon which this study is based holds great potential for extended research in the future. I would suggest that any further research should concern itself with the conditions necessary to build a team of knowledge producers and knowledge sharers and examine the effects of such intellectual work on the effectiveness of the educational organisation as a whole.

References

Bennet, N. and Anderson, L. (2003) (eds) Rethinking Educational Leadership. London: Sage Publications

Bourdieu, P. (1990) on Other Words: Essays Towards a Reflexive Sociology. Trans. M. Adamson. Cambridge: Polity Press in association with Blackwell

Connell, R. W. (1983) Which Way Is Up? Essays on Sex, Class and Culture. Sydney: Allen and Unwin

Denscombe, M. (2003) The Good Research Guide, Second Edition, Maidenhead: Open University Press

Edwards, A. 2000b Researching pedagogy: a sociocultural agenda. Inaugural lecture, 7 November, School of Education, University of Birmingham. Flick, U. (2006) An Introduction to Qualitative Research, 3rd Edition, London: Sage Publications

Goddard J. T. (2003) Leadership in the (Post) Modern Era, in Bennet, N. and Anderson, L. (2003) (eds) Rethinking Educational Leadership. London: Sage Publications

Grbich, C (2007) Qualitative data analysis, an introduction, London: Sage Publications

Gronn, P. (2003) Distributing and Intensifying School Leadership in Bennet, N. and Anderson, L. (2003) (eds) Rethinking Educational Leadership. London: Sage Publications

Gunter, H. (2001) Leaders and Leadership in Education, London: Sage Publications

Harris, A. (2004) Distributed Leadership and School Improvement in Educational Management Administration and Leadership. London: Sage Publications

MacBeath, J. (2005) School Leadership and Management Vol. 25, No 4, September 2005, pp349-366

Young, M. F. D. 1998 The Curriculum of the Future. London: Falmer Press

Appendix 1 Conceptual Framework

Collective Intelligence leading to

Higher Order Open Questioning

Intellectual / Pedagogical Discussion

(Who, What Why When Where)

(in-depth, reflective dialogue)

Prescribed Leadership Framework leading to

Process Led Closed Questions

Efficient Management / controlled dialogue

(Will you, Do you think, What time, How many)

(yes, no)

Appendix 2 Observation Schedule General Information

Time of Observation

Questioning Asked

Answered

Managerial – process led Higher – order / Open

Intellectual / pedagogical

Imparting of Knowledge Given Managerial Process led

Intellectual / pedagogical

Informal Exchanges Interacting with…

General Observations

Received

Appendix 3 Observation Schedule General Information I observed the Deputy head Teacher new to post in three different daily scenarios. The most informal situation was in the staffroom during lunch, a little more formal was in her role as a non-class based deputy, managing her own work load and finally I observed her in a more formal role whilst she was leading a senior leadership team meeting that included scrutinising pupils work from across the school. Time of Observation 12.40p.m. – 1.00p.m. 1.00p.m. – 2.00p.m. 3.45p.m. – 5.00p.m.

in the staffroom at lunch non class based management and leadership time senior leadership team meeting

Questioning Asked

Answered

Managerial – process led

Higher – order / Open

Intellectual / pedagogical

Imparting of Knowledge Given Managerial Process led

Intellectual / pedagogical

Received

Informal Exchanges Interacting with…  Supply teacher

General Observations Social questioning about the weekend activities, holidays etc.



Social questioning about the weekend



NQT

Discussion around the children and whether their behaviour had improved



Leadership Team Member

Organisation of booster lessons for Year 6 children



HLTA

Organisation of booster lessons for Year 6 children



Supply Teacher

Advice about the social and emotional state of mind of a child via the analysis of a piece or writing



Finance Officer



Member of PTA



Secretary

Conversation about school web-site and what should be included



NQT Pool

Had they received a reference that had been posted



NQT

Social questioning – ‘are you o.k?’



Child

‘What are you doing?’



Leadership Team

Meeting organised and run by agenda. Revisited Leadership Team Commitment and asked a range of closed questions ‘do you think that we are doing that?’ ‘ What do you think of that one?’ So although the activity had scope for intellectual discussion and was focued on leadership and management pedagogy, questions became very superficial. Questions focused on ‘do we’ and not ‘how do we?’ For the majority of the meeting questions were closed e.g. ‘is the date written on each piece of work, have the worksheets been trimmed, is there evidence of differentiation, this is neatly presented isn’t it? Shall we compare the most able? Etc, etc

Social questioning – ‘are you o.k?’ Organisation and storage of donations

Appendix 4 Observation Schedule â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Detailed Analysis

Questions asked by the Deputy Head The Deputy Head Teacher asked 57 questions in total whilst being observed.

The staff room during lunch

Total number of questions asked 5

Managerial / process led

Higher Intellectual / Order / Open Pedagogical

During regular leadership and management time

Chairing a senior leadership team meeting

Total

Questions asked by the Staff The staff asked 23 questions in total whilst being observed.

The staff room during lunch

Total number of questions asked 4

Managerial / process led

Higher Intellectual / Order / Open Pedagogical

During regular leadership and management time

Chairing a senior leadership team meeting

Total

Knowledge shared by the Deputy Head The Deputy Head teacher shared 27 knowledge statements in total whilst being observed.

The staff room during lunch

Total number of knowledge statements 5

Managerial / process led

Intellectual / Pedagogical

During regular leadership and management time

Chairing a senior leadership team meeting

Total

Knowledge shared by the Staff The staff shared 39 knowledge statements in total whilst being observed.

The staff room during lunch

Total number of knowledge statements 3

Managerial / process led

Intellectual / Pedagogical

During regular leadership and management time

Chairing a senior leadership team meeting

Total