‘It ain’t what you do, it’s the way that you do it’ school culture and curriculum development- exploring an integrated approach to leading curriculum change

Thesis

Recent syntheses of research in educational leadership have found that ‘there is good evidence that the professional environment in the school can also affect student’s learning. The responsibility for creating and maintaining the most conducive professional environment lies with school leaders’ (Coe, Kime & Singleton 2022). This suggests that factors such as school culture may, through its impact on teacher’s professional environments, impact student outcomes. However, the abstract nature of terms like ‘culture’, combined with the relatively sparse research into school culture, has meant that school improvement efforts (specifically related to curriculum) are not always able to leverage the potential power of overtly developing school culture.

In order to address the relative lack of research in this area, this small-scale practitioner research explores the potential of a theoretical framework that could be utilised by leaders. ‘Cultural curricular knowledge’ (CCK) (Impact, 2024) modelled on ‘Pedagogical Content Knowledge’ (Shulman 1986), attempts to refocus leader’s implementation efforts on a dual development of both culture and curriculum. This study involved two 45 min focus groups with teachers, exploring their lived experience of a curriculum change. An intervention was delivered to senior leaders (Headteacher, two assistant headteachers and two subject leaders), providing them with bespoke training, incorporating the key themes that emerged from the baseline focus group that emerged as areas for development in school culture, as well as a focus on ‘CCK’ and in particular, sensemaking (Ancona 2012). The follow up focus group was used to ascertain whether teachers felt, even slightly, a shift in leadership practices and culture that further support their curriculum design and delivery work.

The findings suggest that particular conditions supported curriculum change, such as psychological safety: ‘the conditions and climate in which people are comfortable being themselves’ (Edmondson 2003). However, certain tensions hindered curriculum change, including external constraints, and a lack of perceived autonomy, suggesting that there was a distinction between the climate of the sector and the ‘microclimate’ of the school. The theoretical framework of ‘CCK’ (Impact, 2024) may therefore be useful for leaders to utilise when they’re considering the conditions required within their own school context. However, it is limited by the reliability of ‘culture data’ and external constraints that may undermine the internal culture of a school, potentially limiting leaders’ ability to intentionally and deliberately control the ‘micro-climate’ of their schools.

Authors: Sharma, L

• DOI: 10.5287/ora-yxarom1mj
• Type of award: MSc taught course
• Level of award: Masters
• Awarding institution: University of Oxford
• Language: English
• Keywords: qualitative research; implementation; curriculum; LT; focus group; LT2024; culture
• Subjects: Focus groups; Education; Culture; Qualitative research; Curriculum