Effectiveness of leadership
The leadership skills of principal teachers were judged to be very good in 20% of departments and to display more strengths than weaknesses in 55%. However, it is of concern that almost 20% of principal teachers showed some important weaknesses in leadership and 5% were found to be unsatisfactory. In a few schools there was evidence that the unsatisfactory leadership of the principal teacher had been a feature for a number of years and it is highly regrettable that education authorities and senior management in these schools had been unable to improve the situation.
Overall, the majority of principal teachers of mathematics gave a good lead to their departments. They were up-to-date in their knowledge of educational developments in the subject. They encouraged teamwork, communicated effectively and delegated appropriately to assistant principal teachers and to other staff. Key features of very good leadership are given in Box 14.
In departments where leadership showed weaknesses there was usually a need for improvement in some of the areas listed in Box 14. Sometimes, however, constraints on the effectiveness of departmental leadership resulted from factors beyond the control of the principal teacher. In some schools the lack of a regular timetabled departmental meeting significantly limited the effectiveness of departmental management; and the lack of a departmental base in almost a third of departments also made it much more difficult to achieve a good level of communication and teamwork within the department.
14Characteristics of very good departmental leadership included:
|
Self-evaluation
Self-evaluation was an area of weakness. In 40% of departments self-evaluation was considered to be very good or to have more strengths than weaknesses. In over 45% of departments it had important weaknesses and in over 10% it was unsatisfactory, usually as a result of weak leadership by the principal teacher. Most departments analysed pupils' performance in external examinations from S4 - S6 and took action to improve courses when weaknesses were found. However, few had similar procedures for S1/S2.
Procedures for monitoring the work of teachers were generally informal and few departments had introduced systematic procedures to allow the principal teacher to evaluate the quality of learning and teaching. In the best practice, principal teachers observed lessons and used questionnaires to obtain the views of pupils and teachers. Mathematics departments need to strengthen their approach to self- evaluation and introduce a range of systematic procedures, including the use of the national performance indicators published by HMI in How Good is Our School?
Development planning
Development planning in mathematics departments was notably weak. Seventy per cent of the departments inspected had drawn up development plans which had some important weaknesses or were unsatisfactory. Only a few departmental development plans were very good. The characteristics of good development plans are shown in box 15. Common weaknesses included:
Despite the weaknesses listed above, most departments had correctly identified some areas in which improvement was needed and 60% had taken effective action in relation to these.
HMI noted a clear link between the quality of development plans and the effective implementation of departmental objectives. Well constructed plans were almost invariably associated with good quality departmental development work.
15Development plans were good when:
|
Further copies of this report may be obtained from
The Stationery Office Bookshop
71 Lothian Road
Edinburgh
EH3 9AZ
Telephone: 0870 606 5566
6.00
ISBN: 0 7480 8921 7