School leaders leading curriculum inclusion: Re-culturing pedagogy,re-imagining the student experience

Abstract

There has been widespread discussion within and outside educational institutions on the relevance and suitability of the curriculum provided to students in the United Kingdom. In North London, at the beginning of the school year 2019/2020, 11 primary school leaders, representing nine primary schools’ came together as a group, to begin to identify and examine ways they could improve their schools’ curriculum offer and ultimately the experience of students in their schools.

The research produced four main findings. First, school leaders need targeted continuing professional development (CPD) to provide the knowledge and skills required to lead whole school change involving this level of complexity. Second, school leaders need well organised CPD. Third, school leaders learning should support an entire school community. Fourth, leaders can take charge of their own learning. That participants formed the group and contacted the consultancy for the training is an important point of note. That is, school leaders can (and do) take charge of their own learning for they know what they ‘lack’ or what they do not know, and they (have demonstrated they) possess the agency to seek out support.

Keywords

Inclusion curriculum diversity leadership collaboration

Introduction and background

There has been widespread discussion within and outside educational institutions on the relevance and suitability of the curriculum provided to students in the United Kingdom. Underlying these debates are two key questions: ‘Does the curriculum provided to students promote and affirm a strong sense of personal and cultural identity among learners?’ and ‘Does the curriculum provided to students foster and create a sense of belonging for and among students? The discussions have called for the curriculum to be more diversified (Slater, 2021), decolonised (Moncrieffe et al., 2019), and inclusivised (Miller, 2020), and have catalysed educational and school leaders, and lecturers and teachers to ‘look again’ at the curriculum provided to students so they (leaders, lecturers and teachers) and it (the curriculum content) can more effectively meet the learning and developmental needs of students.

In North London, at the beginning of the school year 2019/2020, 11 primary school leaders, representing nine primary schools came together as a group, to begin to identify and examine ways they could improve their schools’ curriculum offer and ultimately the experience of students in their schools. The catalyst for these Headteachers coming together was to respond to a number of changes in the educational landscape designed to enable school leaders to adapt and revise the way schools had traditionally thought of and constructed curriculum content and delivery. The aim of this group was ultimately improve, contextualise and ensure relevance of the curriculum in each of the schools through co-construction of an approach to curriculum development. After several meetings to explore and discuss the good practice in each other’s schools, they decided that external expert facilitation was required in order to guide their collaborative work. In 2020/2021, they engaged the support of an educational leadership professor and equity, diversity and inclusion (EDI) consultant, representing a specialist leadership and EDI consultancy¹. Early on, the group, and its work became known as the Inclusive Curriculum Project (ICP), with the main aims of engagement being to:

Focus school leaders’ attention more squarely on learners by reviewing pupil demographic data to understand and answer the question ‘Who is in my school?’

Ensure the protected characteristics of Equality Act of 2010 were embedded in their schools’ curriculum

Enable school leaders to feel confident to recognise and tackle unconscious bias in the curriculum and to locate ‘race’ inclusivity and inclusion more broadly within their schools’ curriculum offer

Support leaders’ understanding of the ‘Inclusive Curriculum Framework’ and the Inclusive Curriculum Framework Inventory © (ICFI) and how these can be used to support curriculum development and delivery at their schools.

All school leaders involved in the project are white, and among them were nine females and two males. Together they possessed over 100 years of experience as leaders – each with varying levels of experience as a leader or as a leader in their current schools. Four of the nine schools in the ICP belonged to one Multi Academy Trust, and two of the nine schools are Catholic schools. All schools cover the primary age range from 4 years of age through to 11 years of age. Appendix 1 shows the distribution of school leaders, their experience and the schools they lead.

Process

The ICP lasted the entire academic year, from September 2020 through to July 2021 and could be described as both cyclical and iterative in nature. That is, following each session, school leaders would go back into their institutions and embed the knowledge into practice. Furthermore, although there was an agreed structure for the project activities, there was ample room for making adjustments to the inputs and/or revisiting previously covered content. Four capacity-development workshops were provided to school leaders, two of which were open to staff with curriculum leadership roles in participating schools. Included in the four workshops was training in how to ‘identify and tackle bias in the curriculum’ and how to use a tool, the ICFI)² to assess and index the perceived degree of inclusivity in a subject curriculum. School leaders undertook their subject curriculum reviews in February–April 2021, and quality assurance (or review of the review undertaken by the school leaders) was undertaken in June–July by the consultant.

School leaders, along with appropriate staff members participated in the quality assurance (review of review) process, thereby spreading the understanding of the ICFI © itself more widely, and how it is used to assess and support curriculum inclusivity. Between May andSeptember 2021, school leaders reflected on their experiences of the via a qualitative questionnaire. For triangulation, two participants were also interviewed, together. This article, presented as an integrated case study, recounts the experiences of school leaders on the ICP and provides examples of them working to re-culture pedagogic practice among teaching staff and re-imagine the learning experience for students.

Conceptual framework

We position the work of the school leaders in the ICP in two broad areas: collaborative school improvement and the purpose of education. We discuss these briefly below.

Collaborative school improvement

School improvement is a contested issue and there is no ‘single best way’ of ensuring or achieving improvement. Hargreaves (2003) argues that the type of learning developed through schools working together is more effective than professional development training that is often delivered via a centralised ‘top down’ approach to improving schools (p. 83). Fullan (2005) agrees with Hargreaves, suggesting that effective learning does not come from a ‘one off’ training course – but rather from people working together (Huxham and Vangen, 2005) and through ‘lateral capacity building’ (Fullan 2005: 67–68). As noted by Wiliam in a speech in (2010),

We have been focusing on getting teachers to think their way into a new way of acting, whereas it would be far more effective to get teachers to act their way into a new way of thinking (np).

We therefore argue that developing the capacity of school leaders is a vital first step in supporting teaching staff to cultivate and share good practice – in this case, regarding the curriculum.

The purpose of education

Fullan (2003) advocates for a ‘moral purpose’ approach to improving schools that goes beyond a mere focus on student performance, attainment and tests. He suggests,

Moral purpose of the highest order is having a system where all students learn, the gap between high and the low performance becomes greatly reduced and what people learn enables them to be successful citizens and workers in a morally based knowledge society. (p. 29)

In its broadest sense, this is what education is about, building on UNESCO’s International Commission on Education for the 21st Century (1999) four pillars of knowledge: (i) learning to know, (ii) learning to do, (iii) learning to live and (iv) learning to be. There is an important juxtaposition between Fullan and UNESCO as seen in Article 29 of the United Nations (Convention on the rights of the child, 1989) which set out the purposes of education as follows:

The development of the child’s personality, talents and mental and physical abilities to their fullest potential;

The development of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and for the principles enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations;

The development of respect for the child’s parents, his or her own cultural identity, language and values, for the national values of the country in which the child is living, the country from which he or she may originate and for civilisations different from his or her own;

The preparation of the child for responsible life in a free society, in the spirit of understanding, peace, tolerance, equality of sexes and friendship among all peoples, ethnic, national and religious groups and persons of indigenous origin;

The development of respect for the natural environment.

These the goals of education, as set out in the CRC, provide clear indications of the nature and content of the education schools should provide to students. Furthermore, these goals recognise that whilst standards are important, the role of schools and schooling extends well beyond tests and exams.

Literature review

In 1976 at Ruskin College Oxford, then English Prime Minister, Jim Callaghan, gave a speech that made the case for a core curriculum that would ‘equip children for a lively, constructive place in society…’. At that time, it was extremely unusual for a Prime Minister to put forward such educational recommendations. A few years after Callaghan’s speech, in 1988, the government introduced the first national curriculum as part of the Education Reform Act.

There have been many revisions to the national curriculum over the last three decades, most recently the 2014 revisions that focused on streamlining curricular content and discarding assessment levels. (Myatt, 2018). Up until this point, much of what was delivered in the school curriculum appeared to be dictated by what was assessed, something that significantly reduced the breadth and depth of the curriculum delivered in schools. The 2014 changes to the national curriculum requirements enabled a higher level of freedom to schools in terms of curriculum organisation and delivery. In other words, these freedoms have enabled schools to contextualise the curriculum in a way that was not possible previously, thus allowing them to deepen and broaden the content of the curriculum and refine how knowledge and skills are sequenced in each subject.

Increasingly schools are taking a wider view of the knowledge, skills, attitudes and values they want their curriculum to cultivate in pupils, rather than just designing a narrow curriculum that enables a pupil to pass a test or answer exam questions. Many schools are now thinking deeply about how they can develop students not only as academically able, but as globally responsible citizens (Glazzard and Stones, 2021). As a result, curriculum delivery is taking into account core themes prominent in wider society such as climate change, gender equality, sexual harassment, sexuality, inclusion and race equity. Furthermore, schools are now freer than they ever have been, to incorporate these and other social issues into the curriculum they deliver.

Another, more recent, development that has encouraged schools to consider curriculum content was in September 2019, Office for Standards in Education (Ofsted) published a new Education Inspection Framework (EIF) (Ofsted, 2019). This is the document that sets out how Ofsted inspects maintained schools, academies, non-association independent schools, further education and skills provision and registered early years settings in England. For schools, this marked a significant move away from previous inspection regimes as under previous EIFs there had been a focus on tests and pupil attainment. However, under the new EIF, the focus became The Quality of Education and an evaluation of the extent to which schools had considered:

Curriculum Intent: School leaders are required to construct a curriculum that is ambitious for all pupils, regardless of their background or level of need. The curriculum should be well sequenced for learners to build the knowledge, skills and cultural capital they require for future learning and work.

Curriculum Implementation: School leaders are required to ensure that teachers have a good subject knowledge, identify student misconceptions, assess accurately and provide direct feedback. Learners should be provided with an environment that permits them to focus on learning.

Curriculum Impact: Learners should be able to perform well in national tests and examinations. They should also be ready for their next stage or training, education and employment (Ofsted, 2019).

Rather than emphasising a central national curriculum, the new EIF placed the focus on schools developing and designing curriculum content, and delivering said content in ways suited to the individual school and its learners, the context of the school and the community it served. Developing a response to the new EIF will bring challenges for schools to re-focus their approach to school improvement and focus more acutely on the development of a curriculum believed to be appropriate to and for their context. Additionally, responding to the EIF is an opportunity to acknowledge and engage with social issues affecting the wider society such as #BlackLivesMatter, #MeToo and Everyone’s Invited – all of which have placed diversity, inclusion and equity at the centre of nearly every school’s list of improvement priorities.

Professional learning communities and capacity building

The problem of how to improve teaching – and consequently learning – has been a contentious issue since the inception of modern schools. Waller, writing in 1932, speaks of the imperative for finding a ‘new understanding of schools’ to bring about improvements (p. 4). Such discussions continue up to the present day with researchers and authors continuing to try and develop an comprehension of ways in which schools can be understood and improved (Day et al., 2008; Hargreaves and Fullan 2012). In addition, the 21st century brings issues for schools that Waller could not have imagined in 1932 – global connectivity, environmental degradation and societal pluralism have placed untold pressure on planetary and human systems (Hargreaves, 2003). With these pressures growing all the time, it is clear that schools must develop high impact approaches to improving teaching and learning in order to deal with 21st century issues.

Collaborative structures within and between schools are increasingly seen as a means through which such significant improvements in education can be brought about. Katz et al. (2009) suggest most leaders, regardless of their field, confirm that effective collaboration is essential to their organisation’s success – consequently they strive to create opportunities for collaboration to take place (p. 7).

Huxham and Vangen (2005) define collaboration as ‘any situation in which people are working across organisational boundaries towards some positive end’ (p. 3). Lowndes and Skeltcher (1998) describe collaboration as ‘synergistic gain’ (p. 317) or ‘working smarter together rather than harder alone’ Hargreaves (2001: 489). Senge (1990), identified the central role of collaboration in organisational improvement, especially in the way knowledge is generated. He points out that the construction of knowledge is a social process, essential in its own right, but also vital in helping people collaborate (p. 270). Senge’s notion of organisational learning has been picked up by many authors in the field of school improvement. For example, Hartle and Hobby (2003) assert that schools can learn as well as being a place for learning. Crucial to this learning is the role of the people inside and outside the school to work together to build a ‘learning community’ (p. 388). Hargreaves (2003) adds to this by pointing out that these types of teacher/collegial learning communities are vital as teachers cannot improve by themselves – they need to engage in action, enquiry and problem solving together (p. 17).

Building capacity through learning communities where sharing good practice and creating knowledge around learning, with the ultimate aim of curriculum development and delivery and, by association, pupil outcomes, is seen as a high impact initiative aimed at improving schools. Sackney et al. (2005) state that to build a learning community is to build capacity for learning (p. 9). They go on to claim that within such communities, knowledge gaps are not seen as a deficit, but as an opportunity and a challenge to be explored. From this perspective, learning flows naturally from the interests of individuals and the interactions of the group. In fact, with a school professional learning community, the learning of the teachers is as important as the learning of the children. Organisational capacity elaborates the structures, processes and procedures and focuses on shared leadership and school wide collaborative processes. Himmelman (1994) contends that the broadest and most inclusive definition of learning communities is to describe situations where an array of groups and institutions have united forces to promote systematic societal change and share (or jointly own) the ‘risks, responsibilities, resources and rewards’ (p. 28). West-Burnham et al. (2007) support collaboration of this type in school improvement and refer to the development of learning communities as the way of ‘sparking collaboration’ and ‘collective commitment’ (p. 70). In 2005, the Department for Education and Skills (DfES) encouraged primary schools in England to work together in learning communities. This strategy emphasised capacity building focused on:

• Pupil learning

• Adult learning

• Leader learning

• Organisational learning

• School to school learning (DfES, 2005)

The school leaders who participated in the ICP intended to build intellectual, relational and organisational capital such that outcomes for young people in project schools improved through the shared learning of leaders and the multiplier effect created by school leaders upskilling teachers and other learning leaders in their schools.

Methodology and design

This article combines auto-ethnography and aspects of constructivist grounded theory to present an integrated study of collaborative school leadership involving 11 primary school leaders. An auto-ethnographic approach is also used with the aim of providing detailed accounts of participants’ work from their own viewpoint. These approaches, used together, allow the participants to speak with an uninterrupted voice, thus making their reflective accounts more authoritative (Etherington, 2009). Consequently, in presenting the accounts from school leaders in this case study, we have kept in mind the need to ‘enable them to speak for themselves’ (Mortimore and Mortimore, 1991, p. vii). Furthermore, in choosing this approach, it was believed it would provide readers with a sense of individuality through portrait-based accounts told by each principal.

Grounded theory generates theories and insights regarding social phenomena ‘grounded in’ the data analysed and therefore in the reality of participants (Glaser and Strauss, 1967) and not based on a priori assumptions. Constructivism denies the existence of an objective reality, ‘asserting instead that realities are social constructions of the mind, and that there exist as many such constructions as there are individuals (although clearly many constructions will be shared)’ (Guba and Lincoln, 1989, p: 43). Constructivism emphasises the subjective interrelationship between the researcher and participants, and the co-construction of meaning based on those experiences (Charmaz, 2005; Hayes and Oppenheim, 1997; Pidgeon and Henwood, 1997). Grounded theory is particularly suitable for investigating social phenomena that have attracted little prior research attention (e.g. school leaders collaborating on an ICP), where the previous research is lacking in breadth and/or depth, or where a new point of view on familiar topics appears promising (Milliken, 2010). Thus, grounded theory can help to identify the situated nature of knowledge (e.g. what school leaders do about a topic), the contingent nature of practice (e.g. what school leaders do as a result of what they know) and it can produce ‘thick description that acknowledges areas of conflict and contradiction (e.g. what school leaders would like to do but are unable due to institutional and/or other factors.

Case study questions

The questions posed to school leaders by the consultant at the end of the ICP and which forms the basis of this article were:

Category: Leading institutional change

Based strictly on your participation in the ongoing Curriculum Evaluation Project, what activity/ies and/or practice/s have you introduced or changed in relation to the management and/or delivery of your school’s curriculum? In other words, as a result of your participation in the Curriculum Evaluation Project, what – if anything – as a leader, have you done differently in respect of your school’s curriculum?

Category: Developing others (including students)

What impact have these activities/changes had on the target group/audience? In other words, have there been ‘deep and transformative’ impacts?

Category: Measuring/assessing impact

How has the evidence of impact been (a) captured and (b) measured? In other words, if the changes have worked well, how do you know?

Category: Personal development and efficacy

How helpful were the four capacity-development and two school-based one-to-one feedback sessions in shaping your understanding of (i) the inclusive curriculum framework, (ii) what an inclusive curriculum could look like and (iii) in preparing you to lead the work of ‘inclusivising’ the curriculum in your school?

Category: Epistemological and ontological motivations

Why did you choose to get involved in this project? What were your personal and professional motivations? What did you hope to achieve – and for whom?

Reflective findings

Five main themes emerged from the datasets, which align to the main questions asked. The themes are evidenced and discussed below.

Theme 1: Institutional changes introduced

School leaders were asked to identify and articulate specific changes they had made in relation to the management and/or delivery of their school’s curriculum arising from their participation in the ICP. One participant reported that they examined the topics, in terms of relevance and representativeness to the community [students] that they serve, whether the topics were diverse and inclusive; and what meaningful adjustments could be made. Taking into consideration the diverse nature of London they also included key knowledge organisers for each unit and added aspects of the unit which better represent our culturally diverse community whilst acknowledging the contributions of India, the West Indies and the members of the Commonwealth (Essendine, Headteacher).

Another participant revealed, we’ve adjusted our lesson visits for governors, and we have asked them to look for certain elements that are around our teachers, teaching in a way that encourages diverse thinking, and brings in a level of diversity, and inclusion as well (St Josephs, Headteacher). Working collaboratively with the Deputy Headteacher, Associate Headteacher and CEO of the Trust, one participant conducted a review of one area of our History curriculum. Long term plans were changed to attempt to address bias by adding a more balanced and diverse content. Progression maps for all subjects were drafted without thinking about unconscious bias and the need to reflect our community in mind and we have now addressed this (Houndsfield, Headteacher).

This collaborative way of working was sustained by another participant who provided, Subject leaders and the Deputy Headteacher with regular time to meet to review, revisit and revise the History and Geography curriculum – ensuring that it meets the needs of the National Curriculum and is relevant to our school context. Greater emphasis is [now] placed on the texts used throughout the curriculum to enable children to see themselves reflected in different elements (St Francis de Sales, Deputy Headteacher). Another school had reviewed the English curriculum, introduced reading spines, introduced a parents of BAME students Forum held ½ termly, conducted whole school diversity training, introduced a whole school diversity calendar, introduced an action plan for whole school inclusivity and increased the anti-racism literature available to all staff (Merryhills, Headteacher).

Theme 2: Impact of the project on the target group and others

Participants were asked to share whether there had been ‘deep and transformative’ impacts on staff and students as a result of their work and participation in the ICP. Participants, and their respective schools, were at different stages of their journeys and the evidence provided reflected this. Whilst participants were slow to claim any quantitative impacts, the qualitative impacts on staff, especially, were clear. One participant noted, we have raised staff awareness of the community each school serves and used the term ‘can our children see themselves in our curriculum’ or are they invisible. Leaders in each school have been able to facilitate sessions around the community, inclusivity and de-colonising the curriculum. This would not have been possible if these sessions had not taken place (Attigo Academy Trust, CEO). In one school, All staff are fully supportive of, and understand the aims of the project, and subject leaders are overseeing the decolonisation of the curriculum for their subject area. In addition, we have raised awareness around having an inclusive curriculum and have introduced some new concepts of ‘decolonising the curriculum. However, it is too early to assess if there has been ‘deep and transformative’ feedback (Essendine, Headteacher).

Another participant shared similar views: We led a staff training on identifying and tackling our own unconscious bias. Targeted and ‘personalised’ interventions to support some of our community [students] groups to improve attendance are impacting positively with numbers of persistent absentees reducing. This is difficult to quantify to date, due to the lockdown in January 2021. Data is tracked weekly and will be more meaningful by the end of this term. Deep/transformative impact is difficult to judge at this stage but the curriculum will be regularly evaluated. Attainment will be analysed for the key groups of pupils at the end of the academic year (Houndsfield, Headteacher).

For some participants, there was clear evidence of change. Our curriculum now reflects the cohort we are, children can identify themselves in what we are teaching. There is increased awareness among staff members on the importance of an inclusive curriculum. The History Curriculum was enriched through materials such as Black and British. There is Increased engagement with families. A Forum for parents of BAME students have been set up – which has, in turn, influenced us introducing a new parents’ buddy system to support new families (Merryhills, Headteacher).

Furthermore, staff are [now] more aware of the need to diversify the curriculum and that students were now experiencing a curriculum that they can identify with. Additionally, teachers have highlighted the need for books from a diverse range of authors in their book corners (Worcesters, Headteacher).

One participant conceded, as a school we have not made as much progress with our curriculum development as we would have hoped…although the foundations have been established and these have formed the principles that are guiding us forward. (Oakthorpe, Headteacher). By way of cascading, participants from Keys Meadow and St Francis se Sales reported using some of the materials provided to them during the capacity-development sessions to conduct subsequent training sessions for their teaching staff. For Keys Meadow, ….This produced positive feedback from staff such as feeling empowered and reassured to know that practitioners were thinking about children on an individual basis and their valuable contributions (Keys Meadow, Headteacher) and for St Francis de Sales, the training held left them (the teachers) feeling better equipped and empowered, and reading more widely to incorporate a variety of texts, authors and influential people in their year group’s curriculum (St Frances de Sales, Deputy Headteacher).

Theme 3: Capturing, measuring and assessing impacts

Participants were also asked to reflect on how they had captured, measured and assessed the impact of their work. Put differently, they were asked to elaborate or evidence claims of change or impact. The evidence suggests there were different types of impacts, with participants placing different emphasis on how to capture and assess these. One school highlighted that Measuring impact of changes is ongoing and that the review process has highlighted the need for teachers to fully understand the need for all children to be supported to access the curriculum…. (Alma, Headteacher).

Another participant suggested they were making a difference and the impact is found in staff responses, curriculum design, conversations with learners, children’s books/unit outcomes (Essendine, Headteacher). The Headteacher of Houndsfield described strengthened home–school partnerships where parents have provided feedback that ‘they felt actively included in discussions’ and closer working arrangements with select agencies such as with the Bulgarian Embassy. The CEO noted, ‘each school has captured the evidence of impact in different ways through staff and parent responses, reactions at SLT – minutes of meetings, school monitoring processes… the history curriculum at Houndsfield, and curriculum updates have been shared with governors in meetings and Trustees have also been updated on how schools are bringing global perspectives into the curriculum’ (Attigo Academy Trust, CEO). The CEO’s observation not only highlights what has been done to capture and assess impact, but also outlines a matrix of stakeholders suitable not only for accountability but for a multiplier effect of additional impact.

The Headteacher of Oakthorpe acknowledged ‘a mind-set change, and having a much clearer plan for the next steps’ and the deputy Headteacher at St Francis De Sales noted, subject leaders and staff are going into design meetings far better equipped and more knowledgeable, having an awareness of ‘the other ‘and representing these groups. These are powerful observations since ‘a changed mindset’ or a mindset inclined towards promoting, designing and delivering an inclusive curriculum is axiomatic to its success. Crucially, some children are more confident to talk about their backgrounds (Worcesters, Headteacher) and impact evidence so far includes significantly more diverse teaching and more cross curricular work; which had been noticed though SLT subject reviews, Governor team visits, and via a survey which returned high parent confidence (Merryhills, Headteacher).

Theme 4: Efficacy and personal development

As part of the ICP, participants engaged in four capacity-development workshops. They were asked to reflect on how these had contributed to their learning. One participant reflected that the capacity-development sessions were foundational to our work as they enabled us to understand what a culturally competent, decolonised and inclusive curriculum looks like and of course that did enormously help to structure our thinking (Focus Group). Another also reflected, I do now feel that I have a greater understanding of what an inclusive curriculum could look like and feel ‘ready’ to commence and kickstart this journey. I continue to remind myself, and other members of my school team that pupils ‘can’t be what they can’t see’ – thank you for allowing me to use that phrase from one of the sessions! I do feel that a clear benefit of attending the sessions is that I have had time to shape my own understanding and feel better prepared for the next stage (Oakthorpe, Headteacher). Furthermore, Although the focus of this course was particularly decolonising the curriculum, the principles apply to all forms of diversity – no learner should have to ‘leave themselves at the door’. The examples of how to incorporate de-colonisation in an actual curriculum document were particularly helpful (Essendine, Headteacher). These are powerful reflections that underline the need for effective CPD for school leaders, firstly, and the need for CPD focused on foundational aspects of their work such as the curriculum.

The opportunity to work as part of a professional learning community was suggested as another benefit. For example, I feel that having the time to listen and discuss what each of the sessions meant was useful (Alma, Headteacher). Furthermore, the sessions were thought provoking and challenging. The time spent discussing our curriculum and looking at it from the viewpoint of our community has been invaluable in helping us to understand how to move this forward. I am constantly reminding myself to look from an individual pupils’ viewpoint and think ‘do you see me? Am I heard?’ This project has helped to create a network of other Headteachers and leaders and I will call on them to support if needed (Houndsfield, Headteacher). Additionally, the sessions provided time to reflect, think and network, which is powerful in school improvement. The framework is great as it gives us a practical tool to evaluate what is in place in school and then an opportunity to make changes. I have also reflected on the school workforce and while recruiting, I have been more aware of the ethnicity of applicants. I haven’t always been able to reflect the groups of children in school, but am more aware and seek to add to staff diversity when possible (Keys Meadow, Headteacher).

Highlighting the ICP was an antidote to unrelenting COVID-19 demands and information, this participant acknowledged, I have found the project personally very interesting and enjoyable. It has been fabulous to focus on this during the pandemic. It provided time and space to think about the future in a way that didn’t involve thinking about coronavirus. This has been good for mine and the other leaders’ wellbeing (Keys Meadow, Headteacher). This view was sustained by the CEO who also noted that despite the COVID-19 pressures it was good to see the level of commitment from participants. She further described the sessions an invaluable opportunity to reflect on our school curriculum and be able to challenge some of our thinking as to why we have made certain decisions. The framework has been a useful tool to enable us to do this especially with regards to ensuring our curriculum is inclusive in the broadest sense. Our work on unconscious bias has just begun! (Attigo Academy Trust, CEO).

In addition to the content and opportunities for networking, the organisation of the sessions was also highlighted. For example, the sessions were very powerful and thought provoking, allowing the leadership time to reflect and review where we are on our journey and where we are on our action plan. We all have a much clearer idea on what an inclusive curriculum looks like and how we can move towards it. Working with other schools, from across the local authority and indeed London was an excellent way to engage with other leaders and schools. Listening to experienced Headteachers lead sessions and talk through their journey and experience was engaging and very effective (Merryhills, Headteacher).

Furthermore, the sessions were immeasurably useful in developing my understanding. They have ignited [in me] a passion to ensure that all children in our school are very much reflected in our curriculum, in a way that is meaningful and authentic… The sessions have prepared me to lead this work, and I will draw upon the advice of other professionals and colleagues when needed (St Frances de Sales, Deputy Headteacher). One participant however suggested the sessions were sometimes overwhelming as this could be such a huge project. Nevertheless, she also acknowledged, the project provided a good opportunity to focus on inclusivity within the curriculum and to have discussions with other professionals. (Worcesters Headteacher). As a rejoinder, one participant added, the project has supported me as a school leader to shape, grow and refine my own personal understanding of the pedagogy behind shaping a school curriculum. And personally, I feel better equipped to lead the change that must happen with regards to developing an inclusive curriculum. I have taken the time to focus on my own professional development and participating in this project has enabled me to do this (Oakthorpe, Headteacher).

Theme 5: Motivations and expectations

Participants shared many and varied reasons for their involvement in the ICP. Motivations were either personal or professional or both with a clear link back to being able to better serve their students or ‘the community’. One participant noted, we were keen to ensure that pupils see themselves and their lived experiences, reflected in the school’s curriculum. Also, to understand the city in which they live, and the huge diversity within it. We want the pupils to question discrimination in all forms. We therefore need to equip them with the confidence and vocabulary to express themselves (Essendine, Headteacher). Another reflected on being in a Curriculum Development group with a number of schools for a couple of years, sharing good practice and learning from one another. However, the ICP they suggest, provided a great opportunity to formalise the work of the group, and achieve a specific end goal – to make our curriculum more inclusive using a clear framework for evaluation and improvement (Keys Meadow, Headteacher).

Membership of a learning community and being able to gain deeper professional experiences were also cited. For example, professionally, I was keen to broaden my experiences, and the opportunity to have a network of experts was an incredible one. Over the year, it has been great to share experiences and readings with fellow colleagues. The project made us think about ‘you can’t be who you can’t see’… our hope is that at Merryhills pupils can see themselves in our curriculum (Merryhills, Headteacher).

In addition, the project provided an exciting opportunity to look at the school community [students] and to ensure we are meeting the needs of our community [students]. We have high aspirations for our pupils, and the project has made us think more carefully about this – we are reflecting the backgrounds of our pupils and providing good role models that all our pupils aspire to be (Worcesters Headteacher). Furthermore, to see the curriculum in action in different schools in different settings as the starting point of their journey has led participants to question whether the curriculum that they had for children was the right one (Focus Group).

Being able to upskill themselves and staff teams was also acknowledged as a factor for getting involved in the ICP. For example, as a relatively new Headteacher who was desirous of meeting with a group of colleagues from a range of schools and learning together; and was seeking support in shaping the future of our curriculum shared: I know that school wide collaboration is now essential. To be at this point in itself is an achievement, as ultimately this will benefit the pupils of Oakthorpe (Oakthorpe, Headteacher). Furthermore, we needed to upskill staff to think more creatively, and in a more diverse way – not simply perpetuating teaching in a way they’ve been taught. And for leaders to start interrogating the system and changing it (Focus Group). The CEO also acknowledged that her participation in the ICP was geared towards intensifying her work in this area, and (although she’s part of an existing Curriculum Group comprised of leaders, with ambitions to work on the curriculum) the group had not realised the required changes because they needed direction and support to be able to think more clearly about what, why and how we were teaching (Attigo Academy Trust, CEO).

Discussion

From the reflections of school leaders above, several key points have emerged for discussion. These points can be placed under two primary headings: those relating to the school leaders themselves and those relating to their staff and students. We discuss these in turn.

School leaders need targeted CPD

The preparation and continued development of school leaders is vital if schools are to secure their ambitions and plans for improvement. (Miller, 2016) description of school leaders as the ‘drivers’ of an education system through the work they do in schools, points to two important things: drivers need to have an up-to-date knowledge of the regulatory, institutional, social and cultural environments in which they work; and drivers need to have an up-to-date skillset to function confidently and effectively in these environments. Although participants may not have been clear at the start of the ICP about what to expect from it, given there is no known previous arrangement of this sort, they were nonetheless very clear about what they wanted from it. For example,

We hoped to be able to learn how to frame the curriculum to reflect our students, to learn whether what we were doing is the right thing for our children and our community, to learn whether we had the balance – the demands of the national curriculum, as well as what the needs of your community are. We also hoped that the project would open our eyes wider to what we’re not doing, and what we haven’t tackled (Focus Group).

In other words, they wanted to learn, understand and develop as many skills as they could, so they could be more confident in talking about an inclusive curriculum, and in leading and supporting their school’s work in this area. The evidence provides clear examples of school leaders’ learning, of them being challenged and of them accepting the challenge. For example, despite one Headteacher suggesting ICP sessions were ‘sometimes overwhelming’ due to (i) finding out the gaps in her own knowledge and (ii) the enormity of the job to be done on the curriculum, she nevertheless acknowledged that the project provided a good opportunity to focus on inclusivity within the curriculum and have discussions with other professionals (Worcesters Headteacher). (Miller, 2020) underlined the importance of school leaders being trained in the area of ‘curriculum inclusivity’ and also to conduct an audit of their staff and students (numbers, voices, experiences, etc). Both these elements were covered in the ICP, and these elements did not only present a challenge of knowing, but also a challenge of doing to participants.

The school leaders did not come to the ICP claiming to know, rather, they came wanting to know and the more they learnt, the clearer the gaps became and the greater their task ahead seemed. The school leaders did not come to the ICP claiming to know, rather, they came wanting to know and the more they learnt, the clearer the gaps became and the greater their task ahead seemed. An important outcome of the project is that leaders moved from wanting to know to knowing. Where they had been unsure of what leadership skills and tools they needed to support staff and students, they now felt more confident. While none of the school leaders involved in the ICP did so purely in response to changes in the Ofsted inspection framework, this collaborative curriculum project enabled each to more clearly articulate the curriculum intent, implementation and impact that formed such a core part of the new EIF introduced in September 2019. Put differently, not only had the school leaders experienced personal growth and improved their knowledge of effective curriculum design they also increased their awareness of how to identify and develop the skills needed to tackle bias in the curriculum.

The school leaders in the ICP benefitted from having the time to learn together, and to share examples and ideas of, and engage in joint reflection on their practice, underlining Fullan’s (2005) point that effective learning does not come from a ‘one off’ training course – but rather by people doing and/or working together. Getting the school leaders to conduct the audits of staff, students and the curriculum provided appropriate ‘experiential learning’ (Kolb, 1984) which provided them with a different skillset, and the small size of the group created ample opportunities for ‘lateral capacity building’ (Fullan, 2005: 67). By design therefore, the ICP was responding to three needs among school leaders: first the need for targeted CPD on ‘Curriculum inclusivity’ second, the need for CPD to be delivered in small enough groups so they can be seen, heard, valued and appropriately supported, and third, the need for CPD to build new skills and enhance existing skills.

CPD for school leaders can and should create a multiplier effect

As we have discussed above and established school leaders participating in the ICP experienced personal and professional growth. This manifested through new knowledge and new skills resulting in them being more confident to identify and tackle bias in the school curriculum. Another significant area of change, as seen in the evidence above relates to the ‘trickle-down effect’ or multiplier effect. Leaders’ participation in the ICP was not purely for the sake of knowledge and new skills, but in acquiring these they would be better placed and more effective in their work to support their teachers and pupils. We see evidence of school leaders working with other senior leaders, with subject leaders, teaching staff, teaching assistants, parents and students to mobilise interest in and understanding around inclusivity in the curriculum. This is what social justice leadership is about. As Dantley and Tillman (2006) noted, ‘social justice leaders move beyond equality debates to equity debates, by setting out to change systems, processes and structures to better respond to the needs of students’ (p. 21).

The work undertaken by school leaders with teachers and staff was geared at re-culturing teaching and pedagogy, in effect creating a new professionalism among them. All participants, as a result of the ICP, went back to their settings and delivered CPD to staff on a range of topics including, unconscious bias and decolonising the curriculum. We also see evidence of school leaders putting in place curriculum action plans for ‘other areas of the curriculum or for ‘next school year’. Accordingly, we see participants demonstrating social justice leadership towards their students and demanding accountability and sustainability from staff. These were not random acts, but rather deliberate acts to improve students’ learning experience and to embed and usualise curriculum inclusivity into the psyche and practice of their school. As (Miller et al., 2019) provided, ‘… social justice leadership is activist both in its intent and its approach, and social justice leaders (iii) understand the material, economic and social differences between different groups. It is with this understanding that they (iv) focus on creating equity-based opportunities for all’ (p. 6–7). Put differently, the school leaders in the ICP are now much more deliberate about the educational experience their students receive through the curriculum delivered at school, and based on the quality and type of support provided to staff and those with responsibility for curriculum planning, and arising from the monitoring regime they have [now] put in place. The strong focus on the ‘community’ (students, parents) was sustained across all participants, all of whom had now begun to understand, appreciate and work more proactively with the community in different and more meaningful ways.

Conclusions

The ICP has taught us four things. First, school leaders need targeted CPD to provide the knowledge and skills required to lead this type of whole school change. Second, school leaders need well organised CPD so that it can impact on their practice in real time. Third, school leaders learning should support an entire school community. Fourth, leaders can take charge of their own learning. That participants formed the group and contacted the consultancy for the training is an important point of note. That is, school leaders can (and do) take charge of their own learning for they know what they ‘lack’ or what they do not know, and they (have demonstrated they) possess the agency to seek out support.

Going into the ICP, participants were not clear about what to expect, as nothing like this had been done before, but they were clear about what they wanted from it. They wanted the knowledge, skills and confidence to be able to design, demand, supervise and deliver an inclusive curriculum experience for their students. This is not only about ‘lateral capacity’ development but also school leaders being deliberate in leading learning for staff and ultimately the experience and outcomes of students.

We note however that,

While it is right that schools deal with social justice issues as part of the curriculum, it must be acknowledged that tackling social justice issues is a highly complex endeavour, requiring emotional intelligence, persistence and negotiations with staff in order to produce and agree upon a curriculum that supports pupils’ thinking and learning as effectively as possible, on elements of the curriculum that has been prescribed and other elements deemed appropriate by teachers, subject leaders and school leaders (St Josephs, Headteacher).

Through the accounts and examples of participants at work, over the duration of the ICP, we see school leaders growing in personal and professional confidence, demanding more accountability from teachers, providing targeted CPD sessions for teachers and staff, working more agile and creatively with parents and centralising the ‘voice of the child’ through a new lens – those of ‘belonging’ and ‘identity’. These accounts and examples underline’s Kolb’s view that ‘Learning is the process whereby knowledge is created through the transformation of experience’ (Kolb, 1984: 38). Furthermore, these accounts and examples point to clear re-culturing of their own, but also the practice of staff and parents in terms of leadership, teaching and home–school partnerships. Participants were cautious not to over claim quantitative impacts in the first 12 months of the ICP’s lifecycle. This is understandable. Nevertheless, from the quantitative and qualitative accounts provided we can be certain that the work begun in September 2020 by these school leaders is already having an impact on their institutions and beyond.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Authors Paul Miller and James Lane are editors of Education & Society and did not participate in the editorial handling or peer review process.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Correction (March 2024):

Article updated to correct conflict of interest statement.

ORCID iDs

James Lane

Paul Miller

Notes

Distribution and demographic profiles of participants

#	Role	Gender	School	Years as a leader (AH, DH and HT)	Years as a Headteacher/leader at current school
P1	Headteacher	Female	Essendine Primary	11	5
P2	Headteacher	Female	Alma Primary	18	9
P3	Headteacher	Female	Houndsfield Primary	18	2.5
P4	Executive headteacher	Male	St Josephs	20	9
P5	Deputy head	Female	St Frances de Sales	6	6
P6	Headteacher	Female	Keys Meadow	18	2
P7	CEO	Female	Attigo Academy Trust	21	3
P8	Headteacher	Male	Merryhills Primary	9	2
P9	Headteacher	Female	Worcesters Primary	6	2
P10	Headteacher	Female	Oakthorpe Primary	6	3
P11	Headteacher	Female	Attigo Academy Trust	17	3

Modules covered on the ICP

1. Cultural Competence in Leadership and Teaching and Learning

2. Diversifying, Decolonising and Inclusivising the Curriculum

3. Identifying and tackling bias in the Curriculum

4. The Inclusive Curriculum Framework Inventory (c)

5. Institution Focused Case Study (Change Project)

References

Charmaz

(2005) Grounded theory in the 21st century. In: Denzin

Lincoln

(eds), The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research. Third edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 507–535.

Convention on the rights of the child (1989) Treaty no. 27531. United Nations Treaty Series, 1577, pp. 3-178. Available at: https://treaties.un.org/doc/Treaties/1990/09/19900902%2003-14%20AM/Ch_IV_11p.pdf.

Dantley

Tillman

(2006) Social justice and moral transformative leadership. In: Marshall

Oliva

(eds) Leadership for Social Justice: Making Revolutions in Education. New York: Pearson, 16–30.

Day

Leithwood

Sammons

(2008) What we have learned, what we need to know more about. School Leadership & Management 28(1): 83–96.

DfES (2005) Primary Strategy Learning Networks, Ref: DfES 1169-2005 G. (2005) DfES (2005) Primary Strategy Learning Networks, Ref: DfES 1169-2005 G.

Etherington

(2009) Life Story Research – A Relevant Contribution to a Knowledge Based Profession. Cardiff: In Research and regulation: towards a knowledge based profession - 14th Annual BACP Research Conference.

Fullan

(2003) The Moral Imperative of School Leadership. London: Sage Publications.

Fullan

(2005) Systems Thinkers in Action. London: Corwin Press.

Glaser

Strauss

(1967) The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.

10.

Glazzard

Stones

(2021) An Ambitious Curriculum. St Albans: Critical Publishing.

11.

Guba

Lincoln

(1989) Forth Generation Evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

12.

Hargreaves

(2001) A capital theory of school effectiveness and improvement. British Educational Research Journal 27(4): 487–503.

13.

Hargreaves

Fullan

(2012) Professional Capital: Transforming Teaching in Every School. New York: Teachers College Press.

14.

Hargreaves

(2003) Working Laterally: How Innovative Networks Make an Education Epidemic. London: Demos/NCSL.

15.

Hartle

Hobby

(2003) Leadership in a learning community; your job will never be the same again. In: Davies

West-Burnham

(eds) Handbook of Educational Leadership and Management. Edinburgh Gate: Pearson Education Limited, 381–393.

16.

Hayes

Oppenheim

(1997) Constructivism: reality is what you make it. In: Sexton

Griffin

(eds) Constructivist Thinking in Counselling Practice, Research and Training. New York: Teachers College Press, 19–41.

17.

Himmelman

(1994) Communities working collaboratively for a change. In: Herrman

(ed) Resolving Conflict: Strategies for Local Government. Washington, DC: International City/County Management Association, 27–47.

18.

Huxham

Vangen

(2005) Managing to Collaborate: The Theory and Practice of Collaborative Advantage. London: Routledge.

19.

Katz

Earl

Ben Jaafar

(2009) Building and Connecting Learning Communities: The Power of Networks for School Improvement. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

20.

Kolb

(1984) Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development (Vol. 1). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

21.

Lowndes

Skelcher

(1998) ‘The Dynamics of Multi-organizational Partnerships: An Analysis of Changing Modes of Governance’. Public Administration, 76 (2), Summer: Wiley, 313–333.

22.

Miller

(2016) Exploring School Leadership in England and the Caribbean: New Insights from a Comparative Approach. London: Bloomsbury.

23.

Miller

(2020) Inclusivising the curriculum: towards a model of inclusivity – conceptual and practical issues. London: Educational Equity Services.

24.

Miller

Hill-Berry

Hylton-Fraser

Powell

(2019) Social Justice Work as Activism: The Work of Education Professionals in England and Jamaica. International Studies in Educational Administration 47(1): 3–18.

25.

Milliken

(2010) Grounded theory. In: Salkind

(ed), Encyclopedia of Research Design. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc, 549–554.

26.

Mitchell

Sackney

(2016) School improvement in high-capacity schools. Educational Management Administration & Leadership 44(5s): 853–868 (Issue published: September 1, 2016).

27.

Moncrieffe

Asare

Dunford

Youssef

(eds) (2019). Decolonising the curriculum: teaching and learning about race equality, University of Brighton: Centre for Learning and Teaching. Available at: https://cris.brighton.ac.uk/ws/portalfiles/portal/6443632/Decolonising_the_curriculum_MONCRIEFFE_32_pages_4th_July.pdf

28.

Mortimore

(1991) The Head: Roles, Responsibilities and Reflections. London: Paul Chapman.

29.

Myatt

(2018) The Curriculum: Gallimaufry to Coherance. Woodbridge: John Catt Educational LTD.

30.

Ofsted (2019) Education Inspection Framework. UK: Assets Publishing Service Gov.

31.

Pidgeon

Henwood

(1997) Using grounded theory in psychological research. In: Hayes

(ed) Doing Qualitative Analysis in Psychology. Hove, UK: Psychology Press, 245–273.

32.

Sackney

Mitchell

Walker

(2005) “Building capacity for learning communities: a case study of fifteen successful schools”, paper presented at the annual conference of the american educational research association. Montreal, April.

33.

Senge

(1990) The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. New York: Doubleday.

34.

Slater

(2021) Time for DfE leadership on diversifying the curriculum, schools week. Available at: Time for DfE leadership on diversifying the curriculum (schoolsweek.co.uk)

35.

Waller

(1932) The Sociology of Teaching. New York: Russell & Russell. Reissued 1961.

36.

West-Burnham

Farrar

Otero

(2007) Schools and Communities: Working Together to Transform Children’s Lives. London: Network Continuum Education.

37.

Wiliam

(2010) Teacher quality: how to get more of it. Spectator ‘schools revolution’ conference. March www.educationengland.org.uk/documants/speeches/1976ruskin.html.