A Study of Adult Participation in Three Community Schools in Wigan

8203

A study of adult participation in three community schools in Wigan

Keith Percy, John Powell, Murray Saunders, Extra-Mural Studies, University of Lancaster

Background to the investigations

Between Spring 1979 and Autumn 1980 the DES financed a major regional survey of adult education provision in the North West of England which was conducted by the University of Lancaster[1]. The Wigan ‘Metro’ area was among those selected for special study by the research team, and officers and organising and teaching staff of the Wigan Local Education Authority co-operated closely with the researches in the carrying out of the fieldwork. Towards the end of the research, senior officers of the Authority suggested that the information collected about adult education in Wigan would serve as a useful base for further investigations that would be of value to the Authority. They invited the research team to suggest a short list of topics on which they would be prepared to do some further work: from the list the officers selected the community schools.

The investigation of adult participation in three Wigan community schools was carried out between Autumn 1980 and Autumn 1981. It was one of a series of small-scale research, monitoring or evaluation exercises on developments of current practice or policy which the Extra-Mural Studies research unit at the University of Lancaster has carried out as a service to North West local authorities. It was financed on a small ‘expenses’ budget of £700 from the Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council and the principal researchers, John Powell and Murray Saunders, worked on it part-time alongside their full-time commitments. Officers of the Authority and head-teachers of the three community schools met regularly with the researchers to identify issues on which they would like information and to receive feed-back on the progress of the fieldwork.

The investigation was concerned primarily with the involvement of adults in Wigan community schools although, obviously, the general structure and ethos of the schools had to be taken into account. The researchers were interested not only in how each school views ‘its community’ but also how each community views ‘its’ school. Inevitably, the researchers were both handicapped and stimulated by being obliged to work with a term such as ‘community’, which is capable of an infinite series of definitions.

An early planning document, written within the research team, expressed four broad aims for the investigation:

(i) to document the ‘history’ and development of the three schools and of their present patterns of provision and organisational forms;

(ii) to record the perceptions, experiences and backgrounds of students, staff, administrators and others;

(iii) to examine the links and potential links between school and community;

(iv) to identify and describe the communities in question.

Four main areas of fieldwork were carried out:

(i) Focused interviews with 19 head-teachers and staff in the three schools;

(ii) Questionnaires completed by adult students in evening classes in the three schools. Questionnaires were distributed to teachers for transmission to students, for individual completion and return to Lancaster by post. 260 questionnaires were distributed to teachers (but not we believe, always to class members). 123 were returned to Lancaster - a formal response rate of 47%;

(iii) Short questionnaires completed by 139 day pupils in classroom sessions (conducted by the researchers) which asked for responses to the presence of adult students in ordinary day school classes;

(iv) Construction of ‘profiles’ of the ‘communities’ surrounding the schools - based on listing of activities, clubs, societies etc. present and on informal interviews with certain ‘community leaders’.

A final report was presented to the Wigan local education authority in January 1982[2]. It ought to combine conclusions on the objectives of the research with recommendations for development which would be of interest to the Authority. It laid great emphasis on presenting the data emerging from the fieldwork clearly, so that interested parties in Wigan could consider implications for themselves. It attempted the difficult task of presenting a practical report within a theoretical framework which would not mystify but, because it was derived from work in community schools elsewhere and from the practices observed in the research, might be used to inform future discussions in Wigan.

The paper attempts to give the flavour only of some of that theoretical framework and of the interviews conducted with headmasters and staff. For the outcomes of the investigations of the views of the adult evening students, and of the day school pupils, and for the practical conclusions and recommendations made to the Authority, a reader must refer to the full report.

The Community School - a general overview

Normally, in educational practice and educational literature, the term ‘community school’ has been employed to denote a particular type of relationship between a school and its locality. This relationship, usually expressed prescriptively, has been seen in many differing forms. In the United States the ‘community’ concept has been used as a rationale for ‘internship’ and ‘alternative’ educational programs, particularly in many community school projects in the inner cities which operate outside state schooling. The concept appears in Britain as a rationale for schools which purport to have particularly close ‘links’ with their surrounding area, although these links are not uniform and are rarely specified. In general terms, the nature of the relationship between a community school and its locality cannot be predicted in any precise way by referring to the concept of ‘community’ itself. Yet, despite many examples of its malleable qualities, the ‘community’ concept has an enduring quality and is continually in use.

To define ‘community’ in any precise way is an impossible task. Indeed Hillery[3] isolated 94 definitions of community in his exhaustive review of the literature in 1955. The relationship between locality and community has developed as the source of much confusion in the theory and practice of ‘community’ policy. However, it is possible to isolate one principle or theme which is consistent with the classic sociological writers, with the modem interpretations and which is also consistent with the historical practice of community education. The integrative principle seems to be the most forceful idea to emerge from the concept of ‘community’ in relation to the link between the school and the locality. The integrative principle is that which tends to view the locality as a ‘whole’ in which residents and groups, categories and constituents should combine or be brought together. Clearly there may be considerable variation in the expression of this principle in the context of schooling. The following Figure 1 attempts to isolate some of the possible policy options in the organisation of schools which try to relate to the ‘integrative’ community rationale. Clearly only some of these are relevant to the community schools in Wigan, but it is useful to begin with a general overview.

After some initial fieldwork, we formed the view that the community schools in Wigan could best be viewed as expressing the integrative principle of community in terms of option (a) - the school viewed as a local facility. We certainly accept that many of the protagonists in the schools would never use such concepts in explaining their work or their goals, but we conclude that ‘integration’ in these terms can be deduced as the underlying rationale for many practices in the schools. We went on to use this conclusion to guide the direction of our analysis and to provide a framework for it. It became clear, in the course of our research, that the Wigan schools also contain elements of options (d), (e) and (f) in Figure 1 in their interactions with their surrounding localities.

Figure 1Possible Policy Options for the Community School[4]

Whilst much that has happened to adult education since local government re-organisation in Wigan has been determined or influenced by financial/political circumstances, it is possible to locate within these developments a theme or philosophy which has played a central part. Officially there is a commitment to the ‘establishment of a community education service’. As with the ideas lying behind the community schools the community education concept is a fairly fluid and general one. Yet there do appear to be several key elements which are regarded as essential to the development of such a service in the Wigan Metro:

(i) A devolution of control from the centre to the localities.

(ii) An increased involvement by participants/users in the decision-making processes.

(iii) A greater awareness of what the 'needs' and 'demands' of the community are.

(iv) A greater degree of collaboration and co-operation between providers or potential providers both within and outside the adult and continuing education sector.

These elements of policy in effect express a ‘practical’ community education prescription. Although they constitute a wide ranging statement of intent, the elements cited above call on the ‘integrative principle’, outlined above as a unifying theme. The ideas of involvement, awareness of needs and demands, collaboration and co-operation are all expressions of this principle and, as such, provide a coherence to the overall policy initiative.

The three community schools

Opened in 1977, School A was the first secondary school to be built under the auspices of the new Metropolitan Borough. Considerable thought was given to design and it was eventually agreed that the aim would be to reflect ‘an educational village concept as an alternative to the factory comprehensive’[5]. Certainly, with its house-like single and double-storied blocks which are linked by a ‘village street’ the school does represent a departure from traditional school design.

The decision that School A should operate as a community school, however, was not taken until shortly before it opened. This relative suddenness was matched by some uncertainty as to what the community designation would actually entail in a practical sense. The main aspect of the brief, as we understand it, was that it would be granted an extra 10% staff allocation and that it would be expected to run a programme of adult education classes. Beyond this, little in the way of specific guidelines were provided. There was no detailed community blueprint to be followed and the Headmaster and his deputies appear to have been given a relatively free hand in the matter of interpretation. It was decided that, rather than create a special community sector within the school, all staff, from the Head downwards, should share the community duties. Staff were allocated a weekly total of ten three-hour teaching sessions, one of which would be devoted to community activities and it was envisaged that this would normally be an evening session with adults. Following negotiations it was also agreed that all staff should be paid at one point above the normal Burnham scale. This format and these arrangements were subsequently adopted by the other two community schools created in the Metro.

The school was only partially built when it opened with a first-year intake. Although building is still in progress it has not kept pace with the growing numbers of pupils and has become a very crowded school. It does possess its own theatre and a large sports hall.

School B was opened in 1978, a year after School A. The building of the school was a major triumph for those parents who had for some considerable time been attempting to persuade a seemingly reluctant Authority of the need for a local secondary school for their children.

Although School B differs from School A in size and design it, too, reflects the ‘village’ concept. It is also similar in that modern facilities and equipment are found in a somewhat cramped setting and the school is still being enlarged. Some mobile classrooms, for example, are presently in use.

The School’s first year was a somewhat traumatic one in that it had geared itself up for a one year intake of pupils only to discover that it would be required to take in three. Given this situation it was felt that there was no option but to concentrate on the school side of its brief during the initial period and to suspend most community plans until the following year. Unlike School A, for example, there were no adult classes offered in the first year.

The third community school, School C, was the first school to be redesignated as a community school. Following an approach from the Director of Education the staff were informed of the offer of community status and all but two agreed to the transition.

This extremely favourable response is perhaps unsurprising given the alternative. In the circumstances, becoming a community school was, we understand, the only way to avoid staff redeployment. School C was particularly vulnerable in this respect because its school population, with the opening of School B, had fallen quite considerably. Becoming a community school, therefore, did enable School C to keep its staff although this pragmatic concern was not the only consideration.

As well as already having a well-established 11-16 year old sector School C was also a well-established Adult Education Centre. It did therefore have a firm base from which to operate and the community transition, at least in the initial period, was not as radical or as traumatic as it might otherwise have been.

General observations on the schools and the localities.

(i) Thus, none of the schools can accurately be described as purpose-built community schools. In the case of the new schools the community label was appended whilst the paint was still wet. Consequently some of the aspects which one might expect to find in other community schools (a common room for adults, a bar etc.) are missing. There is also a lack of opportunity to provide anything but a very limited amount of daytime provision outside or alongside the 11-16 school.

(ii) Although, in theory, the system of staffing in the Wigan Schools does not allow for a special community co-ordinating post (other than that of the Head in his capacity of Head of the community school) in practice, all the schools have one member of staff who, to some degree at least, performs this function.

(iii) In geographical terms, none of the schools are community-centred. School A is practically hidden from its community and for the non-aware may be easily passed and missed. School C, which was originally sited with the aim of serving two communities, was described to us by a local resident, in over-extreme terms, as a ‘monumental blunder’. Although nearer to Town C centre than to Town B, it is far enough away to prevent easy access for those without private transport - particularly as it stands on a fairly steep hill. Whilst School B is perhaps closest to the centre of the community, those without their own transport may be dissuaded by the rather long and poorly-lit drive leading from the road to the school - especially in winter.

A summary of staff conceptions of the community schools

We were made aware of the disappointment felt by some staff and others at the level of adult involvement in the Schools. The proportion of the local population attending adult classes at the schools was, in fact, approximately 4% - 5% of the local population and was broadly similar to participation rates in LEA non-vocational adult education generally.

Some staff argued, however, that a community school should, by definition, attract and cater for a higher number of adults - even though the schools have little in the way of specialist facilities for adults.

It was true, as far as we could tell, that there did not seem to be widespread acceptance or even awareness of the concept of ‘mutual possession’ within the localities; that is, the notion that the school belongs to the community as a whole. (Although ‘this is your school’ is, for example, the sort of phrase which is commonly found in newsletters and leaflets.) One of the Headmasters to whom we spoke felt that it would take four to five years before his staff gained a real degree of community awareness. How long will it take then, he asked, for the local populace? It seemed clear that residents valued and weighed the schools as schools rather than as community schools. School B provided an example of a school which was fought hard for by its community. Yet it is clear that the primary object of the campaign was a school for local children and not a school for everybody.