Janet Lawley describes how her work as a Headteacher has intersected with the efforts of Education 2000 and the Initiative over the past decade.

My teaching career began in 1960 and took me to schools in the north and south of England, and from a state comprehensive via a selective grammar school to a sixth form college. I was first and foremost a teacher and my job was to help young people learn. My discipline was Geography, a wonderfully broad subject which allowed learning to spread across the arts-science divide and to roam through issues, disciplines and problems of many kinds. It was exploration and discovery and students learned as much about themselves and how to learn as they did about “people and places.” Teaching was a creative and exciting occupation. Teachers were trusted and respected, giving many hours outside the school day to extra-curricular activities which took their pupils away from school during weekends and holiday times. Most young people thrived in this environment.

By the mid 1980s changes were afoot. The curriculum, stuck in a former age, was in need of re-examination. A National Curriculum was to be introduced. There was reluctance to change, a natural fear of the shift from the status quo, but there was also great optimism. Here was a chance to give all youngsters the opportunities already enjoyed by the fortunate. It was an exciting time to become a Head Teacher and I moved to Bury Grammar School to lead a Primary School (four to 11-year olds) of 350, and a Senior School of 800. Nearly 200 were in their final two years (16 to 18-year olds). Though an all-girls school, Bury had a brother school located just across the road so girls lived in a normal co-educational world outside the classroom. I was given the opportunity to create a learning environment, to lead the school through a time of change, and to give the girls a sound basis from which to continue to learn for the rest of their lives.

After 12 years of headship I retired at the end of August 1998. Bury Grammar School had made a mark amongst the best schools in the country. It was consistently ranked in the top 1 percent of all schools in the United Kingdom for GCSE exams at 16. Our pupils were sought-after and valued by Universities and Colleges. Bury was known to be a forward looking school, choosing what it did and how it taught by being prepared to look widely at practice from all over the country. Its curriculum was wide and the experiences of the girls at all ages were many and varied. No less important, Bury Grammar School was part of the community.

Bury is a small (80,000) industrial town just north of Manchester. It is a diverse community with areas of prosperity and poverty, estates with new businesses and many long established firms, decaying Victorian housing and fine modern residential suburbs. The community is mixed with strong Jewish and Muslim groups. The Grammar School works comfortably with the 14 state high schools in an atmosphere of co-operation.

I was proud of my school and its achievements. Yet all had been achieved despite the Department of Education whose best efforts frustrated and threatened us at every turn. Despite endless consultations, and I was one of a small number of Head Teachers who served on the teachers’ panel of the Schools’ Curriculum and Assessment Authority, the National Curriculum that finally emerged was highly prescriptive, tying study to tightly defined subject boxes. The need to raise standards ever higher, whatever the level of current performance or the background of the pupils, pushed teachers into teaching to the tests and stultified creativity. The frequent formal assessments took time away from learning. Ever more teacher time was taken up by the production of endless documents and policy statements. The preparation for the visit of an Inspection team detracted still more from the central purpose of a school – to create a learning environment where there is space and time to think and talk.

So, despite the obstacles, how did we achieve so much at Bury? First, a tradition of excellence meant expectations were high. Second, the entire staff was dedicated and able. Third, our governors were far-sighted and gave the headteacher their full confidence and support. But, the key piece that made the difference for Bury Grammar School was our commitment to the philosophy and ideas of Education 2000 (many of these are at the heart of the 21st Century Learning Initiative).

It was the local Member of Parliament, Alistair Burt, who introduced us to John Abbott, then the director of the Education 2000 Trust, in 1988. John challenged us to find better ways to prepare the children of Bury. The Local Authority was supportive, indeed keen, to become one of the projects testing the Education 2000 philosophy across a community. The philosophy was very simple – “effective learning required the integration of all the community resources, formal and informal, if children were to develop quality thinking.”

Finding the funds for our efforts was a difficult task however, and by the end of 1989 it seemed we couldn’t do it. Frank Bennett, the head teacher of a very successful high school in the town, and I were invited in 1991 to attend an Education 2000 summer conference, and after that things were never the same again. Both of us were used to running excellent schools, but as we listened to the reports from the Education 2000 projects we knew they were far ahead of us. We were inspired by a vision of learning communities striving to create shared goals for young people. We wanted to see people from all walks of life joining with schools to stimulate and to support learning.

We knew this co-operation would help motivate students to learn. Additionally, the idea of using Information Communication Technology as a tool to free both teacher and learners appealed to us as a way to better target learning strategies to the individual strengths and weaknesses of students. We felt we had to introduce such a vision of learning to Bury. The town became an Education 2000 project. It was introduced by the head teachers and received the backing of the Local Authority and other major figures in the community. There was never much extra money but I believe that made us focus more clearly upon our objectives and led to imaginative and creative schemes that brought benefit to every child in the borough.

This was not just another initiative. It was a better model of learning; one which would give young people confidence in their ability to stand up to change, because they knew how to manage their own learning. There were many local leaders from throughout the community willing to help us. They took part in discussions with teachers and together we identified our aims and goals. Together the high schools worked on curricular developments, striving to involve parents, employers, clubs and societies in the development of shared ideals and responsibilities. It was a joy to leave competition and survival of the fittest behind, and to work towards the creation of a learning community where support and shared goals were our keynote. We were “Giving substance to a Vision.”

The courses, conferences and publications of Education 2000 spread the vision, and allowed us to share good experiences with those from other projects. The Trust, and John Abbott in particular, helped us to obtain modest financial support for our work. The Director of a Bury company (an American) donated office space for our co-ordinator, while others from the business community served as local trustees or on the management committee. Eventually, our base was established with the Training and Enterprise Council, and eight years later each high school in the town had an Education 2000 co-ordinator.

Pages: 1 2 3

More articles by Janet Lawley