Browser does not support script.
Receive regular email updates and personalise your pages. Register now!
Miss Jana Vastatkova & Associate Professor Michaela Prasilova Palacky University Olomouc, The Czech Republic
Since the 1990s, an uneasy process of transition from a totalitarian regime to a democratic society, and from a centrally planned economy to a market economy, has marked all spheres of society in the Czech Republic. Thus schools, and the whole system of education, have undergone a number of changes as well. A reform of public administration started, as there was a strong belief in the need to decentralise the system, to enable schools quite autonomous development, and to release schools ' traditionally strong relations to the centre. The ability to agree on a vision of a school (followed by putting it into practice by means of team working) represents a key element of Czech curriculum reform that is nowadays being implemented.
This reform follows the new School Act (1), which brings more autonomy for all types of Czech schools. The aim of this curricular reform is to change the paradigm of education in Czech schools, to shift it from transmissional ways and methods of education (so called ' encyclopaedism ' ) to more active ways of learning. To reach this state means that a new demand is posed on schools - to work according to their own school curriculum (curriculum they themselves have developed). Out of this demand specific tasks have result, as follows:
This new paradigm cannot be realised without the systematic and active support of all staff. For the headmasters, it means a change in their role and brings them further management tasks and roles.
This paper deals with a current problem of some Czech schools - teachers ' and headmasters ' having little experience with team work. Whether or not they are prepared for this change is a central issue of this paper.
Up to the present time, headmasters have needed only to master four traditional skills: planning and organising, setting concrete tasks and controlling everything. In the very near future (the above mentioned change is compulsory for all schools from the school year 2006/2007), this will no longer be sufficient, as schools will become autonomous units in the full meaning of the word (economical, political, curricular, legal autonomy). Except for traditional use of their power and setting out orders, headmasters will have to gain further skills: to motivate and inspire their staff, to delegate their competences, to support their colleagues (to lead them, not only to manage them), and to communicate effectively (2). Only thus will the headmasters be able to lead and manage their schools in accordance with the new curriculum shift. On the other hand, as Slavikova (2002) states, Czech headmasters should not change completely - they should rather broaden their professional competences of leaders and managers.
The precondition of successful implementation of the curricular reform in each school is the partnership of all staff at schools, including headmasters. However, the big issue is: to what extent are headmasters and teachers really prepared for mutual cooperation? Who, in fact, are they? What kind of in-service or pre-service training have they got? While searching for answers to all these questions, the recent past of our schools must be taken into account.
Before 1989 Czech headmasters were allowed just to control the school from the ' lowest level ' . They did just what was expected from them; what the Communist Party wanted. Everything was centrally planned (in accordance with the official politics of a socialist country). As headmasters used to represent the lowest level of governmental body (eg, a necessary condition to hold this position was one ' s loyalty to the Communist Party), the relationship between headmaster and his/her staff could be compared to ' We ' and 'They ' . This situation was further strengthened by the traditional organisational structure of all schools - which was a relationship of superiority and inferiority, ie, the headmaster, then his or her deputy, and then the teacher.
After 1989 a change in the political system caused a change in headmasters ' positions. New headmasters were chosen out of ' common ' staff by their colleagues in every school. In a way, this was to the headmasters ' advantage (they knew their staff very well from the very beginning) but it also meant a lot of troubles, especially when unpopular steps were put into practice.
Headmasters were also not prepared for their new role (usually they were former teachers). Thus, when the first enthusiasm vanished, the image that ' We ' could manage the school disappeared very quickly afterwards. As the time passed, there were suddenly again groups of ' We ' (common teachers) and ' They ' (management of the school, though the difference between these two groups was not as distinct as it was before 1989).
Over the years (up to the present time) there were very many different headmasters in one school; sometimes they were re-elected, sometimes not. The budgetary and financial rules, and the frequent changes in legislation, required the headmaster to be an economist and a lawyer, rather than a team builder or a long-term strategies leader. On 1 January 2003 all schools were given the status of a legal entity, thus becoming grant maintained schools. Headmasters became autonomous managers, with great power in all fields of a school life, including human resources. This resulted in some cases in a negative perception of relationships at schools and still has a bad impact, which can be proved by numerous articles in educational magazines (eg, teachers were, in fact, frequently given no other choice than to sign a contract with a school ' for a limited period of time ' . This resulted in the situation where, at the end of the school year, many teachers were dismissed for the holidays - they then had to live on a dole and were engaged again as teachers in late August).
Regarding tasks placed upon schools by curriculum reform, an optimal state could be reached by means of a positive school climate based on the mutual respect and co-operation of all people involved (including headmasters). In case this stage is not reached, necessary changes in particular schools must be put into practice, especially while preparing the curricula. Every new situation means change, although not all change is improvement. As Fullan (1992) emphasises, it is especially important to understand the complexity of change and only then it can lead to school improvement. Nevertheless, change in schools can be successful only when each person is actively involved and doing his or her best. In fact, the concept of a ' learning organisation ' (see eg Clarke, 2001, Sutton, 1997, etc) is the one Czech schools are aiming for.
What kind of professional relationship is currently there between headmasters and his co-workers? The answer to this question can only be guessed, as each school has its own specific characteristics. Any general finding regarding current professional relationships at Czech schools was not found by the authors of this paper. According to all available data, no research has been focused purely on this problem as yet. Prucha (1998, 2000) and Walterová (1998) state similar results. Independently of each other they made lists of all realised researches and their findings. None of their registered research dealt with the topic of the relationship between a headmaster and his or her staff.
The authors of this paper used various empirical researches from the last ten years and managed to put together fractional information dealing with the mentioned problems. These are secondary data that predicate the current state or characteristics of relationships at schools. They also show the meaning of these relationships for the goodwill of a school.
Grecmanova et al (2003) carried out a survey (based on questionnaires and interviews) at lower secondary schools; respondents were pupils, teachers, headmasters, school inspectors and representatives of local authorities. The results showed that the drawbacks of school life were, for example, that: ' only some headmasters are real personalities, some of them do have problems with authority, they are not ' trained ' for their positions ' . As for teachers, the results were following: ' some teachers lack their initiative, some other have responsibility and reliability only as a verbal saying, many of them lack consistence ' .
The following research confirms the idea of underestimating interpersonal relations, as it shows which competencies (out of 26) headmasters themselves regard as important. School managers ' competencies were identified by Kalous et al (1997) in their research questionnaire ' School Managers ' Competencies ' (filled in by 161 respondents), as follows:
Figure 1 : Competencies viewed as important
Competencies (selection)
Competencies identified by headmasters of primary schools
Competencies identified by headmasters of secondary schools
Communicative skills
3
10
Ability to solve conflicts
7
11
Delegation
of responsibility and authority
9
Ability to motivate employees
13
17
Ability to chose appropriate managing style
19
Initiation of changes
20
Ability to organise teamwork
23
24
Experience and practice in management
25
We dare to leave the issue why, for example, communicative skills are regarded as not very important, without any further comment.
Similar information can be gained from the research by Svoboda et al. (1999) that was a part of the project focused on piloting the program, ' Peer Assistant Leadership-shadowing ' . In its third stage, headmasters were to put motivational factors in order (in accordance with Herzberg ' s factors) according to what they view as important.
Figure 2: Motivational factors
Motives
%
Factors of dissatisfaction
moral appraisal of work
93
finances
78
material appraisal of work
87
bad relationships
72
presentation of the results of work in public
66
bad environment
68
environment
62
big number of pupils in one class
21
good relationships
61
lack of pupils
freedom and free hand at work
33
oppressive headmaster
equipment of school
18
low parents` interest in school work
16
flat
12
quality of new pupils
8
bad relations with unions
4
uncertainty about employment
Throughout following years we can trace a change in preferences. Slavikova (2003) informs about researches from 2001, in which 237 headmasters were asked to name important aspects of their work. Activities ranked at the top of importance were, among others, team building, leading of the groups, staff assessment, change management, delegation of responsibilities, communication and motivation. A further probing questionnaire in 2002, this time statistically significant, brought results that tell us something more general. Two hundred respondents, while assessing themselves, put ' personal management and leadership ' only to the eighth position of the abilities they already have acquired. On the other hand, they ranked this area of work among the three most important they have to focus on and improve on in very near future.
On the basis of the questionnaire survey, Prasilova (2002) made a list of factors that were either helpful or unhelpful for the headmasters in their work in 1997/1998. Among the first five factors, the following factors were identified: friendly climate and good relationships at work, actively working and creative co/workers, reliable deputies and cooperation with headmasters. The most troublesome factor for headmasters ' work was specifically ' teachers ' irresponsibility ' .
Pol et al (2003) state that, in the opinion of headmasters, the most important factor is the agreement of everyone, or at least majority of staff, on the principles of school functioning.
Eger (2003) presents the results of his questionnaire probe (49 headmasters), in which respondents affirm the importance of items such as ' confidence in managers ' , ' motivation ' , ' shared aims ' and ' teachers ' development ' . On the other hand, Eger also draws attention to the differences among assessments of particular items inside one school. His conclusion is that ' stating ' these items as important does not tell us much about the reality at schools.
Obst Prasilova (2003) analysed written essays dealing with the topic of employees ' participation in managing the school. All 122 authors were in favour of this idea and they supported it by various reasons and proofs. One of their aims was to do a research survey at their school, however only about 51% were able, or allowed, to do that. One of the ' lucky ones ' said: ' Schools were and still are very bureaucratic and hierocratic. Headmaster was in his style of work and decision-making rather isolated, teachers were not supported and they were, in fact, forced to cooperate with other colleagues, cooperation was not appreciated at all. Even today, teachers prefer to work individually, to be isolated within their subject and classroom, not to have to connect his efforts with other teachers ' work; the responsibility for fulfilling the aims and objectives of each school is still concentrated in the hands of headmasters or sometimes even ' higher-leveled ' teachers ' .
Sip (2003), in his work investigating the principles of work at sixteen schools, confirms in fact that every school and its relationships are very specific and usually all factors together create favorable working conditions (only in one of his explored schools the climate was unsatisfactory). However, his data cannot be generalised.
The fact that headmasters do realise the importance of ' fitting new coming ' teacher into existing school teams is pointed out by Smelova (2004).
Hlouskova (2004) used a questionnaire survey from the project, ' The Culture of Czech School and Strategies for its Development ' , in which headmasters indirectly gave evidence about teachers. Headmasters are nowadays fully aware of the importance of teachers ' work and attitudes for the culture of the school, and they also acknowledge teachers ' part in the work of the school as such. Headmasters, in fact, praise teachers, as well as their work. On the other hand, they admit significant reserves in the area of improving conditions of teachers ' work.
All people who are in a managerial position have a certain level of freedom. It depends only on them how they will use it to make their school a better place for everybody (teachers including). There is a clear link between a successful school (learning organisation) and the teamwork of all the people involved. The issue, however, remains which competencies and capacities school managers already have, and those they might lack.
Team/working and learning is a key element of a learning organisation (Clarke, 2001), as the teams both learn and work together and the sum of the individual efforts is always less than that of the individuals combined in a team. The authors of this article were not, however, able to find any reliable research dealing directly with teamwork, relations on teachers ' level at schools in the Czech Republic during past several years.
Our aim was to put together fragments from available Czech surveys dealing with the problems of teamwork and relationships in schools (especially about headmaster/teacher relation). We have thus gained empirical findings about reality at Czech schools, not only ' sophisticated ' literature. Out of this data we can conclude that headmasters are fully aware of the importance of mutual cooperation. Nevertheless, to what extent they are able to realise this statement in the everyday life of a particular school can be only judged.
The support and help Czech headmasters nowadays really need (as their workload is so huge and conditions of their work are really inconvenient) in the area of changing workplaces of schools into team work places can be gained from several sources. We think that, more than some theoretical work, it would be very helpful for them to have some examples of ' good practice ' from schools, not only in the Czech Republic but from abroad, in particular.
Clarke, A (2001). Learning Organisation. Leicester: National Institute of Adult Education.
Eger, L (2003). ' Sebeevaluace klimatu skoly v ramci evaluace jeji kultury ' . In Chraska, M et al Klima soucasne skoly. Brno: Konvoj.
Fullan, M (1992). The New Meaning of Educational Change. London: Cassel Educational Limited.
Grecmanova, H, Holousova, D et al. (2003). Obecna pedagogika II. 2 nd edition. Olomouc: Hanex.
Hlouskova, L. (2004). Ucitele Ocima Reditelu Skol. Usti nad Labem.
Kalous, I et al. (1997). Priprava ridich pracovniku ve skolstvi. Preha: NVF.
Obst, O; Prasilova, M (2003). ' Participace pracovniku skoly na jejim rizeni ' . In Chraska, M et al. Klima soucasne skoly. Brno: Konvoj.
Pol, M et al (2003). Je Kultura ceske skoly kulturou dospelych? Hlavni akteri skolniho zivota ocima reditelu. In Chraska, M et al Klima soucasne skoly. Brno: Konvoj.
Prasilova, M (2002). Vyuziti vysledku profesiografickeho setreni pro stanoveni obsahu profesniho vzdelavani vedoucich pedagogickych pracovniku. Olomouc: PdF UP.
Prucha, J (1998). Ceske Zakladni Vzdelavani: Nalezy pedagogickeho vyzkumu. In Pedagogika roc. 48, pp 212-248.
Prucha, J (2000). ' Vyzkumna zjisteni o soucesne ceske skole ' . In Vedeni Skoly: Raabe F 2.2. pp 1-15.
Slavikova, L (2002). Vytvareni znalostni spolecnosti a zmeny v kompetencich ridicich pracovniku. In Vyzkum skoly a ucitele. Praha: PedF UK.
Slavikova, L (2003). System pripravy ridicich pracovniku ve skolstvi v kontextu novych technologii vzdelavani. Praha: PdF UK.
Svoboda, J; Slavikova, L; Vozenilek, B. (1999) Nove formy vysokoskoleske pripravy reditelu skol. Praha: UVRS PedF UK.
Sip, B (2003). K problematice vedeni lidi ve skole. Olomouc: PdF UP.
Smelova, E (2004). Reditelky VybÃrajà PracovnÃky do MS. In Informatorium, roc. 11, c 5, pp 8-9.
Walterova, E (1998). Obraz ceské skoly v pedagogickem vyzkumu. In C eska Zakladni skola na prahu 21. stoleti. Ceske Budejovice: JU CB PedF, pp. 15-20.
Both are teachers in the Faculty of Education, at Palacky University, in Olomouc, in The Czech Republic. Miss Jana Vastatkova is a student of PhD programme and Associate Professor M Prasilova, PhD, is a lecturer and assistant at the Department of Education.
Buy publications by the author
Contribute a discussion paper to this year's online conferences on the transformation of education