![Sample our Education journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5932/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Education.jpg"})
Abstract
In a recent paper we concluded with a brief discussion of a proposed model for conceptualizing school development. Three interrelated dimensions were tentatively offered as a means of examining and understanding the scope of intent and action needed by schools in a search for improvement. The three dimensions were identified as a school‐wide dimension, a teacher‐action dimension and a pupil‐learning dimension. This paper now seeks to put a little more flesh on these dimensional bones, to define and describe the respective dimensions and to reveal the nature of the interrelationship. This paper includes discussion of two related contexts. Firstly, it considers the relation between school development planning (SDP) and OFSTED inspections, drawing on our own and others' findings in this area. Secondly, the paper examines the relationship between SDP and education development planning (EDP), the long‐term planning required of local education authorities substantially concerned with the meeting of Government targets for reading and numeracy at Key Stages 1 and 2. EDP is a relatively new initiative with plans to be approved or resubmitted to the Department for Education and Employment by March 1999. This paper considers the potential impact of its inherently hierarchical structure on the collegiality required for effective school‐development planning. The paper also incorporates a perspective of stakeholders in relation to school development, examining the potential for insiders (school staff) to work more closely and more equally with outside influences in maintaining momentum in the review and development process and in endeavouring to ensure that changes bring about real and lasting improvements.
Keywords: