Many of the stages of policy development are about making sure the policy is fit for purpose, for example, identifying a need to be fulfilled, being clear about the aim of the policy and undertaking empirical research to establish its remit. This is important, as it helps to ensure the policy is warranted and practical and specific to the situation, and avoids creating unnecessary paperwork over policies which have no clear objective or are not appropriate to the task.
Furthermore, the process of review both before and after implementation provides a chance to reflect on the policy, foresee any potential problems and acknowledge any difficulties that arise in practice, and make improvements. This will allow the policy to be even more tailored to its purpose and situation. For example, at Ashbury School, the Health and Safety policy states that a first aider must be present during PE lessons. However, during one sport session, both main first aiders were off-site on school trips, and the only other members of staff who could administer first aid were needed in staffing ratios in other parts of the school, so the lesson was cancelled at the last minute. In this situation, through the process of review, the Health and Safety policy could be altered to outline what to do in the event of first aiders being unavailable, or to stipulate a higher minimum number of staff to be trained in first aid.
However, despite these advantages, having so many stages in the process makes developing a policy very long and labour-intensive. In the time between the identification of a need and the policy being implemented, that need could be going unfulfilled. For example, whilst a safeguarding policy is pending review, a case of abuse may be mishandled by a teacher unsure of the process. If the policy comes from the national government, passes through the local authority and then must be adapted by the school, even more time is wasted. Alternatively, by the time a policy comes into force, needs or circumstances may have changed, in which case it would need to be reviewed and rewritten again. These problems may cause policy writers to cut back on important steps such as research, which would also be undesirable, as it might compromise the quality of the policy. Therefore, a balance must be struck between the thoroughness of the development process and the time it takes to develop a policy.
Nonetheless, any policy is useless if it is not communicated effectively. Schools use different ways of communicating policies. One of the most common is self-research. The policies are made available on the school network, in the staff room or in the staff handbook, and staff are made aware that they can access them for reference. This has the advantage that they are kept in a central location where they will always be accessible, and staff can select the policies relevant to them. However, in practice, it may be that staff never get around to reading a policy, see it as ‘optional’ or are unaware of which ones apply to them.
Instead, schools sometimes choose to ask all staff to sign a form once they have read a policy. This means that all are aware that they need to read it, and are held to account over whether they have done so. However, it may not be necessary for all staff members to know every single policy, and if this approach is taken with too many policies then staff may feel overwhelmed and not have time to read them properly. Therefore, perhaps this approach should only be taken with particular important policies which affect all members of the school community; for example, Ashbury School used this method for communicating the Health and Safety policy.
These methods, however, all involve reading the policies in full and out of context. This may mean that staff forget the details or remain unclear on how they affect working practices. An alternative approach to communicating policies could be in the form of a presentation or seminar as part of in-service training. In a condensed format, with expressive delivery, the policy details would be more memorable. The session could also include interactive elements where staff would have the opportunity to apply the policy to real life scenarios and ask questions about how the policy should shape their own working practices. Different seminars could be run for different policies, with staff only required to attend sessions that applied to them. However, this approach could be quite time consuming, and would need to be repeated for new staff and new or updated policies.
In conclusion, the process of finding the right techniques for both developing and communicating policies is a balancing act between effective methods and time-efficient methods. School senior management teams will have to decide for each policy which is the best way of preparing the policy and delivering it to staff. A mixed approach may prove valuable, as policies vary in importance, urgency and universality, therefore different systems of development and communication may suit them better.
No comments:
Post a Comment