ABSTRACT
These words from the Audit Commission (1990, p. 25) illustrate the view that close collaboration between small primary schools was of limited survival value. This is a fairly unique view based on the commissioners’ assessment that collaboration was generally ‘insubstantial’. The three-school cluster cited as an example of an impoverished spread of expertise could be regarded as rich with its specialists in the arts, science, the humanities and special needs. It lacked specialists in mathematics and technology only, but mathematics was an area of high confidence amongst generalist primary teachers, whilst technology experts were scarce throughout the primary sector (Wragg et al., 1989; Bennett et al., 1992). It seems reasonable to assume that the Government’s funding of large-scale in-service programmes for primary teachers in science, technology and mathematics was indicative of concern about profiles of staff expertise in large urban, as well as in small rural, primary schools.
