ABSTRACT
This chapter examines the structure, effectiveness and micro-politics of a consortium approach towards staff development. In particular, it seeks to highlight the attitudinal tensions that emerged as schools sought to rationalize the benefits of collaboration in a local context of increased competition. It examines the challenges which emerged including a questioning of existing management systems, of hierarchical perceptions, of the effectiveness of staff development as well as issues relating to the nature of the development-planning process in schools. What individual staff wanted, needed or even hoped for was not being systematically provided for and nor were whole-school issues being resolved through training. Staff development was in danger of believing its own mythology of individual development, yet despite some failures and limitations, what did emerge from the process of consortium working was a structure for progress and a means by which entitlement to training became a system of liberation. The work of Rudduck (1992) suggests similar tensions between universities and schools seeking to establish partnership programmes and the fault line that is common to both is the unwillingness to translate philosophy and principle into daily practice. This chapter also gives further strength to the analysis of Fullan (1991) in his critique of staff development. Fullan was concerned by the often hierarchical nature of staff development, in its use as a form of power brokering within organizations and the strictly limited relationship and impact upon the learning needs of staff and pupils. The experience of the Confederation confirms the fears of Fullan that the gap between rhetoric and reality of staff development or collaboration is still too wide.
