CHAPTER TWO
THE MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE OF EDUCATION
In order to investigate Scientific Management and the
education system it is important that the management structure of
education is identified. Education in England and Wales is
managed through a partnership between the Local Education
Authorities ( LEAs ) and Central Government, although as we will
see in chapter 2 the balance of power, influence and control is
moving towards central government. Scientific management relies
on direction and control by management and any suggestion that
these techniques are being used within the education system can
only be supported if the management structure of education is
understood.
Appendix 9 (figs. 1,2,3,4,5) shows the overall management
framework of education. In England and Wales central government
responsibility is through the Department of Education and Science
( D.E.S ) which covers all schools ( maintained and independent )
and higher education including the universities. At the head of
the D.E.S. is the Secretary of State for Education and two
Parliamentary Under Secretaries of State. These managers may
change with the government or can be moved to new posts and
consequently cannot be regarded as permanent. However, the Civil
Service who staff the D.E.S can be looked upon as relatively
permanent. This level of management is led by a Permanent
Secretary who is supported by three Deputy Secretaries each
having responsibility for ; Schools, Further and Higher Education
and Responsibilities for Teachers. This level of management also
contains a legal adviser who heads the legal branch and a senior
inspector who is in charge of Her Majesty's Inspectorate (H.M.I).
These people can be regarded as the "top management" as
defined by Fox (1971, p83)(Appendix 9 fig.1). They are in rather
a privileged position with command over resources, having the
power or control to shape the overall education system, referred
to as "corporate control" (Storey,J. 1989, p40) as they can
determine the industrial environment or even working conditions
of the entire structure. They set the priorities and targets for
the education system. The Education Reform Act of 1988 has
provided this level of management with the political framework
through which they can direct and control the entire system,
carrying out the wishes of the government.
The position of middle managers in education is more complex
and includes bodies such as the Assessment and Performance Unit
(A.P.U)(appendix 9, fig.2), the Schools Examinations and
Assessment Council (S.E.A.C)(appendix 9, fig.3), the Consortium
for Assessment and Testing in Schools (C.A.T.S)(appendix 9,
fig.3) and the National Curriculum Council (N.C.C)(appendix 9,
fig.1). According to Fox (1971, p83 ) middle managers may not
have the same goals as the top management but they rely on top
management approval and support. In simple terms they are
dependent on the top management for their directives and so are
under their control. An example of this situation has been seen
recently. C.A.T.S have developed Standard Assessment Tests in
Schools for Science, Technology and Maths having carried out
extensive and exhaustive pilot schemes throughout the country.
However, top management in the form of the Secretary for State
for Education, Kenneth Clarke (25th September 1991, News at Ten )
announced that the SATS were to be altered considerably and be in
the form of written tests and not prolonged assessment periods.
This would suggest that they do not entirely share the same aims
/ goals. C.A.T.S. developed the Standard Assessment Tests with
the aim of assessing a pupils ability and knowledge over an
extended period of time. However, the government have decided
that written tests are simpler and consequently easy to
introduce. This highlights a clear difference in aims of these
two levels of management.
Middle managers are more open to the day-to-day pressures of
the shop floor ie. the classroom floor and may suffer from
conflicting pressures from above and below ( Dalton.M. 1971.
p84). Bodies such as the N.C.C and S.E.A.C focus on
"organisational control" (Storey.J 1989, p.40 ), concentrating on
translating top management guide-lines into reality. For example,
the Secretary of State for education, through the Education Act
of 1988, set the N.C.C the task of providing "professional
advice" (N.C.C, 1989, p.11) on the school curriculum, not only
the National Curriculum. S.E.A.C were set the task of making
Standard Assessment Tests a practical reality.
Headteachers and school governing bodies can be regarded as
middle management also. Many of the policies set out by the
Education Act of 1988 have been set in motion by these middle
managers. School governors emerge from the Act with enhanced
powers and duties, with many of the functions previously
performed by the Local Education Authorities. Governors are
responsible for the conduct of the school although many
responsibilities rest with the headteacher. For instance, they
are responsible for the implementation of the National Curriculum
and must ensure that the school follows all directives relating
to it. Many other responsibilities have to be carried out by the
governing bodies and headteachers, all stemming from "corporate
policy" as determined by top management. These range from
financial control over spending and accounting for the schools
share of the L.E.As education budget, to responsibilities
regarding discipline including staff discipline.
Some of the increased responsibilities can be regarded as
"workplace control" (Storey.J,1989, p.40). They are concerned
with the organisation of routine work in such a way that they
satisfy top and middle management. These include "manning
levels, production runs and line speeds" (Storey.J, 1989, p.40).
Governing bodies can fix the times of school sessions, how many
hours a day the school is open and how the sessions are
organised. They school may feel that it is necessary for longer
hours, to cope with extra pupil / teacher work load. Many of the
shop floor decisions may be passed onto the Heads of Department
or even classroom teachers. This may include the construction of
schemes of work or lesson plans allowing for the practical
application and classroom appliance of the National Curriculum.
This normally falls into the hands of the Heads of Department or
subject coordinators (ie Technology Coordinator or Information
Technology Coordinator) who may be regarded as supervisors or
foremen. Often heads of department may have to act as shop floor
mediators between the middle management (headteacher) and the
classroom teacher.
SCIENTIFIC MANAGEMENT AND TEACHING - AN OVER VIEW
This dissertation is concerned with determining whether
scientific management techniques (such as a reduction in worker
autonomy, the work study, the setting of tasks, and deskilling)
are now being used in education as a means of controlling the
content of subjects and the way subjects are taught. It is
possible that through scientific management the curriculum is
being manipulated or controlled. Definitions of the curriculum
vary according to the source and it is only quite recently that
the curriculum of a school has come to mean more than that which
the timetable indicates is taught in lessons. Kerr, for instance
argues that the term curriculum should be used in a much wider
sense and defines it as:
"All the learning which is planned or guided by the
school whether it is carried on in groups or
individually, inside or outside the school" (Kerr.J.F.
1975, p6)
This definition allows for the inclusion of extracurricular
activities along with aspects of the "hidden curriculum" as areas
which the school would like to promote. Numerous other
definitions of the curriculum exist including the National Union
of Teacher's:
"A complex of guided studies designed to encourage
literacy, numeracy and language, to develop academic
and practical skills and to nurture qualities such as
self reliance, integrity and enthusiasm" (N.U.T. 1975,
p6)
Whichever definition is chosen it becomes apparent that control
of the curriculum or at least a substantial influence upon it, is
of considerable importance to many groups ranging from the
government, local education authorities and teachers to
employers, publishers and pupils themselves. It is not surprising
that control of such an area has become an important issue only
in the last twenty years, for it is clear whoever controls the
curriculum can shape it to service their needs. They can decide
what is taught, in which type of institution it will be presented
and who is allowed access to which areas of knowledge. The
curriculum is now an area in which differing groups try to exert
influence.
Over twenty years tradition and consensus have meant that
many schools select similar types of knowledge, beliefs and
values which they transmit to pupils. External exams at 16 plus
have been controlled by the GCE and CSE boards and now the GCSE
examination boards, with the boards been responsible for both
syllabuses and examinations. The teachers are responsible for the
course work. Control of the syllabus has almost always been in
the hands of the exam boards and a major contributing factor of
this situation being the conservatism of teachers when faced with
the prospect of curriculum change or innovation. This is possibly
due because change may mean extra work as well as disturbing a
system which, whatever its faults, the teacher has become use to
and understands exactly what its demands on him/her are. An
interesting study is provided by Scarth (1984) in a study of
teacher's attitudes towards exams. He found that the teachers he
interviewed resented the restriction which the exam syllabuses
impose on their professional practice and very few of them were
concerned to initiate radical change in exam procedures - any
such changes tended to be administrative. In general it would
appear that teachers were too busy to think of radical change,
for not only are the classrooms a busy and time-consuming place
but schools in a wider context are as well. Furthermore, Scarth
found that teachers, in many respects, preferred the traditional
exam system as it aided classroom management.
The influence of the exam boards has been encouraged by
interested parties, particularly the Department of Education and
Science, and certainly the trend towards increased central
control has been well documented (see for example Lawton.D 1980,
1984). This has coincided with the belief that teachers have
already far too much influence and autonomy over curriculum
affairs.
It is possible to argue that the 1944 Education Act gave the
teacher a considerable amount of control over the curriculum, for
although considerable powers were placed in the hands of school
governors and the Local Education Authorities, these tended in
practice to be devolved to the headteacher and his/her staff.
Under the Act schools were free to formulate any form of
secondary curriculum they chose with the governing body having
the responsibility for a "broad type of education" and "general
direction of the curriculum" (Butler.R.A. 1990, p4). By 1960 the
D.E.S started to exert influence. David Eccles (the Conservative
Minister for Education) gave ample warning of this when he gave
his famous speech concerning the "secret garden of the
curriculum" in which he argued for greater government interest in
the curriculum.
Early attempts by Central Government to gain control of the
curriculum failed due to teacher and Local Education Authority
(L.E.A) resistance. Indeed both the Department of Education and
Science and the L.E.As had little influence over what was taught
in schools with the individual teacher being able to determine
its nature. The Schools Council constitution in the early 1980s
stated:
"Each school should have the fullest possible measure
of responsibility for its own work, with its own
curriculum and teaching methods based on the needs of
its pupils and evolved by its own staff". (Salter.B and
Tapper.T 1981, p119)
In this way the curriculum policy of schools was initially
the product of classroom teaching, with the methods / techniques
of teaching and their content being under the control of the
classroom teacher and individual schools. This was one of the
central arguments in support of teachers' claim to
professionalism. This brings to mind the work of Braverman; just
as the craft worker once had control over the nature of his / her
work and the labour process, once the teacher also had similar
control. However, the 1980s saw a concerted effort by Central
Government to reverse this with what can be describe as Taylorist
techniques.
Interference of a political nature increased with the Prime
Minister setting up the "Assessment of Performance Unit" in 1974,
to determine whether schools were doing enough to provide the
industrial society with school leavers who have the skills
industry could utilise. This was seen by Broadfoot (1979, p81) as
a potential back door method through which the curriculum could
be shaped. In general the 1960s and 1970s were decades when
teachers were criticised for sheltering behind their expertise
and accused of paying little attention to complaints made by
employers and parents about the curriculum. Increasingly it was
argued that curriculum development was too important to be left
to teachers alone. Instead the word "partnership" (to signify the
relationship between teachers and the D.E.S) was replaced by the
word "accountability". With the election of the Thatcher
government in 1979 and the appointment of Sir Keith Joseph as
Education Secretary the drift towards central control continued.
The 1970s saw a growth in comprehensive development with the
curriculum being a key issue. Many curriculum areas were
initiated such as; the National Curriculum Project, Nufield
Science, New Mathematics, Social Studies, 8 - 14 Humanities
Project and School Council initiatives. However, control was
limited with adoption of the above curriculum ideas being
voluntary.
The latter half of the 1980s and early 1990s saw Central
Government (top management) aiming to impose greater influence on
schools, raising teachers "awareness of control" (Shaw.K.E. 1990,
p271). Taylorism seemed to be raising its head:
"currently considerable pressure is building to have
teaching and school curricula be totally prespecified
and tightly controlled by the purpose of efficiency,
cost effectiveness and accountability" (Apple.M. 1988,
p294)
The imposition of the National Curriculum provided a rigid
framework and was assessment orientated, aiming at greater
standardisation of classwork. Control of the curriculum was
slowly passing from the hands of the teacher to central
authority. Furthermore, the national criteria for GCSE exams had
been the precursor for this action. The National Curriculum means
that teachers now have to follow specified procedures which
inevitably place constraints on most subjects. Besides this
teachers have had to face the imposition of Records of
Achievement (a detailed system of reporting on pupils to parents)
which puts further pressure on teachers who find they are losing
control over their use of time, while working. Often time is not
set aside for carrying out these new initiatives but it is
expected that teachers make time during lessons. Whether
curriculum guide-lines are from local or central authority, or
exam boards, they are seen as "constraining and mechanising
teaching" (Shaw.K.E. 1987, p788).
In recent years management in the form of central authority
has been strengthened. The industrial disputes of the 1980s
prompted the government to seek greater teacher/school
accountability. It appeared that industrial action justified
intervention by central government, even as far as to influencing
the teaching process within the classroom. As early as 1985 Sir
Keith Joseph had emphasised the view that there was a need for
more direct control of the work of teachers:
"I am concerned with the whole range of positive
advantages that would flow from applying to the teacher
force standards of management which have become common
elsewhere" (Sir Keith Joseph, 1988, p294)
Local Education Authorities have been put under pressure from
central authority especially with regard to financial support.
The Thatcher administration placed an emphasis towards a leaner,
more efficiently managed system, capable of changing to the needs
and requirements of the market place. It became necessary for
school managers (the middle management) to develop skills of
entrepreneurship and even market skills (such as publishing
booklets and leaflets to promote the school). The internal
management of the school has changed from that of trust,
responsibility and autonomy to one that would appear to following
Taylorist ideals of separating planning from execution. Moving
away from the ideas put forward by writers such as Fox (1974).
Decisions are taken largely by top and middle management, with
trust and good will replaced by tighter control and organisation.
One aim of "top management" is to control and prevent
certain types of behaviour by the workforce, such as the
withdrawal of good will or working to rule. In teaching, this may
extend to the refusal to supervise pupils during non-contact
time or the refusal to attend meetings. Top management in the
form of central government has resorted to contractualisation and
the imposition of conditions of service. Hours and duties have
become rigidly imposed, with directed time amounting to 1265
hours per school year. All this leads to less control by the
teacher over his/her work content, "separating planning and
execution" (Shaw.K.E. 1990, p274). The headteacher is now
required to have job specifications drawn up for all staff which
can detail and determine the tasks that are required of the
individual teacher. "The establishment of management as a
separate function ...with unique expertise and responsibilities
...is a crucial first step in establishing control over the
workforce" (Littler.C and Salaman.G. 1982, p259).
Schooling is beginning more and more to mimic the market
place and in particular the industrial production line. Some
analysts (Marxist) may consider the as teacher suffering from
"formal subordination" with limited autonomy in the form of
his/her influence of the teaching process; this having been
further reduced. The teacher's role at work is beginning to
parallel his/her industrial counterpart.
The teacher equivalent of the work study, teacher appraisal,
is clearly adapted from its industrial equivalent, with central
authority consistently hinting that pay and promotion will be
related to this. Furthermore, politicians and other lay people
feel that the quality of a teacher's work can be determined by
the results his / her pupils gain. Exam results are one of the
public indicators of a teachers competence (Hargreaves, 1989,
p83). Accordingly top management aimed to employ strategies
similar to those used by industrial management to direct,
evaluate and supervise the labour process. Control was to be
exerted through the logics of industrial production and market
competition with appraisal taking its place amongst these.
According to Elliot (1989, p87) one of the most public and
political displays of the mistrust of teachers was the
publication in 1983 of Sir Keith Joseph's White Paper on
"Teaching Quality" (D.E.S. 1983). The overall model of the
management of schools was to be a "power coercive one" and the
paper legitimates managerial control over the collection,
analysis and release of data about each teacher's performance :
"employers can manage their teacher force effectively
only if they have accurate knowledge of each teacher's
performance" (D.E.S. 1983, paragraph 92)
This has similarities with Taylor's work study, as a methodical
study of an individual teachers work aimed at measuring his / her
efficiency and set targets for the future.
Appraisal of performance of the individual can be seen as
one of the first crucial steps towards control of the labour
process. In industry and commerce direct surveillance is seen as
essential if control of the labour process is to be secured. In
the education system the D.E.S have been developing what appears
to be control orientated appraisal . According to Kieron Walsh
(1990, p156) Sir Keith Joseph gave the impression that appraisal
was to discover and dismiss from service incompetent teachers and
that pay should be linked to performance. It should be remembered
that Taylor believed in economic reward as an incentive. The
development of appraisal can be seen as a managerial technique
involving not only self appraisal but also that of heads of
department and senior management (The Career Teacher, 1991, p1).
Kenneth Clarke in his draft regulation for appraisal emphasises
its use in the "management of school teachers", allowing for a
teacher's performance to be discussed with parents, L.E.A
officials and advisers. Furthermore it allows for the dismissal
and discipline of teachers (Clarke.K. 1991, p1). Taylor's work
aimed to highlight areas that could be made more efficient and
those areas of the labour process where changes could be made.
Appraisal may become a similar tool.
Teaching was once considered part of the public sector, but
with Local Financial Management, schools are adopting the rules
and habits of the market place. They have to compete in a
shrinking market place for pupils and so have had to adopt
industrial policies such as advertising and attempting to meet
the laws of supply and demand.
Much of Braverman's work related to skill at work and in
particular deskilling. He asked questions concerning workers
control over their tasks. Lane, (1985) applied Braverman's ideas
to clerical work, emphasising the deskilling debate. A discussion
of the nature of control in teaching cannot ignore this aspect of
Braverman or Taylor. This can be argued in two ways. Firstly,
have the skills teachers require to teach their
subjects/specialisms been eroded ? Secondly, have the skills that
pupils gain through a variety of subjects been reduced ? Any
dissertation assessing the nature of the control of teaching must
enter the deskilling debate. It could be argued that increased
control through the imposition of the National Curriculum has
forced teachers to re-skill in such areas as assessment
procedures and record keeping. On the other hand questions can be
raised over the skill content of National Curriculum subjects. Up
to recent years there has been little evidence of the
denigradation of skill with a vast improvement of teacher
training.
At a national level the government have made the "Council
for Accreditation of Teacher Education" responsible for
overseeing the initial training of teachers, which includes
content of training courses. Just as Taylorist techniques aimed
to control the skill level of the worker and the labour process,
Central Government is attempting to do the same starting with the
way teachers are trained. This is an attempt to rationalise
teacher's work through influencing their role in the education
process from the start of their training.
The next two chapters will examine in more detail the
Education Reform Act of 1988 which forms the basis of the most
recent efforts by Central Government to gain direct control of
the education system. Specific reference and examples from a case
study into National Curriculum Technology and the Standard
Attainment Tests will be discussed in an attempt to identify
those Taylorist techniques that have been introduced into the
classroom.
|
| |
| |
|