CHAPTER THREE
REFORMING THE EDUCATION SYSTEM
THE EDUCATION REFORM ACT OF 1988
The Education Reform Bill was a political response to the
growing crisis in education which was exacerbated by the three
year teachers' pay dispute of the 1980s. It must also be seen
against a background of attempts made by central government to
remove much of the influence of local councils in many policy
areas, one of which was education. The Thatcherite government did
not approve LEAs as the controllers or managers of the education
system. Through the Act central government gained the leading
role while that of the LEAs and teachers diminished.
The Education Reform Act was undoubtedly the most important
Act relating to education since 1944 as it altered its basic
structure. The Act not only increased the powers of the Secretary
of State for Education and Science but it unequivocally restored
the government's control over the curriculum and set a mechanism
for exercising and enforcing its new powers, putting the
education process in the hands of government (top management).
The Act marks a radical shift in direction for schools,
education in the past had been "producer dominated" as noted by
James Callaghan (1988, piv). A change in the financial support
for schools was an attempt to ensure those schools that were
successful in attracting pupils would gain the greater funding.
Consequently schools have had to adjust to the commercial
pressures of a market economy (however artificial) with education
now becoming consumer dominated. As a result, governors and staff
have had to 'sell' their school to potential customers, in theory
putting power in the hands of parents in a flexible and open
system (as outlined by the "Parents Charter", D.E.S. 1991).
Taylor believed in economic incentives for individual workers
aimed at increasing efficiency and production. In the same way
economic incentives exist for teachers who feel pressured to
carry out more work, to raise standards and so attract pupils to
the school, saving their jobs and futures.
In the same way as Taylorism aimed to measure and control
the output and efficiency of workers, there have been moves
towards the assessment of performance of schools, such as the
publication of exam results, school evaluation (Salford education
Authority, 1991, p1) and HMI reports, leading to greater
accountability and a belief that there should be value for money.
Accountability means that parents are given a choice of school:
"the schools that do not offer the product which
parents want should lose their custom and go out of
business" (Brown.p and Sparks.R. 1989, pp42-43)
The hope is that market pressures will improve standards along
with additional legislation to control the content of the
curriculum. The belief is that parents will want to see
examination passes and not what has been regarded as liberal
teaching that may not produce this.
Taylorist management techniques were originally applied to
capitalist industry successfully. The Education Act has attempted
to push education in the same direction. Control would be easier
to achieve through market pressures. At the same time as the
introduction of the Act there was talk from central government of
the possible introduction of a voucher system making it possible
for parents to move their children from school to school and from
the public to the private sector. Longstanding assumptions and
practices are rapidly being replaced by market concepts of supply
and demand, with current political thinking dragging the
educational institutions into the competitive market place in the
hope that improvements can be made. If schools are to be
successful in attracting pupils, the teaching labour process has
to be rationalised, thereby turning away from broad educational
aims to one of examination achievements now regarded as the end
product of the teaching process.
Arguably the education service has begun to move backwards
to something resembling the centralised control which existed
from the inception of state education. For example, the "Revised
Code" of 1862 linked grants for elementary schools to attendance
and attainment of pupils (Evans, 1978, p25). Dale (as early as
the 1970s) saw moves of this nature in terms of a shift in the
relative autonomy of schools to "regulated autonomy":
"Control over the education system is to become
tighter, largely through the codification and
monitoring process and practices previously left to the
teachers professional judgment taken on trust or
hallowed in tradition" (Dale.R. 1979, p104)
The freedom for teachers to manoeuvre (autonomy) has been reduced
with a variety of control strategies now visible. However,
although autonomy has not been removed, it has been reduced.
THE EDUCATION REFORM ACT, SECTION 1 to 25, THE NATIONAL
CURRICULUM AND ASSESSMENT
The Reform Act requires all maintained schools to provide a basic
curriculum to be known as the National Curriculum (section 1(2))
and states that there should be three core subjects and seven
foundation subjects. The core subjects are Maths, English and
Science while the foundation subjects are History, Geography,
Technology, Music, Art and a Modern Language. The door is left
open for the Secretary of State for Education to introduce and
control the assessment of subjects. Two curriculum councils and a
schools examinations and assessment council are to advise the
Secretary of State on matters of assessment. It should be borne
in mind that the members of these councils are nominated by the
Minister. Taylorist methods aimed at putting the management
firmly in control in terms of organizing and directing work, the
Act appears to have set the framework allowing for this strategy.
The Act seems to extend what could be an aid to indirect
control in that it ensures that parents are given the maximum
information about the studies their children are following with
regular reports on progress (section 22). This is one of the ways
that the Secretary of State can exercise his/her authority to
require LEAs governors and headteachers to provide any other
information about the education of pupils. In addition, section
23 requires local authorities to establish ways of dealing with
complaints regarding the curriculum not being followed, or a
failure to provide information under section 22. This seems to be
a form of quality control as teachers cannot deviate from working
within the framework of the 1988 Act: thus "soldiering" has
become more difficult. Nigel De Gruchy suggests that complaints
could be fed into the appraisal system, working against the
interests of teachers:
"Teachers will be devastated to realise that their
future employment prospects and pay levels could be
subject to gossip and tittle tattle fed into the
appraisal process by some malicious parents or
governors"(De Gruchy.N. 1991, p1)
Fear may ensure conformity and obedience.
The Act has ensured that there are no illusions regarding
where the legal control of the curriculum falls, with the
Secretary of State. It specifies exactly those subjects that are
to be taught and sets the scene for systematic assessment and
recording procedures for monitoring pupils progress. In this way
the control of the labour process of teaching and the autonomy
and discretion of teachers has been vastly reduced and placed in
the hands of top management. Through the Act top management now
dominates, to a large extent, the day-to-day teaching in the
classroom by setting the tasks though the National Curriculum (to
be discussed later). It also has great influence over almost
every aspect of the education system.
Ozga and Lawn (1988, pp324-325) suggest that
"Proletarianism" is the process which results when the worker is
deprived of the capacity to both initiate and execute work, and
where there is a separation of conception from execution,
breaking down the process into separate controllable parts. This
was also one of the aims of Scientific Management. It could be
argued that the 'Proletarianisation of teaching' is the result of
the central control of the curriculum, as there has been an
erosion of teacher autonomy along with vastly increased
managerial control. Furthermore there is evidence of the
deskilling that Braverman refers to (in an industrial and white
collar context) as a result of direct control. Although most work
on Proletarianisation is focused on the technical process of
production and the contrast between the craft worker and assembly
line production, the process of proletarianisation is probably
common to all types of work (as supported by Lanes and Kumar's
work on White collar workers and Shaw in education, 1987 and
1990).
Deskilling can be linked to the introduction of technology
and so it is important to state what the "technology of teaching"
actually is. On a production line it is easy to determine what
the technology is as it can be machinery, or in the office it
could be in the form of automation and computer systems. However,
teaching relies on less technological hardware, consequently we
must look at the process of teaching. Dreeben (1988, p325) refers
to teacher's work as been structured by the organisation and the
technology of the task, in that both the layout of classrooms and
the strategies and methods of teaching are seen as part of
technology. We can regard the availability of resources,
teachers' specialist knowledge and the allocation of time to the
tasks as being related to the 'technology' of teaching.
Current legislation means that much of the technology of
teaching is determined by central authority. Through its
financial policies and the resourcing of schools the teaching
process has been influenced and therefore the technology has
changed. Schools have had to restructure to accommodate the
Education Reform Act and the National Curriculum. Just as the
introduction of technology into the factory is seen as an aid to
control as it can take the form of a production line, the
influence of technology (as outlined by Dreeban) in teaching
helps support a production line process within schools (this will
be discussed later). This is a key issue as it follows that there
are many aspects of a teachers work where the ability to control
the pace, content and number of tasks have been reduced.
THE NATIONAL CURRICULUM - WITH SPECIFIC REFERENCE TO TECHNOLOGY
The National Curriculum covers the school life of a pupil
from the age of five years to sixteen years and can be divided
into four stages. Keystage one and two relate to junior and
primary schools whilst keystage three covers the age range eleven
to fourteen - those pupils in first to third year of secondary
schooling (the National Curriculum calls this age range year 7 to
year 9, APPENDIX 1). Keystage four relates to examination years
in the fourth and fifth year (years 10 and 11 of the National
Curriculum).
There is general agreement within the teaching profession
that the National Curriculum has been imposed on teachers and
schools with only the minimum of consultation. It can be regarded
as the main task for teachers in the same way as tasks are set by
managers for production line workers, following the Taylorist
pattern. Taylor considered that tasks could only be carried out
efficiently if workers followed directions from management who
carried out all aspects of planning, "separating planning from
doing" (Hill.S. 1981, p25). Certainly if it is considered that
the National Curriculum is the backbone of the teaching labour
process, control of the process has passed from the hands of the
individual teacher to that of top management.
Administrative methods of managing and directing the
teaching process have "ebbed and flowed" in England, Wales and
the USA (Simons.H and Elliot.J. 1989, p36). In England and Wales
the Revised Code of 1862 attempted to measure the efficiency of
teachers in elementary schools by relating payments to results.
It led to a narrowing of the curriculum and 'teaching to the
test' (this view is supported by the teacher interviews, chapter
4) and so was similar to todays National Curriculum. In this way
the curriculum determines the labour process (much in the same
way as an industrial management strategy controls a production
line) and has become known as the "process-product" system of
education (Simons.H and Elliot.J. 1989, p37), the teacher merely
attends to the set tasks of the National Curriculum with the
pupils given the opportunity to learn what is later tested. The
National Curriculum has led to a change in styles and
methods/techniques of teaching. The teaching process has been
altered with the teacher becoming ultimately responsible for
presenting or delivering an externally developed curriculum at
classroom level (this is new to the lower school). This is one of
the contributing factors leading to the rationalisation of the
teaching process.
National Curriculum Technology is composed of five
previously separate subjects: Craft Design and Technology, Home
Economics, Business Studies, Information Technology and
Textiles/Art. Within the "new" subject there are five Attainment
Targets:
1) Identifying Needs and Opportunities
2) Generating a Design
3) Planning and Making
4) Evaluation
5) Information Technology
Pupils' work should cover each Attainment target, within which
there are ten levels of ability. A pupil should progress up the
levels through his/her school life. Each Attainment Target and
level is achieved through 'Programmes of Study' which specify
what is to be taught to the pupils, giving examples (see appendix
2). Progammes of Study and the Attainment Targets make up the
framework within which both pupils and teachers must work. In
this way not only is the labour process determined but also the
production process (the production process being the educating of
pupils). The main difference is that the curriculum is set for
the lower school, whereas previously teachers could devise their
own.
One could argue that the teacher has a form of responsible
autonomy, however the teacher generally finds that this
responsibility is limited to working within the framework of set
skills directed by the National Curriculum. Responsible autonomy
aims to keep supervision to a minimum yet the Technology
Coordinator (the overall coodinator of the subjects contributing
to Technology) must ensure that the Attainment Targets and levels
are met (National Curriculum Council, 1990, pb7). The Coordinator
must also ensure that staff teach to the National Curriculum
requirements, therefore supervision is increased with record
keeping supporting this strategy. It would appear that the higher
one is up the managerial ladder, the more responsible autonomy is
granted, with main scale teachers following the directions of
Heads of Departments. In industry it is suggested that the more
skills one prossesses the greater autonomy one is allowed. If
this applies to teaching, it is management techniques that are
regarded as skills and not classroom teaching skills.
The production process can be considered to be that of
educating pupils throughout their journey from Keystage one to
Keystage four. The pupils can be regarded as objects moving on an
education production line/conveyor belt and as they progress
along it they achieve levels within each Attainment Target. If we
accept this view it is almost axiomatic that Taylorist techniques
can be adopted to achieve optimum efficiency and control both of
the labour and production processes. Taken in its entirety the
effects that can be attributed to the National Curriculum and
other educational policies is a shift from "formal" to "real"
subordination of teachers work. The worker (the teacher) is
reduced to a "living appendage of the production process". As
Gorz suggests (1982, p46) scientific management has made it
impossible for the worker to experience work as a creative
process. Now, in the context of the National Curriculum many
teachers would support a similar view of teaching. (see teacher
survey, chapter 4)
As discussed earlier one of the aims of the National
Curriculum is to provide parents with information concerning
their child's educational progress. Although parents previously
received reports and could attend parents evenings, for the first
time parents are able to identify the level of attainment their
child should be at and compare it to the level they have actually
achieved. For example, a pupil of twelve years should reach
levels within Keystage three (levels 3 - 7). If a pupil is
falling below expected levels, parents will become aware of it.
This is a significant increase in surveillance not only of the
pupil but also the teacher. The teacher must now ensure that
detailed records of progress and evidence of pupil's progress are
kept up to date and available for scrutiny (see appendix 3 ,
example of CDT record of progress). This continuous surveillance
exerts further control over the teacher so that he/she does not
deviate from what is required by the National Curriculum. This
appears to be a form of bureaucratic control as outlined by
Edwards (1982, p263)through his work on corporations.
Bureaucratic control is an indirect form of control and is not
restricted to the production line. In this way, although parental
pressure is not part of the teaching process, it has the effect
of placing restrictions on teachers.
The sample Information Technology "Record of Progress"
(appendix 4) shows how a pupil is monitored and to some extent
shows how the subject matter taught by teachers is now
restricted. The pupils have to achieve each of the levels through
a set of narrow projects. For example, in order to achieve the
level 4c ("amend and add information to an existing database")
the pupil must carry out a task which includes printing out an
existing database, adding and editing some records and producing
a second printout. The printouts provide the evidence that the
levels have been achieved, although the level of understanding by
the pupil may be minimal. The pupils are directed by the teacher
to carry out a number of specified tasks and they tick the
appropriate level on the record of progress. The teacher can no
longer use a variety of techniques to improve a pupils
understanding of Information Technology, as the limited time
allocation given to the National Curriculum does not allow this
(such as using different database software). Within the
Information Technology Attainment Target the techniques that are
taught are largely predetermined by the National Curriculum and
therefore the teaching process is directly controlled, reflecting
Edwards Technical control (Edwards.R. 1982, p263)and Taylorist
principles.
The limitations of the task-approach reflects the structure
of Taylorism which is characterised as rigid and unyielding. The
task approach ensures control of both production and process. In
the case of Information Technology, this effects what is taught
and the way it is taught. In many ways the teacher can be seen as
the foreman and just as Taylorism reduces the autonomy and number
of tasks they carry out on the production line, the same is
taking place within this subject and National Curriculum
Technology.
Taylorism inevitably resulted in a reduction of the level of
skill possessed or exercised by workers. Definitions of skill and
training are extremely vague in most areas of industry. Certainly
teachers have gained little from the decline of their command
over the labour process and this is not compensated by the
increasing command on the part of managers. The teachers'
traditional skills (subject related skills) have undoubtedly
fallen without an adequate increase of new skills, the skill
level has fallen in a relative sense (see teacher survey, chapter
4). This appears to be supported by the work of Braverman, in
relation to industry (1974). Hargreaves (1989, p83) suggests that
subject commitment and skill in a specialist area is developed
over many years of study and exploration of a subject, including
university training, and argues that the acquisition of skills is
a cognitive process. The National Curriculum and its rapid
imposition has abandoned this process.
The five National Curriculum Technology specialist subjects
are becoming fragmented, their skills diluted and delivered by
non specialist staff. For example, the design process once taught
by Craft, Design and Technology teachers is expected to be
followed by all Technology subjects (Home Economics, Business
Studies etc...).
It is easy to read Taylorism into many aspects of teaching,
however a variety of managerial control strategies are available.
"Polyvalence" according to John Child (1988) is frequently
adopted in connection to the introduction of new technology. This
places the worker in a situation in which workers perform (or at
least are available to perform) a range of tasks which cut across
or extend traditional skill and job boundaries. In this way
demarcation is removed and often additional tasks and
responsibilities are placed on workers. However, this is still
aimed at controlling the process of production and the work
force. Polyvalence is often used along with responsible autonomy.
Strategies such as these have advantages such as a reduction in
staffing and an indirect form of control rather than direct
control. This model can be applied to National Curriculum
Technology, as Technology teachers find themselves delivering
skills that previously were the preserve of other specialist
subjects. Polyvalence does not necessarily accompany the
introduction of new technology but is an effective tool against
"custom and practice demarcation" (Child.J. 1988, p87) as seen
within subject areas.
It has already been suggested that Information Technology
has suffered drastically from deskilling. According to the
National Curriculum, Information Technology is "cross-curricular"
in nature and as such should not be taught as a discrete subject.
I.T. skills should be used when required by other subjects such
as science or technology. As a result, many schools are removing
I.T. from the timetable: "The I.T. programmes of study are best
taught through other subjects" (National Curriculum Council,
1990, c2). For example, science may require the use of a database
for pupils to examine the properties of the periodic table. When
situations like this arise an I.T. specialist may be required to
teach the use of such skills, in this case to a science class.
Before the National Curriculum the I.T. teacher may have had a
term (twelve weeks) in which he/she could teach such skills in
depth. However, such is the pressure of the National Curriculum ,
that subjects such as Science may only allow two lessons (one
week) for the teaching of such skills. The skills taught by the
teacher are therefore diluted and reduced to those that are
minimally essential for the Attainment Targets and levels within
other subjects.
Not only are the pupils suffering from the effects of what
would appear to be a deskilling policy but so are the teachers.
It is now becoming less necessary to have a specialist I.T.
teacher. Those in this post are rarely needed and now only teach
basic skills; now it is possible for non specialist I.T. staff to
teach their subjects limited I.T. skills. This deskilling
reflects the aims of Taylorism and views of Braverman; if the
workforce is deskilled they have less control over the production
process. They can be done away with completely or replaced by
less skilled staff (licensed teachers ?). In the case of I.T
teachers it is likely that many will find themselves teaching
other general subjects rather than their specialism.
Her Majesty's Inspectorate (1989, p82-83) have
identified one teacher in ten as revealing insecurity in the
subject they are teaching. Like any other employee a teacher who
feels insecure and has little say over the labour process is more
likely to comform to the tasks presented to him/her.
Teachers of National Curriculum Technology feel uncertain
about their futures, especially with the prospect of being
replaced by less skilled staff (possibly just one teaching all
aspects and Attainment Targets of Technology - see teacher
survey, chapter 4). Schools looking for financial savings may
look towards Technology realising that only one or two members of
staff are needed to teach all the Attainment Targets and levels.
Subjects contributing to Technology try to hold onto their skills
jealously with the aim of preventing other subjects teaching them
and so securing their employment.
National Curriculum Technology is an combination of several
subjects; Craft Design and Technology (CDT), Home Economics,
Textiles/Art, Business Studies and Information Technology. An
obvious problem arises here, because with so many previously
separate subjects contained within this new subject there has
been a watering down of the skills taught, with the five areas
contributing the minimum of skills to the new subject. We can
take as an example one of the essential ingredients of
Technology, the 'design and problem solving process'. The pupils
begin by finding a "need or opportunity", (a design problem) and
then begin to generate designs and ideas in the form of notes and
sketches. This is followed by the "planning and making" of the
project. Finally after the project has been completed the pupil
must show that he/she is capable of evaluating the ideas
expressed throughout the design process. In total this gives use
four stages/areas of design.
The above process appears to be the deskilled version of the
one that operated within CDT over the previous decade, which
involved a ten stage design process (appendix 8). This process
was much more detailed and followed a specialist designers
approach. The ten stages include;
1) Recognition of problem
2) Design Brief
3) Analysis
4) Synthesis
5) Research
6) Specification
7) Generation of Ideas
8) Development
9) Solution
10) Evaluation
The deskilling is highlighted by the fact that it is now
considered that virtually any teacher can teach National
Curriculum Technology (see teacher surveys, chapter 4) whereas
previously specialist staff were required to teach the
contributing subjects. The overall design process has been
reduced. Just as the skilled craftsmen of the 19th and early 20th
century found that production line technology meant their skills
were no longer required, so Technology teachers are finding
their specialisms undermined.
Accompanying the National Curriculum has been an assessment
and monitoring system that has been under development by the
Consortium for Assessment and Testing in Schools. These tests, as
we will see later, help set some of the tasks for both pupils and
teachers to perform. They have further reduced the teacher
autonomy / discretion over the nature of the labour process and
have increased the amount of surveillance that the teacher and
pupil faces. This provides further evidence that Taylorist
management techniques are continuing to be introduced.
STANDARD ASSESSMENT TASKS (SATs) IN TECHNOLOGY
The SATs are in their development stage but they are likely
to be introduced as a national method of assessing the levels
that pupils have achieved while working within National
Curriculum Technology and other subjects at the end of each of
the Keystages. At the moment they are running as pilot schemes
and within Technology they are a form of extended activity
lasting between ten to twelve hours. They are set tasks and
teachers are legally obliged to carry them out. They are
administered by the usual class teacher, providing a "standard
set of assessment procedures" (C.A.T.S. 1990.p002/1) . All
teachers are faced with the legislation and therefore they have
to stay within the law to avoid disciplinary action. The SATs
have been imposed on schools and writers such as Sue Rogers
(1991, p3) see it as testing the "teachers professional
judgement". The teachers judgement is no longer trusted and the
SATs provide a standardised approach to assessment, confining the
discretion of the teacher to a "formal assessment methodology"
(C.A.T.S. 1990, p002/1) operating through the National Curriculum
programmes of study.
Prior to the introduction of SATs, one of the tasks of
teachers was to assess informally and formally a pupils ability,
attitude and personality. Just as the introduction of technology
to the office meant that the more intellectual tasks were taken
over by computer (Kumar.K. 1978, p210), the introduction of the
mechanical type of assessment has reduced substantially this
important intellectual aspect of teaching. SATs do not ask for
opinions or views of teachers with regard to pupils but
measurable academic facts only. Also just as technology (such as
computer systems) can determine that hours worked in the office
as labour hours may be tied to the availability of hardware, the
SATs are beginning to determine the annual course planning. The
SATs are becoming part of the technology of teaching. A survey
carried out by "Teachers Weekly" (1991, p4) in schools found the
timetable was dominated by SATs when they have been carried out,
and in many cases teachers spent up to twenty hours of their own
time, each week (while the SATs were being conducted), preparing
for tests.
Again the autonomy of the teacher is being reduced as he/she
cannot develop an individual approach. Before SATs, a teacher
could mark work on a weekly basis or even on a random basis, and
could use professional judgement when and how to assess a pupils
work. The National Union of Teachers claim that the teacher's
professional autonomy and influence on the nature of the
curriculum and assessment has been displaced by teacher
accountability to parents and the community (Teachers Weekly,
1991, p4)). Before SATs the teacher's ideas on assessment,
diagnostic testing and recording helped schools to formulate
independent assessment policies, but this has now been reduced if
not removed.
Thus, for example, the SATs state clearly when (during the
activity) assessment is to be carried out and under what criteria
a pupil's work will be judged (see appendix 5). This removes the
flexibility the teacher once had, and their ability to make
subjective judgements relating to a pupils ability, as it is
imperative that the pupils be assessed in a systematic fashion
and then recorded in the same way (an excellent example of the
way in which responsible autonomy has been reduced) (see appendix
5). Furthermore, the teachers judgement is not enough: the pupil
must have written evidence to support his/her claim to levels and
Attainment Targets. "We are not testing kids we are testing
teachers" (Hamarth.S. 1991, p5).
The SATs also offer "learning strategies" for pupils,
providing five context or areas of study (CATS. 1990, p002/2)
home, school, recreation, business and industry (see appendix 6).
This narrows the field of study that teachers of the individual
contributing subjects may normally teach through (this has become
further prescribed since Middlsex Polytechnic began the further
development of SATs). Technology teachers are expected to choose
a context and develop a project from this starting point. The
SATs go as far as providing guidance for the teacher on getting
pupils into the context (see appendix 7, Teachers Notes). These
are in the form of written instructions and courses for staff.
This can have the effect of imposing a framework on the teaching
process, limiting the teachers input. The pupils are even faced
with "prompt questions" (appendix 6) from the SATs literature,
(aimed at focusing a pupils thoughts on the project) and so can
by-pass the teacher's advice. The discretion of the teacher is
even further reduced by the provision of a "SAT Activity Teaching
Plan" (appendix 7) which is aimed at helping teachers integrate
their planning with previous course work.
The latest information from Middlesex Polytechnic concerning
the development of SATs states:
"The agency will will recommend a theme on which a
design and technology task and test should be based.
Both test and task should be the focus of the same
theme.....The theme will identify aspects of the
programme of study within which the pupils will need to
work. It will be expected to indicate the prescribed
context, range of materials and processes and body of
knowledge appropriate to the theme" (Middlesex
Polytechnic, 1991, p2)
Teachers appear to have little say over the management of
the SAT, and must carrying out the activity with only limited
choice concerning its nature. The management of the SAT tends to
be a separate function, with the Schools Examination and
Assessment Council having primary responsibility. Training is
provided for school senior management (middle management) who
have central control over the curriculum and timetable. Decision
making is the task of the 'management' team with the team being
invited on specialist training courses. The classroom teacher has
become the technician or operative delivering a course and
administering the SATs assessment over which he/she has little
influence. As Littler and Salaman suggested :
"The establishment of management as a separate function
with unique expertise and responsibilities...upon which
the efficiency of the whole enterprise depends...is a
crucial first step to control over the work force"
(1982, p259)
It can be said that one of the consequences of Taylorism is that
management takes on a separate role with its own tasks to perform
- planning, organising, commanding, coordinating and controlling
(Taylor.F. 1981, p26). It would appear that managers within
teaching are following this trend, as they too follow directives.
|
| |
| |
|