Restructuring Schools, Reconstructing Teachers

Responding to Change in the Primary School

Peter Woods, Bob Jeffrey, Geoff Troman, Mari Boyle

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2019
• ISBN:
  9781000627510
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Pedagogía
• Subtopic: Educación general

Drawing on wide ranging research this book, originally published in 1997, explores how the policy changes of previous years were affecting primary teachers and their work at the time. Within the context of worldwide restructuring, the thoughts, feelings and activities of teachers in their daily work are examined. The core argument is that what used to be a complex but fulfilling job distinguished by professional dilemmas, which are amenable to professional skill, had become increasingly marked by tension and constraint, which frustrates teacher creativity. While some teachers found new opportunities in the 'new' primary school, many used strategical and micro-political activity in order to cope, while others fell victim to stress and burnout. The authors argue that teachers' own active involvement in policy change is required if their creative potential is to be realized. The book will still be of interest to teachers in primary schools, researchers and policy makers.

CHAPTER 1
Restructuring and the growth of constraint

In Part A, we consider the general historical, political and educational context in which change has been taking place. In Part B, we develop a framework through which we will examine the actual impact of the changes on teachers in schools and classrooms.

Part A: The Restructuring of Primary Teachers' Work

Introduction: the context of restructuring

Schools, together with many other institutions in society, are undergoing radical change, in a process that has come to be known as 'restructuring'. Restructuring is a current international phenomenon in developed economies. Basically, it is a response to the globalization of capital and communications, the rapid growth of information and technological developments, changed modes of economic production, economic crisis and increasing moral and scientific uncertainty (Harvey 1989; A. Hargreaves 1994a). With regard to education, Lawton (1992) argues that the Government's legislation for restructuring is motivated variously by the following:

• A crisis in legitimation: In advanced capitalist economies, there is public doubt that educational systems can carry out their job adequately (Habermas 1976).
• Concern about effectiveness: The labour and economic problems of the early 1980s and high levels of youth unemployment suggested that, educational systems were providing neither an adequate nor relevant education. Studies showing declining test scores in international league tables stimulated concern that some Western economies were not developing human capital.
• Concern about efficiency: There was increasing evidence that investing more money in education does not necessarily increase educational standards or increase the Gross National Product.
• The managerial revolution: The 'traditional bureaucracy with its emphasis on centralised decision making, control, uniformity, close supervision and commitment to standard operating procedures' (Lawton 1992: 145) is associated with inefficiency. The key to improvement is seen to be the application of more management and management systems. Rather than bureaucratic, the new manager is the autonomous and entrepreneurial school-based leader.
• A populist movement: There is a groundswell of popular support for ideas concerning parents having a greater control over, and choice in, the education of their children. Parents as consumers are seeking the best buy in education. Parent power is in the ascendant (Dale 1989).
• A crisis in capitalism: Western democracies are currently facing an accumulation crisis. Drives for profitability involve an emphasis on the public sector using resources efficiently and effectively in the context of cuts in public finance and expenditure.
• Provider capture: Professions such as medicine, teaching and the law have hitherto enjoyed a relatively large measure of professional autonomy and control. Critics argue that the sole providers of a service, such as teachers, accrue more benefits than their customers. Restructuring aims to redistribute benefits from the provider to the client.

The societies in which restructuring is taking place have all experienced economic recession and become increasingly uncompetitive in international markets since the oil crisis of 1973. Educational systems and teachers have been held to be the cause of economic failure by not producing a workforce with the appropriate skills for a rapidly changing world (Weinstock 1976). The failure of less radical attempts to reform schools has induced despair. Rudduck (1991: 28) has argued that, 'the tight weave of traditions and routines, combined with the loose coupling of their internal communication systems, can make schools almost as impermeable as a fortress'. The situation, therefore, seemed to call for radical action.

Restructuring in the United Kingdom

Restructuring in the UK has been characterized by the contradictory processes of decentralization and centralization.

Decentralization has involved the marketization of schooling (Ball 1994). By the Education Reform Act 1988, which instituted the Local Management of Schools (LMS), schools have become independent budget-holders. Their funding is linked to the number and ages of pupils on roll. The ability of parents, in theory, to choose the school their children will attend renders schools subject to market pressures. Parents are expected to choose the 'best' schools, thus encouraging all to improve educational standards. It is thought, too, in the light of the failure of central reform movements, that schools have greater capacity to improve themselves. The argument is that giving teachers the autonomy to exercise professional judgement in the management of finance, resources, curriculum and pedagogy increases the prospect of reforms paying off in terms of improved teaching and learning (A. Hargreaves 1994b). Such reforms have been introduced in a period of economic retrenchment, with schools being forced to consider their economy, efficiency and effectiveness (Audit Commission 1984).

Such measures, it is argued, will liberate schools from the bureaucratic grip and ideological meddling of local education authorities (Ball 1994). Giving funds directly to heads and governors would release entrepreneurial initiative which, again, would fuel a rise in educational standards (Grace 1996). In the neo-liberal discourse of markedzation, smart schools produce a smart workforce. Legislated changes for increasing school autonomy in the way described, and creating an education market, have been vigorously promoted in the United States by internationally influential writers inspired by the moves to local financial management in the UK (see Chubb and Moe 1992). They advocate the removal of schooling from central and local state interference in order to make schools responsive to the market and thereby increase educational output in the form of high test scores. Public choice theorists, such as Chubb and Moe (1992) and Tooley (1993), see unrestructured schools as bureaucratic and in need of incentives and choice. Bureaucracy is considered to be the enemy of quality in education and the most effective schools are the ones where the 'handcuffs have been taken off the administrators' (Boyd 1996) so that they can manage the autonomous school more efficiently and devise their own vision, while responding to the choices that parents make in the schooling of their children.

At the same time as these decentralization measures, however, the Government, through the Education Reform Act 1988, instituted a large amount of centralization through a mandated National Curriculum and system of testing. Published test scores aim to provide a basis for both parental choice of school and school accountability to the community. Four-yearly inspections by the Office for Standards in Education (Ofsted) provide public accountability. The work of teaching is increasingly codified in the Ofsted criteria (1993a, 1995b), and therefore easier to assess and grade by the inspectors. Teaching methods are coming increasingly under scrutiny, with pressure on teachers to adopt a more traditional style congruent with one supported by the state (Clarke 1991; Department of Education and Science 1992a; Woodhead 1996).

Restructuring does not have to take this form. In the United States, for instance, restructuring has been largely a response to removing the bureaucracy and political interference of the municipal state, and faith in teachers to implement reform has been retained. There has been a 'resurgence in and respect for the dignity, quality and sophistication of teachers' practical knowledge and judgement' (A. Hargreaves and Dawe 1989: 4-5). Restructuring as recommended by groups such as the US Carnegie Forum on 'Education and the Economy' would 'respect and support the professionalism of teachers to make decisions in their own classrooms that best met local and state goals while holding teachers accountable for how they did that' (A. Hargreaves 1994a: 241). Murphy and Evertson (1991) suggest components of restructuring which include: school-based management; increased consumer choice; teacher empowerment; and teaching for understanding. The National Governors' Association (1989) recommend that 'curriculum and instruction be redesigned to promote higher order thinking skills and the decentralization of authority and decision-making to site level, more diverse and differentiated roles for teachers and broader systems of accountability' (cited in A. Hargreaves 1994a: 241).

By contrast with these basically teacher empowering developments, teachers in the UK have been excluded from the partnership for policymaking created in the post-war social democratic settlement (Lawn 1995). Their participation in curriculum and assessment policymaking has been restricted to a number of token consultation exercises (Havilarid 1988). Indeed, Bash and Coulby (1989) argue that many of the restructuring reforms seem based on a deep distrust of teachers, and Ball (1990) identifies a 'discourse of derision' being constructed about teachers by New Right 'think tanks', media and politicians. 'Progressivism' in teaching and initial teacher education (Lawlor 1990) and 'trendy teachers' have been the targets of ridicule since the Black Papers of the late 1960s. From this viewpoint, teachers are seen as the cause, rather than the solution, to educational crisis (Ball 1990). Teachers have received a 'bashing', too, from academics who see them as witting or unwitting agents of capital and instrumental in reproducing the inequalities of capitalism (Mac an Ghaill 1996). These attacks have been accompanied by official support for a return to 'traditional' teaching and 'real' schooling (Boyd 1996). This has seen the introduction of a subjects-based National Curriculum, and repeated calls for increases in whole-class teaching and ability grouping, in the form of streaming or setting (Clarke 1991; Department of Education and Science 1992a; Woodhead 1996).

The idea of the restructured school

System-wide changes are intended to stimulate the transformation of the internal organization and culture of the school. The restructured school is seen by some as the self-managing, autonomous or empowered school (Caldwell and Spinks 1988; D.H. Hargreaves and Hopkins 1991). Market forces emphasize the role of headteachers as business leaders while retaining their traditional responsibility for educational management. Traditional primary school leadership has been criticized for supporting hierarchical structures, and for slowness in responding to change (Alexander 1992). In the role of entrepreneurial leader, heads can respond creatively and flexibly to rapid changes in the external environment of the school. They direct and manage human and material resources in order to maximize pupils' learning. Faith in management to organize restructuring of the institution, to devise technically based solutions and implement radical reforms has been central to many of the recent changes. There is a moral ascendency of managerialism (Inglis 1989, Walker and Barton 1987). Consequently, the Department for Education and Employment now sponsors headteacher training for heads and intending heads, leading to a national qualification for headship (Haigh 1995b).

While the Government seemed to encourage a top-down management style, other supporters of the self-managing school saw the head operating as team leader in flattened management hierarchies. Leadership using these structures is in the mould of Human Resource Management and Total Quality Management with their associated quality assurance systems (Menter et al. 1995). Human Resource Management, for instance, 'harnesses the occupational/organizational culture to the delivery of efficiency and quality (Menter et al. 1995a: 6). Rational planning is to the fore; headteacher 'vision' is embodied in the prime management tool of the school development plan. In this new managerialist discourse, managers are to be leaders of 'vision'. Advocates of this view (Peters and Waterman 1982; Purkey and Smith 1985) claim that they should have, 'the capacity to articulate and win commitment to a vision for the school and ensure that vision is internalised in the structures, processes and procedures which shape everyday activity' (Angus 1994: 21).

Reculturing

The management of consent and collaboration is a key role for leaders of self-managing schools. Schools are urged to become 'more like businesses' (Coopers and Lybrand 1988), and post-industrial businesses have flattened hierarchies in which all workers are 'empowered' to participate in management. In their idea of the 'empowered school', D. Hargreaves and Hopkins (1991: 15) argue that 'management is about people. Management arrangements are what empower people. Empowerment, in short, is the purpose of management'. They see management in an holistic sense with teachers, headteachers, parents and governors engaged in a type of collaborative management which often requires 'a change of school culture' (ibid.: 17). Previously the primary school had been criticized because of its culture of individualism which impeded innovation (D.H. Hargreaves 1994). Class teachers operating individually and in isolation in their classrooms were seen to be badly placed to respond creatively to change (Alexander 1984). Fullan's (1988) answer to school and teacher development lies in 'cracking the walls of privatism'. However, as Fullan (1991: 114) observes, 'Changing structures is easier to bring about than changes in values, beliefs, behaviour and other normative and cultural changes'. These changes, therefore, need support. Following Werner (1982), Hargreaves describes 'support strategies' (ibid.: 255) for reculturing, which create release time so teachers work together; assist them in collaborative planning; encourage teachers to try a new experience, a new practice or grade level; involve teachers in goal-setting; and create a culture of collaboration, risk and improvement.

Reculturmg, it is claimed, is likely to be better at changing classroom practice than 'quick cultural fixes' (ibid.: 256). The form of organizational structure and culture known as the 'moving mosaic' promises to 'foster vigorous, dynamic and shifting forms of collaboration through networks, partnerships and alliances within and beyond the school' (ibid.: 257). However, reculturing in its negative form is merely a way of 'managing' school cultures so that teachers cheerfully comply with structural goals and purposes already fixed by the bureaucratic center [sic] (ibid.: 256).

Central to reculturing is collaboration, which contrasts with the individualism of the old order (D.H. Hargreaves 1980). New organizational structures and cultures require flexible and differentiated teachers to work in them (Lawn 1995). They need to be able to work on their own, but also, increasingly, to work together. In the school improvement (D.H. Hargreaves 1994; D.H. Hargreaves and Hopkins 1991; Caldwell and Spinks 1988) and teacher development literature (Nias 1989; Biott and Nias 1992), there is a pronounced emphasis on collaboration through which teachers develop new skills by sharing professional knowledge. This view is supported by a number of official policy documents (Department of Education and Science 1992a; Ofsted 1994) and in the Ofsted criteria for inspection (Ofsted 1995b). We examine some attempts to develop collaborative cultures in Chapter 2.

Intensification

Apple (1986) argues that, in late twentieth-century capitalist societies, work intensifies as capital experiences an accumulation crisis and pressure for efficiency mounts in public and private sectors. Intensification leads to reduced time for relaxation and reskilling; causes chronic and persistent work overload; reduces quality of service; and separates the conceptualization from the execution of tasks, making teachers dependent on outside expertise and reducing them to technicians (A. Hargreaves 1994a: 118-19).

The introduction of new roles and responsibilities, an extended curriculum, new assessment tasks and the need for retraining (Campbell and Neill 1994a) all contribute to intensification. What for some was 'a dream at conception' turned into a 'nightmare at delivery' (Campbell 1993). It is clear that there has been massive work overload, a loss of spontaneity and or reflective time, an increase in stress (see Chapter 6), a burgeoning of bureaucracy (Campbell and Neill 1990; Campbell et al. 1991a; Pollard 1991; Osborn and Rroadfoot 1992; Pollard 1994; Pollard et al. 1994). Some argue that the way teachers think and feel has also been exploited. They have been caught in the 'trap of conscientiousness' (Campbell et al. 1991b), doing their best to meet the prescribed targets but compromising the quality of learning and their own health.

The official answer is not to lighten the load, but to express concern that teachers are not working hard enough and to suggest lengthening the working day and week (Ofsted 1994), These changes are taking place in the context of less favourable funding of primary, compared to secondary, schools (House of Commons 1986) and continual annual financial cuts. These have resulted in increased class sizes (Times Educational Supplement 5 July 1996a), teacher redundancies and a growth in the number of teachers applying for early retirement (Smithers 1989; see also Chapter 6). School closures and teacher dismissals are becoming more of a reality (Times Educational Supplement 5 July 1996b). Note, however, that while most researchers agree that some intensification has taken place, n...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title
• Copyright
• Original Title
• Original Copyright
• Contents
• Acknowledgements
• Introduction
• 1 Restructuring and the growth of constraint
• 2 Collaborating under constraint
• 3 Tensions in the new teacher role
• 4 Making the new headteacher role
• 5 The catharsis of inspection: normalizing, confirming and reconstructing self
• 6 A price of change: teacher stress and burn-out
• References
• Name index
• Subject index