Workforce Remodelling - an opportunity for thinking about education?
Workforce Remodelling
– an opportunity for thinking about education?
Linda Hammersley-Fletcher
Staffordshire University
Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference, University of Warwick, 6-9 September 2006
Address for Correspondence:
Dr. Linda Hammersley-Fletcher
Institute for Education Policy Research
Staffordshire University
Leek Road
Stoke-on-Trent
ST4 2DE
Tel: 01782 294909
Email:
Abstract
Workforce Remodelling is an initiative that is being promoted as an attempt to address issues of work-life balance for teachers, a reassignment of some tasks from teachers to support staff and teaching assistants and is about giving teachers discrete time for planning, preparation and assessment (DFES 2001, 2003). It can be seen as an opportunity for a variety of staff to consider the model of education that they wish to deliver to children and the aspects of their educational practice that make their school distinct from schools elsewhere. Going through such a process involves change which is challenging and can also be highly complex. The leadership and management of change is fraught with difficulties and tensions. As Garrett (2005) states change may be desired, imposed, unwanted, planned, unplanned, evolutionary or systematic but will involve disruption to the systems in place. Workforce Remodelling is intended to be an external trigger for significant organisational change.
Mayrowetz and Smylie, (2004) identify two dimensions in US practice in workforce reform: task reassignment/task redefinition and individual or collective focus. In task reassignment roles are changed through the reallocation of duties as exemplified in administrative duties being reallocated from teachers to teaching assistants. In task redefinition there is a change in the way that roles are conceived leading to a change in the type of activity that is undertaken as seen, for example, in the development of a ‘teacher as researcher’ role. Reviewing evidence of the effectiveness of each type of reform in the US Mayrowetz and Smylie find that contextual factors exert a strong influence on the impact of task reassignment and whilst they believe that task redefinition holds considerable promise they acknowledge that the current evidence base is slim.
‘…Leadership that makes a difference…is both position-based (with the head teacher) and distributive (with the administrative team and teachers)’ (Mulford and Silins 2003 p. 183). Therefore what is most important is the collective efficacy of the staff. Workforce Remodelling is an initiative that can promote a more collaborative and distributed pattern of leadership. Setting up a change team should involve staff throughout the school (and in some cases the whole school staff) in thinking through their educational philosophy and the ways in which education ‘happens’. Thus all staff could use the opportunity of Workforce Remodelling to gain a voice and have some impact on the issues and decision making that takes place.
This research, commissioned by Staffordshire Local Authority, looks at the ways in which the implementation of workforce remodelling is happening across Staffordshire schools. Basic data are gathered through questionnaire responses from school senior managers, teachers, teaching assistants and other support staff. More qualitative findings are developed through semi-structured interview conducted in eight schools. The interviews build upon previous research conducted in 2005 in the same schools (four secondary and four primary). Thus this paper reports the ways in which these schools are continuing to implement their remodelling agenda and considers the implications for issues of sustainability setting this information within the wider context of the county as a whole. In addition the extent to which schools are fully engaging in the remodelling process is explored examining the tensions between meeting legislative demands and using the opportunity of the reform agenda to think more creatively about roles and responsibilities.
1) Introduction
Schools are currently facing a tension between acting to meet standards and regulatory frameworks for the curriculum and acting upon their professional judgement. ‘New Labour’ and the preceding Conservative administration have developed policies which have on the one hand given more central control of the curriculum to government bodies and their quango’s and on the other claimed to allow teachers greater freedom to enter into creative classroom practice. The effects of bodies such as OfSTED and the publication of test results can be argued to pose a restriction on the ways in which teachers work and their freedoms to pursue interests that do not strictly match those of the centrally prescribed curriculum. In addition freedoms to lead schools creatively and act as a ‘transformational leader’ are equally subject to restrictive practices so that as Gunter (2001) claims, such practices simply serve to reinforce centralised managerialism. Thus arguments can be made that it is difficult to innovate and be creative in a climate of high levels of accountability particularly when, as Johnson (2002) points out, the detail in these strategies is such that potentially a large proportion of the day can be spent in lessons based on national plans. In an attempt to address issues of workload and perhaps also in some way to counter concerns that teachers were feeling apathetic about their ability to affect changes in their school the Labour government introduced Workforce Remodelling. As Butt and Gunter (2005) state remodelling is a part of a wider public sector reform which is ostensibly about looking at standards and accountability; devolution and delegation; flexibility and incentives and expanding choice. It is what the DfES (2002) describe as a move from a position of informed prescription to one of informed professional judgement. In this way remodelling should look different in every school as it is an agenda of change and development that is led by representative staff within the school. Thus, as Burns stated in 2002, “For the next phase of government reform to stand a real chance of success, there is no alternative but to invest in developing the capacity and status of the teaching profession” (p.55).
This paper focuses on the impact of Workforce Remodelling on eight case study schools in Staffordshire Local Authority. Section 2 reviews the literature looking firstly providing an overview of the Workforce Remodelling Agenda and its stated intentions. Secondly there will be an exploration of the ways in which an agenda of change might be approached. Thirdly brief consideration is given to those people in schools who may act to lead change. In section 3 the methods utilised in the research reported are considered. Section 4 research data is considered in relation to the ways in which recommendations to develop ‘change teams’ has either been adopted or ignored. In this way the paper develops insights into the ways in which the schools reported have approached the process of change. This is related to the ways in which these schools have developed an educational philosophy and considers the impact of workforce remodelling upon this practice. Finally in section 5 the paper will conclude by arguing that there are great differences in the way the primary and secondary school sectors operate and that as a consequence coverall solutions may not be appropriate. In addition it makes the point that schools are their own drivers of change and external pressures for change are only effective if the school is willing and sees it as an appropriate course to follow.
2) Literature
The literature review will first outline the requirements of workforce remodelling moving on to consider the processes and theories of change in some detail finally giving brief consideration to school leaders and their ability to influence change.
Workforce Remodelling:
New labour has been engaged upon a modernisation agenda which Ozga (2002) has argued is designed to improve the efficiency, economy and effectiveness of public services. In addition, faced with studies presented by the School Teachers’ Review Body (DfES, 2000) and the PricewaterhouseCoopers’ Teacher Workload Study (2001), it became apparent to the Labour administration that there were factors which threatened a crisis in teacher recruitment and retention. As a consequence a National Agreement between Government, employers and school workforce unions was reached in January 2003 (with the notable exception of the National Union of Teachers). The agreement, introduced in three phases, implemented changes to teachers’ conditions of service. In phase one, introduced in September 2003, administrative and clerical tasks were removed from teachers with the intention of improving their work-life balance. In addition a time allowance was introduced for all teachers with management responsibilities. Phase two, a year later, limited the time any teacher could be asked to cover classes for absent colleagues. Phase three, in September 2005, brought in Planning and Preparation and Assessment Time (PPA) for all teaching staff to be taken during the school day. In addition invigilation of exams was removed as a responsibility for teachers and dedicated headship time was introduced. In this way it was intended that the education of children could be improved through enhancing teacher professional development and providing opportunities for thinking about the way the school approaches education..
In order for the remodelling agenda to be successful it is important for Local Authorities to ‘champion’ these changes (DfES, 2004). In addition it is necessary for the whole school community to become involved and participate in change through representative membership on a school ‘change team’. As Collarbone (2003) recommends,
In return for greater professional autonomy, more flexibility and a re-evaluation of what teachers can be asked to do, the Government requires more accountability and a step-change in standards. We believe these exist within the knowledge capacity of the school itself. The purpose of the School Change Team we propose is to access that capacity … The importance of school change teams cannot be overestimated. These change teams are a cross-section of all staff, do not need to be led by members of the leadership group, including the headteacher, and may include parents, governors and pupils.
(Collarbone, 2003, www.governornet.co.uk)
The change team should therefore be willing to consider the political, emotional and practical factors associated with all prospective change. This use of a change team may, as Butt and Gunter (2005) point out, enable opportunities to challenge current cultural norms in school. It should be remembered however, that where teachers have not themselves been involved in developing mandates for which they are held accountable this can mean that they lack confidence in challenging such systems (Taylor Webb, 2002).
Theories of change:
There are a number of theories about change and how organisations might cope with it and work of Lewin is a particularly helpful starting point. Lewin argued in 1951 that change consisted of three main steps the first being one that must ‘unfreeze’ the status quo by driving forward new initiatives, decreasing the current restraints inhibiting change, or acting in both ways to initiate change (Kritsonis, 2004). Kritsonis goes on to explain that Lewin’s second stage involves persuading people of the benefits of such change followed by a third and final stage where the change is institutionalised either formally or informally. Workforce Remodelling is a government driven initiative that attempts to persuade teachers of the benefits of change in terms of improved work-life balance and opportunities to be creative. There are legislative elements to the change that may fit with Lewin’s notions of institutionalising the changes taking place. The process however would seem more complex than this simple three-stage model might suggest. The work of Lipitt et. al. (1958) add elements to Lewin’s model including a more detailed consideration of the motivations of people to adopt change, a view that change can be introduced incrementally, that the roles of all involved should be clear and that communication and feedback should be frequent. This model also involves an agent for change that drives the initiative forward and then gradually withdraws as the change is adopted. In relation to Workforce remodelling then clearly motivations are intended to be around the greater freedoms offered and the extra non-teaching time given to teachers to plan, prepare and assess. In addition the legislative elements of the change were introduced incrementally over three periods (each of a year long). Communication was managed through the National Remodelling Team and Local Authorities who also acted to drive the change and could be thought of here as ‘change agents’. Thinking in terms of the individuals to whom change is happening other elements of the process need to be stressed. Robbins (2003) discusses the importance of self-efficacy within a successful change process and the need for individuals to have positive expectations of any changes that they are facing. It is also important that those undergoing change receive clear instruction and opportunities are made available for them to develop necessary skills. Those leading change also need to model desired behaviours. Clearly much of this process would need to happen at the school level and thus may be subject to some variability.
When considering the ways in which change might be introduced in schools three approaches lend some insights into the ways in which they might manage this process. The first of these is ‘participative change management’ (Pascale et.al.1997) and as the name suggests this model proposes that all staff should be involved with the process of change and therefore develop a sense of ownership of it. In this way staff are more likely to support the change agenda. Gathering the support and agreement of all can be a lengthy process and as a consequence Dunphy and Stace (1990) argue that when rapid strategic changes need to be introduced then this participative stance is ineffective. As a consequence they recommend adjusting the model of change utilised to the circumstances faced, an autocratic approach sometimes being necessary. Some aspects of workforce remodelling have simply needed to be implemented to meet legislative demands, such as the administrative tasks to be removed from teachers. Thus it is probable that some schools may not discuss such elements of the reform to the extent that they do with the more flexible and less time-constrained elements, for example re-thinking the way in which current staff are utilised.
The second approach to be discussed is ‘project management’ (Hussey 1998). This model adopts a life-cycle approach to change ranging from the identification of a problem to generating solutions to finally testing, monitoring and evaluating what has happened. Clearly in schools this approach is taken with many curriculum initiatives although the identification of the problem in the first place may have been based outside the school. Schools may also have found it difficult to develop their own agenda’s for significant change whilst being bombarded by external initiatives. This approach presents the change process as a rational sequence of discrete and identifiable steps. This could be argued to be the remit of the school ‘change team’ in the remodelling agenda. The problem with such models according to Collins (1998) is that they reduce change to a simple prescription taking little account of the chaotic and complex environment within which they are expected to operate, nor do they encourage critical reflection on the changes themselves or consider the differences in power and influence of those involved.