LSRN 020704 Culture of the now 2

The Culture of the Now: barriers to research in FE

Tony Scaife, University of Leeds

Paper given to the fourth annual conference of the Yorkshire and Humberside Learning and Skills Research Network. Friday July 2nd. 2004, Hinsley Hall, Leeds.

I argue in this paper that in Further Education, there is a culture of the now[1] with its origins in the manufactured uncertainty of the risk society (Beck 1999), which creates significant barriers to sustained, well grounded research in FE. That is not to say that there is no research in FE, and indeed, as we shall see some colleges are quickly responsive to the findings of accountants and consultants, but that generally there is little organisational ‘space’ or time available in FE for ongoing research.
The culture of the now has three inter-related aspects. Firstly there is an institutional dimension. All those in FE are harried by frenetic structural instability. There are endless national and local policy changes and an audit culture of incessant financial and curriculum inspections. Internal restructuring and personnel change appear to be a frequent response to these pressures. Cumulatively, these factors give little time or space for reflection or to the development of a measured response to change. Responses tend to be inchoate, short term and unsustainable and, thus, serve to manufacture further instability.

Secondly there are ideological barriers, stemming from a false perception of the management of risk, which make research an unattractive option for those planning the strategic direction of colleges. In essence the audit culture favours standardisation and easily replicable regimes where as success, within the risk society requires “…organisational cultures which enhance individual flexibility and responsiveness” (Brotherton, 1998). Thirdly then, despite the rhetoric, colleges, in fact, tend not to treat their employees as their most valuable asset. In so doing they frequently give the impression of ignoring or not valuing the creativity and professionalism of college staff. Of seeking to micromanage the activities of staff through one failed initiative after another, and in so doing helping to create the climate of manufactured uncertainty which is so corrosive to sustaining a culture of flexibility and responsiveness.

In arguing my case much of the evidence is drawn, from the data collected during the three year life of the Transforming Learning Cultures in FE[2] (TLC) project. I am pleased to acknowledge the wealth of data that my colleagues on the project have provided but must accept full personal responsibility for the interpretation of that data within this paper. The existence of the TLC project itself and the evidence it has accumulated of diverse, dynamic, complex learning cultures sustained by tutors and students, shows that there is individual flexibility, responsiveness and creativity within the FE.

In addition the Learning and Skills Development Agency, and its very successful regional Learning and Skills Research Networks shows that the picture is not all dark. There is interest in and active support for FE research. Locally there are people working at the ‘sharp end’ of FE who have produced good research. For example, Sandra Rennie at Bradford (Rennie, 2002) and Helen Kenwright at York (Kenwright, 2001). To develop my argument further it is necessary first to explain the TLC project in some detail.

The TLC project is based upon a partnership between four English universities and four English FE colleges. From its inception the project was at pains to establish a partnership between the rich research culture of the universities and the partner colleges. It was to be “research in FE” not “research on FE” and one of its aims was to enhance research capacity in FE. Across all four colleges senior managers gave the project their support and signed formal contracts. They helped identify at least four participating tutors from their respective colleges and partially seconded a member of staff to act as a college based researcher for the project (see Scaife, Davies and Colley, 2001; and James (in press) a) for a discussion of the implementation of the project). Yet, after this promising start, during the three-year life of the project 75% of the college-based researchers have been made redundant from their college roles[3]. This statistic, in itself, is significant evidence, I would argue, of a problem FE has with research.

The Institutional Dimension

Just how prevalent then is this culture of the now: found in“the dynamic and volatile world” of FE (Huddlestone and Unwin, 1997). Since the project started the whole FE sector has moved from the funding mechanisms of the Further Education Funding Council to those of the Learning and Skills Council(s). Furthermore, all four of the partner colleges have undergone major restructuring (together with mergers or amalgamations in some cases). They have all undergone full general ALI/OFSTED inspection. Whilst these are both stressful and disruptive they tend not to contribute significantly to the development of the college (Rennie, 2002). Then there are the endless financial and curriculum audits which are now the norm in FE (Perry, 2000). In all of the partner colleges some learning sites[4] have been disrupted by changes in location, the removal of some learning resources and changes in staff. This culture of the now is driven by financial and structural imperatives not pedagogical needs.

Indeed in respect of pedagogy there is a pattern of increased pressure to “do the stuff”, as one Holly Tree College tutor described their teaching with reduced resources. Whilst the research diary of another tutor regularly records increasing class sizes, extended contact hours, increasing management and administrative responsibility and increasing curriculum standardisation. Another tutor discusses the complexity they faced in delivering the curriculum within the context of overlapping uncertainties and declining resources (James, in press, b). For a tutor trying to develop a genuinely transformative learning experience for their groups the impact of regular external curriculum was serious hindrance (James, in press, c). A trip to IKEA has caused one member of the national TLC team to reflect that the innovation, creativity and enterprise which were once the hallmarks of FE teaching have been subsumed under “quasi commercial models of organisation”. Under this new dispensation students are “now clients or customers, to whom we deliver learning in packages…[ranging] from … bitesize courses to two year programmes. There are elaborate systems to measure customer satisfaction. Our Examination Boards issue ‘Product Updates’… Many teachers and managers… pore over spreadsheets of retention and achievement … trying to match their performance against national benchmarks” (James, in press, k). The TLC data reveals very little evidence of institutional systems designed to help individual teachers to “do the stuff”. Getting the teaching ‘right’ is a complex and challenging problem (James, in press, e) which rarely receives much scrutiny. On the other hand getting these figures right has become an obsession.

Most of the TLC partner colleges have faced financial difficulties resulting in the redundancy of staff. One reason well may be the complexity and problematic nature of the management information systems used to generate accurate funding claims. How important getting these benchmark figures right can be seen in the following case study from Holly Tree College.

The appropriate regional LSC published a report in February 2004 “highlighting failings in the college’s management information system … saying that the college had paid too little attention to a system that was essential in helping senior managers to understand the financial position…” In this particular case the problem was exacerbated by “the culture of the organisation – the fact that so few people shared information”. Restricting access to information is common within the factory system but the free flow of information within the organisation is a pre-requisite to an effective response risk and manufactured uncertainty (Brotherton, 1998).

Just how risky was the position of, and yet how manufactured was the uncertainty around, Holly Tree College prior to this financial indictment by the LSC can be judged by some of the range of issues governors and managers had been required to devote time to:

  • Undergoing a full general OFSTED/ALI inspection in March 2002.
  • Beginning to re-organise the college by publishing in September 2002 a consultation document Reorganisation of the College Structure which averred that “it is now both timely and important that the human resources requirements are reviewed and re-aligned in order to continue the college’s programme of improvements”. The document was based upon the findings of a firm of external consultants which was not published.
  • Receiving, in February 2003 the Secretary of State’s congratulations for “scoring top marks” in the OFSTED inspection which the Principal is reported to have accepted as a “fitting tribute to the staff”.
  • Receiving, in February 2003, a report from Ben Johnson Hill Associates which referred to “low teacher productivity”

which they said amounted to the employment of between 60 or 70 more teachers than were justified

in addition, ”further analysis showed that there should be scope to raise teacher productivity by up to 30% …”

[by] increasing output per teacher from1,500 to 2,000 on-programme units

[by] increasing average class sizes by around 20% and by raising main grade lecturer utilisation by around say 10%”

There has been an increase in tutor contact hours since this report was received.

  • Receiving notice of a staff motion of no confidence in the Governors and Principal of the college in March 2003 and having to respond to unfavourable local and national press reports.
  • Publishing, in April 2003, a letter from the Chairman of Governors which said “… for the very great majority the reorganisation will make work at the college more rewarding, more focussed and generally more satisfactory.” But not referring to the Ben Johnson Hill Associates report.
  • Currently estimating 70 redundancies, in October 2003, as announced in a special staff bulletin drawing attention to the apparent fact that “… the financial out turn for 2002/3 is currently showing a deficit of £1.5m + deficit against target…the number of posts that will have to be lost … is currently estimated at 70… This rightsizing process will ensure that the college merges as an even stronger provider of leading edge curriculum that meets the needs of learners, businesses, and the communities, that it serves. ”
  • Publishing a letter in October 2003 from the Chairman of Governors saying that “… changes in the staffing, organisation, conditions and programmes that have been necessary and are now in hand, will form a sound and realistic basis for the future under the new funding regime. They will make our work for the college more rewarding and more useful.”
  • Responding to a “riot” on Tuesday 4th November 2003 when a student protest involving a police helicopter, a police dog and police horses. The protest received coverage on both local TV news channels. Whilst the NATFHE regional official drew attention to the way the staff “had created a Beacon college and was now being made redundant through the incompetence of others”.

The Principal thought the protest “at best ill considered”

  • Publishing more targets when in January 2004, the Principal’ s New Year Message said that “ progress [had] been made with the delivery of savings and other targets which are necessary to achieve a successful outcome to financial and other plans” and “acknowledging that staff are the college’s most valuable asset “ before going on to emphasise the focus in 2004 on:

“i) recruitment and progression;
ii) retention and achievement;
iii) rewarding effectiveness in the delivery of learning and services;
iv) ensuring the appropriate relationship between income, expenditure and staffing levels are maintained in all parts of the college”

Throughout the period detailed above there is data from Holly Tree College of the resilience of learning culture of the sites. Participating tutors were at pains to shield their students from the changes around them and only one site was disrupted when the tutor became one of the redundant staff.

In meetings within the TLC team based on the Holly Tree College partnership, however, tutors have reacted in a variety of ways as the ‘college’s story’ developed. Demonstrating, I believe, uncertainty and the pervasive nature of the culture of the now. For example:

  • there was generally positive reaction to the proposed re-organisation (though with a recognition that they involved pain for some) (23rd March 2003);
  • to significant anger from the majority over the redundancies (10th October 2003);
  • to reports of an atmosphere of “negative disgruntlement”; “not feeling valued as a centre or a team”; to fears about the development, on one particular college site, of a youth, gang culture that was frightening to students and staff (20th February 2004);
  • to reports of a “shifting atmosphere where the shock has lessened” “[we] have to get on with it [register audit] “growing sense of anticipation [about the new building] going to get something they have wanted for years” “it will make the college more attractive” “negative disgruntlement has dissipated … the atmosphere in the corridors has improved” (19th March 2004).

Participating tutors then have expressed a range of opinions and emotions over this period. There is some evidence that they have been distracted in some of their research activities – for example most have produced fewer reflective accounts of their work during this period. A plan to disseminate the findings of the TLC project to college staff during the Summer Term 2003 was abandoned because of the pressure of re-organisation. Similarly plans to report to the college academic board on the TLC project in the Autumn Term of 2003 became consumed by the redundancy problem.

Not being able to make consistent, coherent sense of what was going on affected more than people actually within Holly Tree College. For example, Holly Tree College has sites in several MPs’ constituencies but their responses have not been uniform. As reported in the local press one MP has been urging an inquiry into the affairs at the college. On the other hand the neighbouring MP has chosen to single out for his constituents only the two- year old news Holly Tree College’s “…staff continue to provide excellent further education, as confirmed in their most recent OFSTED report”. (Feedback, April 2004). Thus at least one arm of government is sending confused messages to the staff and students of the college.

The case study of Holly Tree College has been detailed but it reflects a picture common in the other TLC partner colleges (and probably in FE more widely). During the life of the TLC project across the partnerships, whenever there were problems in either managing the books and/or an internal restructuring (or merger) then 75% of the college-based research fellows were amongst those made redundant.

In Oak Tree College the researcher was told that they could not be appointed to a post “… because it requires a significant apportionment of time, that is not compatible with your current responsibilities related to the [TLC] project.” (private letter, April 2004, quoted with permission). During the college re-organisation of May 2003 in Holly Tree College the researcher was simply told, by their line manager, that the TLC project was not seen as a priority by the college and they were to devote their full-time energies to income generation. Though it is consistent with the manufactured uncertainties of the culture of the now that the Principal of Holly Tree College subsequently appeared to reverse this position by confirming, with the Project Director, the college’s support for the TLC project … shortly before the college researcher was made redundant in October 2003.

Despite the best efforts then of all parties there have clearly been barriers to conducting research in FE. In part at least I argue there is an ideological dimension to the problem.

The Ideological Dimension

Generally research related activities “are not seen by FE managers as activities which should lie at the very heart of either the institution’s strategy or its operational priorities” (Brotherton, 1998, p311). Rather college managers have adopted a “factory approach” which emphasises “the primacy of organisational system needs over those of its individual knowledge creators” (Brotherton, 1998, p316-317). A system which seeks to package knowledge into standardised pieces; to achieve economies of scale and build strong brand names through marketing (Brotherton, 1998, p317) and an approach which as we have seen is consistent with the IKEA model of FE (James, in press, d). Below, I shall discuss later the case of Gwen where an IKEA model of further education causes great practical difficulty and emotional pain to the individual tutor whilst threatening to undermine the very quality of service the college provides.

Furthermore rather than tolerating experiment and pedagogic innovation

(which is at the heart of the learning organisation) “the drive has been to make the informal more formal, and the implicit more explicit via conformance-driven structures, processes and routines”. (Brotherton, 1998, p319). Thus for example there can be tension between responding to the individual student’s creative needs and the increasing standardisation in assessment and grading in vocational programmes (James, in press, f). Similarly there are ‘wars’ (manufactured uncertainties) between the differing strands of audit and inspection in a subject area.” … auditors were more intent on believing the staff and the college were trying to defraud the funding body by falsely claiming attendance than they were prepared to concede that students, who weren’t being ticked off a register whilst sitting at their desks, were actually engaged in some student-centred learning project”(James, in press, g). It is easy to see how such ‘wars’ inhibit the “flexibility, creativity and the ability to promote the type of internal culture conducive to the development and exploitation of its [staff] knowledge base” (Brotherton, 1998, p320).