The Teaching of Management in Courses on Adult Education

Teaching of management in courses on adult education

7406

The teaching of management in courses on adult education

Report of a SCUTREA special interest group meeting, held at the University of Leeds, 14 March, 1974

Brian Harvey, University of Nottingham

The organisers of the 1973 SCUTREA expected that the Conference would attend particularly to problems of teaching in university adult education courses, and certain sessions were devoted to ‘management’ as a component of Diploma study. Papers were presented on the approach to management in Further Education, and on recent developments in local authority administration of adult education provision. A special interest group also met.

The members of this group felt that discussion had still not managed to arrive at the practical and academic problems facing course organisers in the area of management studies, and that additional special interest meetings would have to be called if progress was to be made. Brian Harvey of Nottingham University undertook to assemble appropriate materials from the member departments and to call an extra meeting before the next annual conference.

A meeting was eventually held on 14 March, 1974. Its purpose was:

To explore the role, scope and content of teaching in this field, in the light of prevailing uses of the term ‘management’ and of the nature of Diploma courses and their students. More particularly,

(1) Diploma course philosophies and recruitment policies

(2) Definition of 'management' in adult education

(3) Alternative educational approaches to the subject

(4) The place of such studies in Diploma programmes.

Those present were:

Fred Cook (Liverpool University, Dept. of Sociology)

Brian Harvey (Nottingham University)

Stuart Marriott (Leeds University)

Brian Nichol (Manchester University) Observers John Steel (HMI)
Stuart Marsden (Vice-Principal, Airedale and Wharfedale College of Further Education)

A full set of background papers had previously been circulated to all departments represented in the original special interest group. It comprised:

An annotated agenda

A proposed outline of the field by Brian Harvey

A synopsis of existing courses related to management in AE

The SCUTREA guide to postgraduate courses in British Universities for adult educationists

Syllabuses and booklists for eight relevant courses. Background papers can be had from Brian Harvey, or from colleagues who have already received sets:

Professor W.E.Styler (Hull)

Graeme Hely (Glasgow)

Professor H.A.Jones (Leicester)

Stuart Marriott (Leeds)

John Taylor (Edinburgh)

Brian Nichol (Manchester)

Dr Elizabeth Monkhouse (London)

Fred Cook (Liverpool).

PROCEEDINGS1. Course philosophies and recruitment

Some departments insisted on a 'generic' interpretation when defining the likely clientele for Diploma courses, whereas others were more ready to regard local authority full-time employees as their main responsibility. In practice, however, most courses show a wide variety of occupations among their members. Indeed a course might include recent graduates with little working experience, overseas students, school teachers, FE lecturers, Prison Service education officers, trainers from the armed services and industry, youth and community workers, clergy, WEA and Co-op staff as well as local authority adult educators. Furthermore the local authority members could be working in a range of administrative systems, whether evening institute, FE college or community campus-based.

There was some evidence that the diversity of student background was greater on part-time courses. This might be due in part to the pressure of work on LEA staff, and the difficulties other workers faced in securing full-time release.

In principle a number of choices faced course directors:

whether to concentrate on the needs of a particular occupational group, excluding or giving a lower priority to others;

whether to emphasise adult education's teaching (or equivalent) tasks or its organisational tasks;

whether to concentrate on specific areas of skill and job training or to aim for a more general broadening of horizons.

At the moment we had little evidence on the policies underlying Diploma work, or even whether course design had ever been tackled as a series of explicit policy problems. One member of the group complained that it was virtually impossible for the individual teacher to foresee his own contribution in coherent terms when he received so little guidance on why the total course was being offered.

It was agreed that whatever the character of the overall course it was a form of applied study, and must have a firm base in reality. For the experienced it must bear on the problems they encountered in their work, and for the newcomer and aspirant it must offer some means of experiencing the actualities of adult educational work.

The overall character of a Diploma course was most significantly affected by its educational format, which involved curriculum and method, methods of assessment, staffing arrangements, etc. A course could be designed as a series of separate components, several of which would have to be taught by visiting lecturers. The components themselves could be designed with reference to basic academic disciplines, more inclusive cross-disciplinary themes, or operational problems in the field. A more ‘organic’ design would place greater emphasis on student projects, and use of specialist staff as resources and consultants, but would make very heavy demands on regular tutorial staff. (It was noted here that the distinction between UGC and DES financed staff, and conventions in the deployment of DES staff, could seriously affect the design of Diploma work). Further complications were introduced according to what forms of assessment were congenial to course planners and to the parent universities.

The meeting recognised that these were issues of basic importance in the design of any component such as ‘management’.

2. Definition of the field

It was noted that among SCUTREA members there may be some scepticism about ‘management’, about whether it might be yet another ‘non-subject’ or a wilful elaboration of familiar activities adequately described in everyday language. The group declined to take this view and insisted that a conceptual framework was essential if we were to avoid treating the organisational issues within adult education merely as a series of disconnected particulars.

The group accepted Brian Harvey’s outline (see below) as a useful sketch of the required conceptual framework, and an indicator of the range of issues that came within the scope of ‘management’ studies. It proposed that at the most general level the approach is concerned with questions of resource allocation - from the wider system to adult education, and within adult education itself.

Thus there are important threads of coherence and continuity running through questions of the following kind:

What is the perceived role of adult education in society? What are the relative priorities within an educational system and why are resources allocated to adult education? What criteria are available for decision making, and how are decisions in fact made? What processes are observed at the levels of central government, local authorities and particular institutions?

Given the broad objectives developed by and permitted to adult education, what specific activities should be developed? Are current activities in fact consistent with the abstractions of policy? What criteria are available for programme building? How can programmes be evaluated? What is the lateral relationship of adult education to other agencies such as community development or the social services?

How should the adult education service be delivered? What forms of organisation are most suitable given the objectives? What are the implications of different systems of administration and processes of financial allocation and control? What is, or should be the role of the professional in adult education? What are the desired characteristics and what are the training needs of part-time staff? What promotional and educational methods are appropriate?

All this might be summarised in the diagram below.

In the meeting it was alleged that Brian Harvey’s schema somewhat overemphasised the deliberative rationality of the planning process in adult education. From a sociological point of view the theme of constraint was particularly important, and would tend to give a slightly less optimistic colouring to the diagram. In a marginal sector such as adult education it was important that students should appreciate the nature of constraint and come to terms with the ways in which their managerial autonomy was hedged about. The rational setting of educational objectives might frequently be compromised by the imposition of unsuitable administrative systems, the unfriendliness of the wider environment, and so on.

3. Alternative approaches to the study of 'the management' of adult education

In principle a broad continuum of approaches suggests itself. At one extreme is the predominantly analytical approach to the adult education activity in which management issues are identified and examined in the light of formal academic disciplines such as sociology, social psychology and economics.

At the mid-point lies a more pragmatic approach to the managerial issues within adult education systems. The focus will be existing structures, their background and current methods of operation; the language will be closer to that of adult educationists themselves and will draw correspondingly less from the ‘external’ critical concepts of basic academic disciplines.

At the other extreme we meet the assumption that certain aspects of the management activity can be clearly specified, that certain working objectives are agreed and of primary importance, and that the purpose of the course is to develop managerial aptitude. ‘Management’ here largely consists in the teaching of specific techniques and methodologies and in the provision of opportunities for the development of personal and interpersonal skills.

There was no great enthusiasm for the skills course with a ‘training’ bias. One reason was that such an approach demanded a more homogeneous student body than most departments seemed to be recruiting, and also a much more definite knowledge of what are the central practical skills in managing adult educational situations. (See also comments in section 5.) Another reason put forward was that too much might be expected of Diploma level studies: it might be perfectly appropriate for Adult Education divisions of universities to make a wide ranging provision, some of it very job centred, but there was no reason for packing all of this into the Diploma format; much desirable work could be done on an in-service, non-certificated basis.

Even in the absence of detailed job specifications, it was suggested we could still identify certain broad skills in the field of adult education, particularly those to do with mobilising and working through other people. Thus the practitioner needed to form fruitful relationships with his student body, to secure the commitment and common involvement of his part-time teaching staff, to be able to work with informal and voluntary groups in the community. A very flexible, project-based course might be necessary to further students’ learning in these areas.

It was agreed that in present circumstances Management as a component of Diploma courses would be best served through a combination of the pragmatic and the analytical choices. The great attraction of Diploma courses was the wealth and breadth of educational experience represented on them; study should amply acknowledge and in the end relate back to students’ working experience. At the same time, if discussion was not to stagnate among the received notions of the educational system, it was vital that an independent viewpoint be available. The critical perspective should be provided through what might broadly be called ‘behavioural studies’, incorporating certain aspects of social psychology, sociology of organisations, economic, political and administrative science.

The essential contribution of this more critical, analytical material was to display a number of models of the structure, function and processes of actual and ideal methods of educational organisation. These models would have a certain degree of abstraction, and would thus help to identify similar choices faced by people in a range of practical occupations; at the same time as showing some kind of common interest in a diverse group of students they would help to broaden individuals' outlooks beyond the boundaries of a particular job.

It is not the purpose of this report to identify or defend the coherence of this particular approach to educational organisation. Nevertheless it is worth pointing out that those of us who are interested in developing the study of management in adult education immediately identify a certain range of theoretical and observational work as being of particular importance.

4. The role of such studies in Diploma courses

It was recommended, almost as a matter of urgency, that every effort should be made to give coherence to Diploma courses, especially where a wide variety of backgrounds was represented or where it proved necessary to employ a high proportion of visiting or occasional lecturers. This might be achieved by identifying one or two enlarged ‘core’ components, and by treating other components as satellites or contributory options.

In the search for a central identity for a particular Diploma course, it was recognised that different disciplines, and members of staff, would have their own point of view. Thus a case could be made for treating philosophy as the core organising principle - or individual psychology, or small group psychology, or curriculum development and educational technology. However, the conference members agreed to be provocative and suggested that the ideas already reported in this paper provided the most meaningful and attractive means of giving coherence to a course of study in adult education. They would help to identify an approach that was genuinely 'applied', as an Adult Education Diploma ought to be, and at the same time disciplined, and they would relate quite directly to the central operational problems of the service.

More realistically it was recognised that departments will continue to go their own way, and that there will be an interesting diversity of approach. If the nature of that diversity could be more clearly described it would be of great help to prospective students.

5. Conclusions

Although the group members were agreed on many broad academic and policy matters, discussion was hampered by the lack of more practical information. In future, course direction and development would be greatly helped if:

a study could be made of ‘managerial’ training needs in the local authority sector. A DES funded project was one possibility, but another attractive method would be the secondment one way or the other of staff between a LEA and the neighbouring university, so the study could be undertaken locally and collaboratively;

it would be relatively simple to make a follow-up study of former Diploma course members, and to enquire into the perceived relevance of management studies; we should urgently encourage student projects, assignments and research in this field. Although important principles and theories were available from other, related fields, they were being ignored and their application in the study of adult educational institutions was pitifully limited. This backwardness tended to undermine the plea for the management approach to adult education.

Finally it was agreed that progress would be made if a means could be found of allowing those involved in Diploma work to continue to pool their experience and developing ideas. Meetings of this kind were valuable, not only as vehicles for promoting thought and exchanging ideas within a broad discipline, but also as a spur to the re-examination of wider policy issues in the design of Diploma courses. In particular it was felt that any subject group within the Diploma context would benefit from periodic examination of its own purposes, and its successes and failures in sharpening students’ personal skills and their awareness of areas of choice and areas of constraint in their work.

Reproduced from 1974 Conference Proceedings, pp. 1-7  SCUTREA 1997