MANAGING TUTORIAL PROVISION IN FURTHER EDUCATION
Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the British Educational Research Association, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, 11th –13th September 2003
Michael Fertig
Education Department
University of Bath
Claverton Down
Bath
BA2 7AY
01225 386120
Paper available at
ABSTRACT
There has been a recent plethora of studies examining tutorial provision within Further Education Colleges (Green 2001; Martinez 2001). These have looked essentially at the relationships between tutorial provision, student learning, and student retention and completion of courses. In addition, studies exploring the management of Further Education Colleges have also emerged onto the academic landscape. The work of writers such as Gleeson & Shain (1999), Shain & Gleeson (1999) and Simkins (2000) have focused on the issues arising from the incorporation of FE Colleges and the rise of ‘managerialism’ within the Further Education sector. This study aims to examine issues related to ‘managerialism’ and its impact on lecturer autonomy and ‘professionalism’ within the Further Education arena by focussing on the provision of tutorial support for students. The paper does not reject the notion of tutorial provision but attempts to examine it within the context of the continuing debate about the nature of lecturers’ work. This provision is seen as located at the confluence of two flows of thought about the role of the lecturer working within a Further Education context. It is seen as relating both to the ‘professional’ desire to aid the learning of students and the ‘managerial’ imperative for scrutiny and evidence that educational tasks have been carried out by the lecturers.
KEY WORDS
Managerialism; professionalism; tutorial provision; lecturers; incorporation.
BACKGROUND
Recent years have seen an intensification of the notion of ‘managerialism’ within the Further Education sector. This was seen most notably by the new policy framework for colleges and higher education institutions established by the Further and Higher Education Act of 1992. This resulted in the ‘incorporation’ of colleges, with them being granted full legal autonomy as corporations. This meant that individual colleges were responsible for staffing, asset maintenance, and financial management, with core funding provided on a formula basis related to student retention and completion rates. Developments within the Further Education sector were symptomatic of a more general movement encompassing organisations within the public sector. From the late 1980s onwards, similar legislation introduced these issues within other areas of the education system in England and Wales. There does, though, seem to have been some differences in focus between the FE sector and other areas of education provision in terms of the rigour with which these reforms were implemented. Some comparison has been made by Simkins (2000) who felt that ‘…compared with the schools sector, the funding mechanism for colleges has been used more directly, more centrally and more ambitiously as a policy tool’ (Simkins, op cit, p 319). Similar issues have emerged from the study by Shain & Gleeson (1999). Their research suggested that ‘the new funding formula, based on the principle of “more for less”, means that funds may be “clawed back” if colleges fail to meet their targets, retain students or if students fail to successfully complete courses’ (Shain & Gleeson, 1999, p 447). Writers such as Alexiadou (2001) have pointed to the development of a ‘quasi-market’ within Further Education whose characteristics are ‘defined by the nature of the competition instigated by the funding formula, and the central control of the created competing units through the use of both funding and incentive-based performance targets’ (Alexiadou, op cit, p 415).Summarising theimpact of the new funding approaches, Ainley & Bailey (1997) suggested that:
The extent of the culture change which this new form of funding involved cannot be overestimated. The old world tended to be governed by a number of certainties that meant people felt they knew where they were. The new funding regime tore up this secure existence…It is in the area of funding that the 1992 Act has had its greatest impact, so that it is not an exaggeration to say that changes in the management, the organisation and the student experience of further education have been driven by the changes in funding. (Ainley & Bailey, 1997, p 18)
It will be argued later in this paper that these funding imperatives and the cultural baggage that they have brought in their tow have had a distinct impact upon the function and nature of tutorial provision within FE Colleges.
Writing soon after ‘incorporation’, Ainley & Bailey (ibid) identified the nature and scope of the Further Education sector. There were at that time, for example, 453 colleges in all within England. The vast majority of provision was made up of further education colleges (222), sixth-form colleges (110) and tertiary colleges (66). Public funding from the Further Education Council for England was almost £3 billion a year, and there were over three million students within the sector in the middle of the 1990s. This was twice as many students as all the full- and part-time students at universities and other colleges of higher education, and more was spent on them at this period than on all higher education.
More recent figures, compiled with the aid of the Individualised Student Record introduced in 1994/1995, indicate a decline in overall student numbers, with approximately 2.35 million students enrolled at colleges in the FE sector in England in November 2001 (Learning & Skills Council, 2002). Indeed, the same survey indicated a slight decrease of 0.4% in total student numbers in FE sector colleges between November 2000 and November 2001 (ibid).
Nevertheless, despite these apparent demographic shifts within the uptake for post-compulsory education within further education colleges, the importance of the sector has been underlined by recent Government proposals to increase the overall investment in further education from £4.4 billion in 2002-2003 to £5.6 billion in 2005-2006. In addition, real-term total funding per student is forecast to rise by 7% during this period (DfES, 2002).
MANAGERIALISM IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR
The notion of ‘managerialism’ emerged within the public sector area in the 1980s and has attracted a wide range of academic interest ( see, for example, Pollitt, 1990; Exworthy & Halford, 1999; Schofield, 2001; and, Stokes & Clegg, 2002). Davies (2003), in her critique of ‘new managerialism’, has caustically suggested that:
…it is characterised by the removal of the locus of power from the knowledge of practising professionals to auditors, policy-makers and statisticians, none of whom need know anything about the profession in question. (Davies, 2003, p 91)
McTavish (2003), drawing on the work of writers such as Massey (1993), has delineated the key features of such a managerial approach within the public sector:
…there was an injection of business managerial and market forces through the creation of internal markets and/or the introduction of customer/competitive relationships in service delivery, the devolution of operational control and autonomy to institutional level bringing managers closer to the marketplace, thereby making them more accountable for a wider range of cost, resource management and other activities. Reorganized practices and structures were put in place to ensure that these public-funded bodies could achieve their stated objectives. (McTavish, 2003, p 175)
This brought with it a new sense of accountability and a need for a more open and transparent attitude towards the nature of the public sector service that was being provided. It will be argued later in this paper that this encompasses an encroachment into territory that has traditionally been seen as the preserve of the professional public sector worker. The emergence of notions of ‘visibility’ and ‘surveillance’ are not new—indeed, Foucault (1977) articulated this concept clearly. However, the weaving of this into ideas of organisational management have been foregrounded by writers such as Schmelzer (1993) in their treatment of what has been called ‘the multiple gaze’. This has been seen as involving:
…meticulous control over the network of power relations that produce and sustain the truth claims of an institution by means of an economical surveillance. It multiplies and mystifies the visible and centered gaze of the machine into countless instances of observation of a mechanism. Its operation is distributed to every body in a system of power relations that constitute an institution. (Schmelzer, 1993, p 127)
Davies (op cit) has contrasted the notion of ‘surveillance’ within the education sector in the pre- and post-managerialism era. She points to the period of the early 1970s, which she characterises as ‘high modernity’, when educational leaders were happy to observe their professional staff working at a distance. These leaders worked on the assumption that staff:
…were driven neither by them, nor by rules or by surveillance, but by a desire for mutual respect shared with colleagues and students, a desire to make a contribution to knowledge in their chosen area and a desire for personal freedom. (Davies, op cit, p 92)
The emphasis within this scenario gave prominence to significant levels of self-surveillance, based on the individual’s awareness of their own knowledge, expertise and limitations. The quality of institutional life was characterised by high social integration levels and personal commitment to being socially responsible members of the organisational community. It seems clear that organisational culture was here being located within the territory of McGregor’s Theory Y, with individuals who are self-directed and with high levels of self-motivation (McGregor, 1970).
This is compared to the nature of individual response and organisational ethos within ‘new’ managerialist systems where, as Davies (op cit) indicates:
…the individual’s sense of their own value is no longer primarily derived from responsible self-conduct and competent knowledge and practice of professional knowledge. (Davies, op cit, p 92)
Studies of the impact of ‘managerialism’ within the schools’ sector have also emphasised the dehumanising potential of this approach to organisational management (Meyer, 2002; Stronach et al, 2002; Farrell & Morris, 2003). Other researchers (eg Randle & Brady, 1997; Ainley & Bailey, op cit; Shain & Gleeson, op cit; Lumby, 2001; Simkins, op cit) have carefully charted the impact of the arrival of ‘site-based management’ within the Further Education sector.
Elliott (1996), in one of the earliest studies in this area, noted what appeared to be a distinct divergence between the views of ‘managers’ and ‘lecturers’. He was keen to distinguish between the views of ‘senior managers who seemed to embrace a managerialist culture’ (ibid, p 8) and lecturers who held true to ‘an ideology underpinned by a commitment to a student-centred pedagogic culture’ (ibid, p 8). This dichotomy was also pursued by Randle & Bailey (op cit) who sought to distil out a separation between a ‘managerial’ culture and a ‘professional’ culture amongst Further Education staff. In the former, the goals and values espoused related to the primacy of student through-put and income generation, loyalty to the organisation, and a concern to achieve an acceptable balance between efficiency and effectiveness. In contrast, the features of the ‘professional’ paradigm related to the highlighting of student learning and the teaching process, loyalty to students and colleagues, and a concern for academic standards. As will be argued later in this paper, the management of tutorial provision within a Further Education context stands centre stage at the merging of these two spotlights.
Randle & Bailey’s study (op cit), coming as it did within a few years of the onset of ‘incorporation’, also attempted to identify the features of ‘managerialism’ within FE Colleges. They suggested that this phenomenon consisted of:
…a package of management ideas, techniques and styles including:
strict financial management and devolved budgetary controls;
the efficient use of resources and an emphasis on productivity;
the extensive use of quantitative performance indicators;
the development of consumerism and the discipline of the market;
the manifestation of consumer charters as mechanisms for accountability;
the creation of a flexible workforce, using flexible/individualised contracts, appraisal systems and performance related pay; and,
the assertion of the managers’ right to manage. (op cit, p 230)
The impact of these ideas since the period of ‘incorporation’ has been analysed
more recently by Alexiadou (2001). This study made the distinction between the ‘responsive manager’ and the ‘pro-active manager’, determined primarily by the response of individual managers to the prevailing managerialist culture within Further Education organisations. ‘Responsive’ management was: ‘…defined by a “pragmatic accommodation” to market-driven change and to market values, and is primarily concerned with the preservation and development of a “pedagogic discourse” based on educational values’ (op cit, p 417). On the other hand, individuals who were identified as ‘pro-active managers’ had a ‘greater acceptance of change compared to the responsive conception, and a more active engagement with both the practices and some of the values of the market. The ultimate objective of this type of management is to tailor the pedagogic discourse to market-led changes…(op cit, p 421). What seems clear within the study is the pervasive nature of many of the characteristics of ‘managerialism’ identified by Randle & Brady (op cit), especially in relation to the consumer-orientation of colleges and the managers’ right to manage.
These values are explicitly underpinned by many policy pronouncements emerging from Government circles. A clear example was seen in the establishment of the Learning & Skills Council, where it was stated that: ‘…In putting the needs of learners firmly at the centre of our proposals for reform, it is also our unswerving aim that the LSC and all post-16 learning in this country should manifest the highest standards of provision and achievement’ (DfEE, 1999, p 2).
PROFESSIONALISM IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR
The emergence of interest in the concept of ‘managerialsm’ within the public sector has also been mirrored by a sustained examination of the nature of ‘professionalism’.
Early studies, such as that carried out by Hall (1968), identified professionalism as being associated with a professional ideology that could be assessed and measured at the level of the individual employee. Hall’s work (ibid) presented the concept as consisting of five components: the use of a professional organisation as a major referent by the individual; a belief in public services; a belief in self-regulation; a sense of calling or commitment to the profession; and, a feeling of autonomy. Engel, in a study published in 1970, regarded professionalism as being concerned with autonomy over work tasks and methods, an individual responsibility for thinking and acting without interference, and participation in decision processes within an organisation. More recent studies (eg Exworthy & Halford, op cit) have focussed attention on the re-emergence of the notion of line management as an attempt to introduce tighter accountability control and an adherence to targets and efficiency gains within the public sector. Laffin (1999) has presented a succinct view of ‘professionalism’ in his study of the profession in the public sector. Here, the essential nature of ‘professionalism’ is seen as lying ‘in the efforts of members of an occupation to maximise their freedom from control by others in the immediate work setting, in the management of professional work, and in the regulation of the profession’ (Laffin, ibid, p 3). This view will be re-visited later in this paper, when the idea of a ‘public’ presentation of discussions between student and lecturer will be seen as a potential affront to the professional standing of Further Education staff.
It is here that the merging of the ‘managerialist’ tide with the debate about ‘professionalism’ has been clearest. Central to the ‘managerialist’ argument is the view, often explicitly stated, that inefficiencies existed in the practices that were previously being performed by the organisation or the individuals being examined. This being so, the argument was that it had become necessary to ‘rein in’ those professionals who were responsible for these poor practices. Thus, ‘it is reasonable to consider that the setting of targets to groups previously responsible for regulating themselves is indicative of low trust on the part of the target setters’ (Swailes, 2003, p 135). In this context, Swailes (ibid) has suggested that:
…it is hard to over-emphasise the extent to which line management moved to reclaim the right to manage, even to the extent of being seen as returning to Taylorist and Fayolian principles of objective setting, progress monitoring and feedback, all in a general climate of cost reduction and efficiency gains. (p 133)
Traditionalnotions of ‘professionalism’, as presented by writers such as Hall (op cit) and Engel (op cit) see no need for the overseeing role of line management, target setting, or external scrutiny, monitoring and audit. The rise of what Strathern (2000) has labelled an ‘audit culture’ has exerted keen pressure on the concept of professional autonomy and individual responsibility for action. The tensions faced by individuals in this position have been identified clearly by Pels (2000), who talks of:
…the shift, in anthropological ethics, from professionalism to audit [being] yet another instance of the swing of the liberal pendulum from a romantic primacy of the ethical to a utilitarian primacy of the economic. (p 148)
Stronach et al (2002), in their study of professional identify amongst nurses and teachers, have made a important contribution to the debate by postulating the dichotomy faced by professionals as being one between an ‘economy of performance’ and ‘ecologies of practice’ (p 109). The former relates primarily to the performance and audit culture that is manifested through, for example, the Audit Commission, OFSTED and the Adult Learning Inspectorate and is often expressed in terms of quantitative performance measures. The emphasis within the Further Education sector on a ‘payment by results’ mentality and the premium paid for student retention and course completion fits neatly within this scenario. In their examination of nursing and teaching staff, the writers contrast this ‘performance’ focus with what they call ‘professional dispositions and commitments individually and collectively engendered’ (ibid, p 109). Here there is a clear referral back to the characteristics of commitment, self-regulation and autonomy identified in Hall’s seminal study (op cit).
The emergence of a ‘surveillance’ culture within the professions reflects wider shifts in public attitudes towards the notion of ‘expertise’, closely allied to the rise of a more consumer- oriented approach to the public services. This, also, has its origins in the development of a more market-driven focus within the public sector, for example through open enrolment to schools. As Swailes (op cit) has indicated: