Challenges in Educational Management

Principles into Practice

W. F. Dennison, Ken Shenton

• Publisher: Taylor & Francis
• Year: 2018
• Print ISBN: 9781138487864
• eBook ISBN: 9781351041201
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education General

Originally published in 1986. Hitherto, most educational managers, including head teachers and senior staff in schools, have been expected to carry out their management tasks without any formal training. Recent initiatives, however, are changing this and all educational managers are now being encouraged to undertake some form of training. This book provides a framework for the study of educational management. Management in other professions has been a major concern for a long time and this book selects from this existing literature, theory and experience (for example from management studies and business studies) and relates relevant material to the context of education. It looks at the major themes and problems in educational management, discusses the appropriate theories and shows how good practices may be applied.

CHAPTER 1

DEMANDS, OPPORTUNITIES, CONSTRAINTS AND INFLUENCES

Changing demands

Managers in education, as elsewhere, are at the centre of conflicting demands. That is part of the job; it cannot be otherwise. Demands are made upon their time by children, other staff, parents and people outside the school who think that staff with managerial responsibilities ought to be concerned about, or intervene in, some particular matter. Competing demands for resources between departments and individuals have to be resolved. Demands to include new materials in the syllabus or adopt alternative teaching approaches will have to be answered: these will have come from parents or any one considering that they have a legitimate stake in the activities of the school. Increasing demands for greater accountability in relation to a school’s or an individual’s performance require some sort of response. Anyone who resists this notion of being the subject of numerous demands should not contemplate a post involving management duties in schools. Any school, even a small one, whose behaviour is to be shaped and modified as part of the management process, represents a complex organisation. Appointment to a senior post, as headteacher for example, does not permit a person to rise above that complexity. Indeed such a post heightens an individual’s involvement with others, has an increased range and number of demands associated with it, and increases the complexity of the situation which the individual must confront.

To newly-appointed school leaders the debate about whether organisational life is primarily the product of the free will of its members or the result of determinism produced by environmental pressures may seem largely theoretical (Astley and Van der Ven, 1983). What such promoted teachers will soon discover, if they have not realised it already, is that both sets of factors, far from being mutually exclusive, contribute to a plethora of controls over action. Staff expect certain behaviour from school leaders who in turn feel obliged to respond to these expectations. To some extent, this provides some guarantee that the teachers will act in ways that they, as leaders, could approve. Externally, schools are fixed into a network of obligations and exchanges with other organisations including neighbouring and feeder schools, colleges, parents’ organisations, employers and examination boards. These, as individuals and groups, or as members of groups, anticipate certain behaviour by schools; if their aspirations are not realised they strive to achieve their own perceptions of conformity. It is hardly surprising, in these circumstances, that schools, like most other organisations, are inherently conservative. Moreover, fixed into a pattern of relationships with other organisations and managers, they have to mediate between numerous competing demands which reflect the existing values, practices, structures and habits of staff, and to such people the achievement of changed behaviour presents immense problems (Pfeffer and Salancik, 1978).

In many situations there can be incentives for an education manager to raise the importance of these demands for continuity. Individuals have invested in a particular pattern of behaviour since it provides them with security and confidence. From the manager’s point of view this avoids the new and additional demands that change might bring, without any certainty that these demands can be predicted or controlled. Some managers might argue that their free will is extremely limited; their freedom of action appears totally constrained by the social determinism of internal and external factors. That perception would be disputed by Stewart (1982). She, using a relatively narrow definition of demands (what anyone in a job has to do), goes on to establish empirically, through study of a large number of UK managers, that the choices available – those things that can be done as part of the job – are quite extensive.

Middle managers in school have the power to allocate their time and attention, either by concentrating their efforts on a small number of difficult pupils or by distributing their interest more widely to all their pupils; they can restrict their interest exclusively to their own field of activities or they can take an active part in issues affecting the whole school; they can involve their deputies in interviews with parents or assume this responsibility alone; they can see their duties as restricted to support for the teaching activities of the school or having a wider social function. Stylistically, in relation to their colleagues, parents, welfare agencies and children, they are free to adopt any position on the continuum from autocratic to laissez-faire (Tannenbaum and Schmidt, 1958).

Contrary to this view of their freedom of action many middle managers in school would claim that, in practice, most of such choices are illusory. Because of conventions, expectations, the nature of client- and workgroups and as a result of their own personalities, they visualise few alternative courses of action in any of these situations. A newly-appointed pastoral head would find it difficult to delegate interviews with parents, for example, if the previous holder of the post had established these as a personal responsibility. Indeed, a special problem for education in general in a no-growth situation is the potential dominance of demands for continuity. Less mobility means that staff-groups become well established, sometimes for long periods. In such a situation there is a tendency for staff to structure their work in such a way that predictability increases, and familiar and comfortable arrangements prevail, based upon routine or precedent. Some of the stresses of the work place may be reduced, but at a cost, as individuals occupying the same position for some time become increasingly less responsive to the challenging aspects of their jobs.

With greater continuity the temptation for managers is to respond only to certain demands, usually those evolving from the more immediate workgroup. To personnel whose demands are seldom recognised, such as other staff on the margin of the work-group, parents and children in their role as consumers, the fact that their demands are only occasionally acceded to can be highly frustrating. Younger members of staff unable to gain promotion and others who think they have been passed over for the wrong reasons can make demands on the headteacher or departmental head for a change in syllabus, or an alternative teaching approach, but with little hope of satisfaction. Similarly, parents may demand more involvement in decision-making or a clear policy about homework but may not anticipate a positive outcome, particularly if similar requests have been turned down on previous occasions. Indeed, the most effective way of reducing demands is to demonstrate their ineffectiveness and the futility of making them.

Alternatively, if those making demands can establish a resource-dependency there is some certainty that other parties will pay attention to their demands. More directly, if A makes a demand upon B the response and its likelihood of satisfaction will relate to the extent to which B relies upon A for scarce resources (Aldrich, 1976). Under the 1980 Education Act all parents have a choice of schools. When, usually as a consequence of falling rolls, they are able to exercise that right of choice they are imposing a form of dependency in that their decision represents an allocation of resources in favour of one school but to the disadvantage of another. Their demands are thus less likely to be overlooked (Dennison, 1983).

The most significant change that has occurred in English education since the 1970s has been the growing tendency of the DES, followed more slowly by LEAs, to try to enforce particular views about the desirability of school activities. In this they have utilised the school’s dependency upon locally provided, but increasingly centrally determined, resources. Because schools are almost wholly dependent upon public funds it is quite easy for ministerial or local advice about some aspect of the curriculum to be interpreted as an order; a request for information about whether a curriculum policy has been introduced may be regarded as an instruction to adopt the new practices. In fact, of course, resource support levels from central government to local authorities and then from LEAs to schools are governed by criteria much more sophisticated than whether a particular policy or scheme has been implemented. However, in conditions of extreme resource scarcity there are few impediments to using a relationship of total dependence to create a climate of submissiveness. Individuals, groups and schools who do not wish to appear resistant to DES or LEA demands, risk a cut in resources, either in absolute or in relative terms.

It is no coincidence that the emergence of a more interventionist curricular position has taken place at the same time as the imposition of strict spending controls. To the increased dependency which retrenchment produces must be added the need to demonstrate value for money in an increasingly competitive environment for public expenditure. The DES obviously feels that this will more likely be achieved by greater central control of the curriculum, school practices and public examinations. Hence, there has been a steady production of discussion documents, policy guidelines, circulars and so on since the late 1970s (DES, 1985). LEAs and schools cannot ignore them, even when they doubt the quality of the content. With selectivity in funding the exploitation of dependency goes even further. Previously, LEAs and schools welcomed autonomy in resource matters: they were given block grants with ostensibly few specific instructions about spending patterns, but in fact this apparent autonomy was restricted because of high fixed commitments. Nevertheless, there was some freedom. When shortage of resources eliminated previously existing opportunities, the institutions found themselves increasingly reliant on specific grants, on funds from ESG (Education Support Grants) TVEI (Technical and Vocational Education Initiative), and TRIST (TVEI Related In-Service Training). In effect, the spending of centrally supplied money is being limited increasingly to the achievement of centrally determined objectives.

With TVEI the government has done little more than to respond to demands for a more technical and vocational bias in the upper years of secondary school. The pressure has arisen from employers, parents and government itself, concerned about high levels of youth unemployment and the inadequate wealth-creating potential of the country’s commercial and industrial base. Possibly, such demands will be satisfied by a strategy to raise the technological literacy of pupils leaving secondary schools. Even without this initiative, however, schools find themselves at the focus of increasing demands from a constituency, based around parents and pupils, to concentrate on pre-vocational activities. This pressure has resulted from a tight labour market. Yet this demand is only one of many. It cannot be considered in isolation from all others, whether internally or externally generated; it should not be discussed other than within a framework of matching a need for continuity to the requirements for changed arrangements. The task of the manager is, first, to attempt to make an assessment of the totality of demand in any situation and the likelihood of change; next, to interpret the potential role of the school in the satisfaction of these demands; finally, to assist the sub-units in pursuit of this satisfaction.

Enhanced opportunities

Those involved in education management for more than ten years would undoubtedly claim that the demands upon them and others in their working group have risen, often dramatically. Caution, of course, is necessary in accepting such views. Everyone can recall when the demands seemed less than now, because the passage of time reduces perceptions of the stridency with which past demands were argued. In fact, any attempt to assess changes in the values of perceptions of individuals over time is beset with difficulties. Similar methodological issues arise when assessing changes in stress over time, if this factor is to be used as indicative of extra demands upon the individual. Certainly, interest in work-related stress has grown in recent years, in all occupations (Cooper, 1981a) and particularly for teachers (Dunham, 1984); but increasing interest cannot be adduced as incontrovertible evidence that jobs are increasingly stressful and, in this context, necessarily subject individuals to additional and rising demands.

Most teachers would argue that such caution is quite unnecessary. They would point to general demands, impossible to quantify but nevertheless important, demands for increased accountability of both school and individual teachers, for example. These may have only limited direct effects but teachers would still argue for their significance. Essentially however, the systematisation of school inspections by HMI, complemented by a more monitorial stance of some local advisory staff, the publication of the results of these inspections and the availability of secondary school examination results represent tangible outcomes of greater accountability. Quite probably a formal appraisal system for teachers’ performance will be introduced (DES, 1983), but without this, given the numbers of HMI and frequency of inspections, individuals are not likely to be in an inspected school more than one or twice in their careers, and, even less probably, be the subjects of an easily indentifiable comment in a published report. The counter-argument of teachers might be that it is the intangibility of accountability that produces additional demands. They would maintain that there is a new climate, only recently developed, which permits, and even seems to invite, criticism from pupils, parents, employers and the media regarding the activities and achievements of schools. Undeniably a change has occurred. Non-teachers are more willing than before to question what goes on in school; parents are less likely to accept the word of the teacher as an expert. What teachers must not overlook is that these phenomena extend to many other public services besides education.

Increasing demands however, invariably mean less choice for the individual and it is this development which teachers would claim has been most marked since the mid-1970s, largely as a result of stringent expenditure controls and the problems posed by a small school population. In effect autonomy and authority have been eroded. Clearly there exists a paradox. Fewer pupils should mean more flexibility for the individual teacher in interpreting job-components and also additional freedom for the school in organising classes and the curriculum because the range and extent of demands upon staff might be expected to be related to the number of children. The main contributor to this paradox arises from the differing perceptions created by growth and contraction. It is the association of pupil-numbers with finance which dominates discussion of the issue. During the time of expansion to the mid-1970s rolls were growing, both as a result of demographic factors and because more pupils chose to remain at school beyond the minimum leaving age. The actual expenditure per child rose. The main resource input is manpower, which may be measured by the pupil to teacher ratio (PTR), which in 1962 was 24.7 and fell by 1974 to 21.2. However, the availability of additional funding, even though intended to support the needs of more children, was the most important factor in providing additional choice. New classes, schools, options and equipment, the purpose of which was to cope with the additional children, actually offered extended choices and opportunities to the teacher.

With contraction, expenditure per child has continued to rise (PTR in 1984 was 17.9) but because there are fewer pupils the total spending has, at best, risen slowly and on occasion has declined in real terms. Previous choices for the teacher, the school and the LEA have been eliminated. If a school wishes to continue to offer the same curriculum with fewer children and teachers (even though with a lower PTR than before) each teacher must be prepared to teach in wider curriculum areas. Simultaneously, the staff of the school as a whole has to balance moves for curriculum adaptation with the pressure towards continuity with past practices which follows from less movement of staff between schools. Not all such pressures are externally generated. What the lack of expansion has done, however, is to transfer outside attention towards what school and teachers actually do, and how well they perform their tasks, rather than to focus concern on the need for more resources. Without doubt this transference would have occurred even with rising school rolls, for it is a function of increasing control and scrutiny of public expenditure. The fact that there are fewer pupils has provided an additional rationale for more external interest and introduced a new perspective. So has the pace of technological change both through its impact on structural unemployment (with public expenditure implications) and also through long term effects on school processes. Micro-computers in the classroom can be seen as only the initial stage of a movement towards alternative learning arrangements resulting in great changes in the role of the teacher.

Yet despite these fluctuating parameters the choices available to the teacher in the immediate work-situation of the classroom remain largely undiminished. There may be fewer resources, less homogeneous groupings of pupils, new topics to teach and little chance of promotion, but teaching style, class arrangement and attitudes towards the children remain matters of professional autonomy. The example of the micro-computer illustrates this. The individual teachers will decide whether or not to be users; if users, when and how they will become trained; they will choose whether they will design their own programs or use packages; finally they will determine the extent to which they will modify their teaching methodology to encompass this new resource.

In the same way, such freedoms extend from the classroom to the broader area of school management. Headteachers and others with managerial responsibilities are able to interpret their jobs with a wide degree of latitude in terms of modes of performance and actual duties. In this they are no different from managers in most other occupations although the combination of the demographic, financial, social and technologically-induced pressures may be perceived by some post-holders to restrict these freedoms in schools. Alternatively, of course, the changes which result from these pressures can be viewed as opportunities which enhance the prospects of managerial activity in schools. If this view is accepted, it may be felt that schools have been the potential beneficiaries of effective management techniques for many years, but most of that potential has remained untapped until now, and for the first time circumstances are making teachers realise this. Probably there will never be a more opportune time to analyse the managerial needs of schools and their teachers.

Enhanced opportunities, however, have to be converted into actions and these in turn must satisfy the need which created the opportunities. In this case changing demands have to be assimilated into the school statement of objectives so that appropriate responses can be developed. To do this the individual teacher with any responsibility beyond the classroom needs to become more competent in relation to management tasks and responsibilities. What this involves provides an important component of this book. However, individual competence – even at a high level – is insufficient. A single teacher cannot function alone in a managerial context. This fact indicates the main difference between teaching and managing and also places co-operation among staff as an essential pre-requisite of effective management. Such a development is facilitated by the procedures and arrangements which the school can establish. Co-operation is much easier when the school offers a climate to facilitate intra-staff support. By far the most important outcome produced by such a climate is an appreciation by all staff of the intentions and strategies of the school. As a result school activities which reflect corporate thinking and changing internal demands are likely to be developed. Finally, managers in the school require heightened personal awareness of environmental demands, both as part of their own managerial competence and also so that they can alert others to the potential effects of external factors upon school activities. All such demands do not require a response; most can be used, however, to modify objectives and support arrangements chosen for their achievement.

Overcoming constraints

Many teachers might dispute that the time is ripe for the pursuit of more effective and visible forms of management in schools. On the other hand they might accept that some quite specific management approaches could be desirable, perhaps in the field of public relations to make what schools try to do more understandable and acceptable to a wider public, consis...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• Foreword
• List of Diagrams
• Introduction
• 1 Demands, Opportunities, Constraints and Influences
• 2 Learning to be Effective
• 3 Leadership Unlimited?
• 4 Expertise and Credibility
• 5 Power and Authority
• 6 Change and Response
• 7 Interpersonal Perspectives on School Management
• 8 Communication or Chaos?
• 9 Developing Teachers and Schools
• Conclusion
• Bibliography
• Subject Index
• Author Index