3.4 MANAGERIALISM
3.4.3. MANAGERIALISM AND EDUCATION
An account on an international perspective of managerialist policies in education is presented followed by an exposition on some of the drawbacks of pursuing managerialist policies in education.
3.4.3.1 AN INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVE
Within education, as in other public services such as housing, health and welfare, it is possible to identify a new institutional culture which has been termed ‘NPM’, ‘new managerialism’ and ‘corporate managerialism’. In various parts of the world there are increasing numbers of attempts to restructure and regulate state schooling. Central to these initiatives are moves to dismantle centralized educational bureaucracies and to
create in their place devolved systems of education entailing significant degrees of institutional autonomy and a variety of forms of school-based management and administration. In many cases, these changes have been linked to enhanced parental choice or an increased emphasis on community involvement in schools. Such policy initiatives often introduce a ‘market’ element into the provision of educational services even though they continue to be paid for largely out of taxation. This may involve
‘privatizing’ them, both by involving private sector providers and by handing over to individuals and families decisions that were previously a matter of public policy. Most often, it entails making public services behave more like the private sector. The term
‘quasi-market’ is increasingly being used to characterize attempts to introduce market forces and private decision-making into the provision of education (Whitty, Power &
Halpin 1998:3, 51).
Simkins (2000:317) points out that the concept of managerialism is becoming an increasingly important part of the discourse about public sector reform in the UK. In England and Wales, after promulgation of the Education Reform Act of 1988, there is a trend to devolve education provision to local communities. Schools could opt out of Local Education Authority (LEA) after a parental ballot and choose to run themselves by a governing body as a grant maintained school with direct funding from central government. By opting for grant maintained status it gains increased powers in relation to admissions, finance and staffing. Schools could also opt for institutional autonomy through the Local Management of Schools (LMS) policy. LMS grants governing bodies of schools that remain within LEA’s increased control over their own budgets and day to day management. These schools receive funds according to a formula which ensures that 85% of the LEA’s budget is handed down to schools and 80% of each schools budget is determined directly by the number and ages of its learners. The funding formula includes teacher salaries and teachers are now de facto (though not de jure) employees of the governing body (Whitty, Power & Halpin 1998:18-19).
Similarly, education reforms instituted in New Zealand was largely shaped by a government which embraced NPM. The Picot Report (1988) and the government’s
Tomorrows Schools prompted reforms that led to a shift in the responsibility for budget allocation, staff employment and educational outcomes from central government and regional education boards to individual schools. Schools were given boards of trustees (comprising parents and members of the business community) who could opt for bulk funding – granting of 100% of their funding including teacher salaries based on a predetermined learner-educator ratio (Whitty, Power & Halpin 1998:21).
In the Australian context, given its federal constitution, education provision is mainly the responsibility of the six states and the Northern Territory. Devolution has been a feature of government reforms since the 1970’s. The concept of self-managing schools has gained popularity and various state education departments are remodeling schools on these lines. Since 1989 New South Wales has been implementing its decentralization programme which promoted devolution and choice – not only restructuring school management along corporate principles but deregulating school zones to stimulate competition between schools. The state of Victoria, however, is a leading proponent of devolution. By 1992 all schools were governed by a school council which had control of all items except teaching staff salaries. Further, reforms have seen Victoria’s schools being granted full control over budgets and even personnel. The school council recruits the principal, who then takes responsibility for staff and resources. Odden (Whitty, Power
& Halpin 1998:23-24) claims that these reforms represent one of the world’s most comprehensive, well-designed, promising and professional approaches to decentralized management of schools. These reforms need to be seen against a background of sharp reductions in the level of resourcing from the state. Further, during the mid 1990’s six hundred schools were closed and there was a reduction of 20% in the number of teachers employed as a result (Whitty, Power & Halpin 1998:23-24).
Similarly, the South African education system has not been immune to the education reforms taking place internationally. Since the democratization of the education system in 1994 there has been significant reforms consistent with NPM. In education, the concept of decentralization has been used increasingly has a tool to enhance managerial authority, improve economic and managerial efficiency and effectiveness and enhance better
governance. One of the primary modes of decentralization used by the government in education reform was that of deconcentration.3 With regard to educator provisioning deconcentration has translated into the DNE giving the provinces greater autonomy with regard to setting their own leaner-educator ratios, determining the size of the provincial educator pool, determining substitute educator numbers and policy with regard to the employment of temporary educators. Devolution4 has also been used as a mode of decentralization where communities have been granted powers to participate in the process of school governance through democratically elected SGBs. With regard to educator provisioning, SGBs have been empowered to augment the state’s allocation to schools through the appointment of SGB paid educators in order to improve efficiency in service delivery and improve responsiveness to learner needs. A third form of decentralization used by the government in education is that of delegation.5 In terms of delegation SGBs have been granted powers to set user fees (school fees) and thereby reduce the financial burden of public schools on the state. The setting of fees by SGBs has, however, allowed some privileged groups to effectively ‘privatize’ schools within the public school system through the levying of exorbitant fees.
3.4.3.2 THE COSTS OF MANAGERIALISM
The adoption of mechanisms and principles from the private sector can enhance efficiency of educational services delivery. But what is also true is that the emphasis on economic rationalism and the practice of ‘strong management’ in running public sector services might have unintended consequences. Displacing costs elsewhere and shifting responsibilities from the state to individuals, local communities and other non-state sectors, the particular ‘efficiencies’ of certain services may be increased at human and social costs. As Rees (Mok 1999:118) points out, ‘costs endured by those subjected to managerialist practices include unemployment and associated poverty; part-time work and accompanying insecurity; stress anxiety and loss of morale among employees….’
3 Deconcentration is the passing down of selected administrative functions to lower levels or sub-national units within government agencies or departments.
4 Devolution is the granting of decision making powers to lower authorities or managers and allowing them to take full responsibility without reference back to the authorizing government.
5 Delegation is the transfer of specific authority and decision making powers to organizations that are outside the regular bureaucratic structure and that are only indirectly controlled by government.
As a result of English reforms, educators face increased workloads, attempts to use them more flexibly to counter the effects of budget restrictions, divisive approaches to performance related pay and the replacement of full-time, permanent, qualified and experienced staff by part-time, temporary, less qualified and less experienced and therefore less expensive staff. A report by the National Foundation for Educational Research confirms that many of these trends have accelerated since the introduction of local management of schools particularly in those schools adversely affected by the use of average staffing costs in the funding formula. Ozga and Soucek (Whitty, Power &
Halpin 1998:71) suggest that the reforms in England, Wales and parts of Australia have served to reduce the core of established and costly teachers and enlarge the more flexible and less expensive peripheral labour force. Blackmore (Whitty, Power & Halpin 1998:71) adds that given the position of women in the peripheral labour market, they are likely increasingly to be disadvantaged and exploited. Indeed, in many classrooms, parents predominantly mothers were being used as unpaid substitute teachers.
Mok (1999:118) makes a valid point in that education, unlike market commodities is a human service and a public good. Therefore, conceptualizing it solely as a market commodity may marginalize issues to do with morality and ethics as well as doing justice to ensure goals such as equity.
Mok (1998:118) in pointing out effects of managerialism on higher education asserts that
‘doing more with less’ and ‘working smarter with fewer staff and less resources’ has become the norm. He notes that in the past few years there has been a general increase in academic teachers’ workload, from a staff-student ratio of 1:12 to a ratio of 1:20. In the midst of budget cuts, short-term appointments and part-time teaching have become a very popular survival strategy.
As result of managerialist reforms in South African education the workloads of educators has increased quite considerably over the years. The learner-educator ratios in the various provinces remain extremely high and the period load of educators has increased.
Moreover, SMTs carry larger teaching loads which leave very little time for management
duties. The number of temporary educators in the system is also considerably high because provincial education departments view the employment of temporary educators as a less costly option. Further, parents are being exploited by increasingly being called upon to volunteer their services as substitute educators owing to the demand for substitute educators far exceeding supply in the provinces.