La ortodoxia neoliberal al servicio de las transnacionales petroleras

It has been noted that schools need to consider their educational objectives in relation to the needs of pupils and the efficient use of resources. Similarly, as an educational initiative, the introduction of the TVEI is expected to result in changes in the curricular offerings of participating schools. This section therefore briefly discusses some implications of TVEI

implementation in schools for resource management and, therefore, this research. This will be done under three headings as

f o 11o w s :

a. 'Change* implications of TVEI curricular choices. b. Efficiency in the use of resources.

c. Decision making.

Change Implications of TVEI Curricular Choices: The definition of TVEI, in terms of the disciplines emphasised in the TVEI curriculum of a school, relative to existing provisions, is

indicative of the change implication of the Initiative in the school. In addition to English and Mathematics, other school subjects are traditionally classified under, what are called in

schools, 'core areas5. These are usually the areas of creative studies (including craft and technologically based subjects), humanities (including geography, history and religious

education), a.nd science (including biology, chemistry and

physics). The linkage of TVEI subjects and courses to such areas will not only highlight the balance between general and

vocational/technica1 education (a TVEI criterion), but also identify, as will be elaborated in the next chapter, the

'winners* and 'losers* in TVEI implementation relative to the various curriculum areas.

The secondary school curriculum is typically structured around subjects and courses. However, as already noted in respect of TVEI, the curriculum has recently been developed to give more emphasis to cross-curricular activities. At the same time, the nature, and manner of organising these activities are likely to differ between schools. In research terms, therefore, the degree to which a new curricular activity has affected the overall

curriculum of a school needs to be examined, since programmes introduced as a result of TVEI need to be seen in the context of existing ones. In this respect, a document from the TVEI

Curriculum Database at Trent Polytechnic (TA, 1989) categorises TVEI programmes into (a) newly introduced with TVEI, (b) enhanced by TVEI and (c) unaffected by TVEI. This categorisation, as acknowledged in the document, is imperfect because 'enhancement*, for example, is a subjective measure, varying in degree and

depending on the evaluation criteria used. Thus, the same document combines 'newness* with 'impact*, where impact is defined in terms of the number pupils involved in an activity, the amount of time allocated to it, the number of schools which have introduced it, and/or a combination of the three.

In organising their programmes, schools have a number of

possibilities. For example, a TVEI curricular activity can be added to the existing provision without any change to the

structure of the existing activities. In this case the total number of school subjects will increase. Alternatively, the new subject can be used to replace one or more existing ones with others remaining as before. In this case, the total number of school subjects may either be the same or less than previously. Again, a new activity can be injected into one or more existing ones. Here, the total number of school subjects will be the same but the structure of some subjects would have changed. In

practice various combinations of these methods may be used but, whatever the method used, each will have different resource

implication.

Efficiency in the Use of Resources: It is argued here that in education generally, efficiency in the use of resources in relation to choices on curriculum organisation and resource

deployment needs to satisfy at least three conditions: first, the choice needs to meet the varying characteristics, needs and

interests of pupils; secondly, it should minimise the use of resources; and thirdly, it should have the potential of reducing the pressure on teachers. With respect to the first condition, it was earlier noted that pupils differ in ability, sex and

special educational needs. The extent to which activities are organised to take account of these differences, therefore,

determines the extent to which pupils educational needs are met. At the same time, different choices will make different resource demands which may or may not enhance the achievement of the other conditions.

In relation to the three conditions identified above, pupil and teacher-periods are typically used as measures of pupil and teacher involvement in curricular activities (Knight, 1983; Dennison, 1984). This implies that the choices relating to the core and option status and the relative allocation of periods to subjects, as well as pupil group sizes are relevant to the

achievement of efficiency in the use of resources.

Class sizes have both educational and resource implications. Educationally, a lower group size is claimed to be linked to educational effectiveness because it has the potential of

enabling teachers to give more attention to pupils. In resource terms, group size affects the economy of teacher utilisation. Thus a lowering of group size will mean the creation of more

groups and, therefore, the involvement of more teachers while the reverse will be the case if the group size is raised. In

general, class sizes need to be optimised but that does not necessarily mean making them as big as possible. The concern here, however, is less about the determination of that optimal point and more about examining the variations in group size between subjects and schools, the factors that lead to them and their effects on teacher utilisation.

Class size typically relates to timetabled activities of pupils and teachers. Apart from class size, therefore, it is also

important to have an idea of the ’out-of-class'

(out-of-timetable) time needed to support effective learning 'in-class*. This involves a consideration of teachers* contact and non-contact time or contact ratio (CR). The contact ratio is taken as the ratio between the time spent by teachers in

'face-to-face* contact with their classes and the total

number of timetabled periods in a week spent by a teacher on teaching as opposed to preparation and/or administration.

Considered in relation to individual teachers, a primary function of contact ratios is that they provide information on teachers’ teaching loads (teacher-periods) which can be used to determine over and under loading of teachers.

As a measure of teacher work load, however, Dennison (1984) points out that the contact ratio in fact needs to be combined with class size because the former does not take account of the number of pupils actually taught. Thus, it would be

inappropriate to say that two teachers with the same contact ratio have the same load when the total number of pupils taught by one is double those taught by the other.

Apart from teacher load, the relationship between group size and contact ratio can be explored in another way. For a given

staffing level in a school, there is an inverse relationship

between average class size and contact ratio. It is pertinent to point out that while the CR is a useful indicator of teachers’ face-to-face teaching time, it is not suitable for examining the amount of teacher time devoted to particular subjects. This is because the CR relates to individual teachers who typically teach various subjects. Teacher-periods, rather than CRs, are

therefore normally used when examining the utilisation of

teachers relative to individual subjects or the whole curriculum.

Decision Making: In general, the criteria on which schools make their choices will influence the outcomes of decisions. While some of the choices may be influenced by external factors, it is the decision criteria adopted within schools that are more

significant here. For example, many LEAs have been reported as not being fully prepared (mainly as a result of the short lead-in time) before embarking on the Initiative (MSC, 1985b; Stoney et aj_, 1996; Gleeson, 1987 and 1989; Bridgwood et al_, 1988).

Similarly, Harland, (1988) warns of 'front loading1, or the

purchasing of a l 1 equipment from the start without taking account of resource needs that might arise during utilisation, as that could result in resource redundancy. At the same time,

Seekington (1985, p. 28) also warns of the danger of schools drifting 'towards expensive and questionable over-arching structures*. While the first example is attributable to an

external factor, the other two clearly rest with particular LEAs and/or schools.

With respect to the nature of the decision criteria, two forms - objective-quantitative and subjective-qualitative have been

identified in relation to the rational and political management perspectives (Simkins and Lancaster, 1983; Simkins, 1989). These characteristics of decision criteria can therefore be used to examine decision processes. For example, in addressing

monitoring and evaluation, a range of options will be available to LEAs and schools. Taking two extreme examples, one approach would be to develop detailed, objective and explicit performance indicators which will be applied formally, uniformly and

systematically across the organisation at pre-determined

intervals. Such an approach implies a substantial gathering and analysis of data and formal and immediate feedback. At the other extreme, the approach would be to trust that everyone is doing the right thing, to informally discuss performance as part of 'staffroom chat*, and to provide feedback only when it is requested (assuming there is someting to feedback). It is

obvious that this latter approach involves little or no need for statistical data. The point being made here is that the roles of information and communication in the evaluation process are

relevant management issues, and that school practices lie at different points along this hypothetical continuum.

Finally, in this era of changing educational priorities in schools as reflected by the TVEI, it is clear that the relative status and power relationships between subjects or departments in the secondary curriculum will not remain stable. Thus subjects departments are likely to be rearranged into new hierarchies or other structures. In this transforamation process, some will emerge as 'winners’ and others as 'losers’. A number of issues, raised in this chapter, are indicative of relative winners and losers in TVEI implementation. What remains to be answered is what and who are concerned, and why? These and related issues are the subject of subsequent chapters.