Transferencias del BCB para el Bono Juana Azurduy

The FE sector was founded by the 1944 Education Act, at a time when national and local government had a general agreement on educational policy and the way technical and vocational education should be delivered. The impact of the economic crises of the 1970s and the rise of free market thinking in the

Thatcher government years however, led to a significant shift in public sector and educational thinking towards a market driven education system. Policy shifts in the 1980s and 90s focused government agendas predominantly on economic priorities. This era saw a significant change in emphasis on public sector management towards efficiency and targets, raising standards and

ensuring value for money (Leathwood 2000). In FE the impact of these changes was felt across every aspect of college business, colleges were expected to deliver new and challenging quality outcomes whilst cutting costs and embracing a new business style.

As outlined in Chapter 2 the Further and Higher Education Act of 1992 had the most seminal effect on the FE sector during this period, changing the landscape for colleges and college managers fundamentally and irrevocably. The Act removed the sector from the ownership and management of local education authorities (LEAs) and colleges became independent corporate bodies funded directly by central government. The government at the time saw the freeing up of colleges from the constraints of local authority control as a way of creating a market driven, business oriented and learner responsive sector directly funded from government (Bush 1999; Simkins and Lumby 2002). The sector

commonly described itself in the early days as businesses in an education market, Peter Kingston of the Guardian described the new model as:

“A market-oriented approach to further education….Nowhere in the public sector has the pace of change been more rapid than in further education, triggered by the "incorporation" of colleges in 1993 and their independence from local authorities” (P Kingston, The Guardian, 2 September 2008).

As outlined in chapter 2 this greater freedom however came with other control mechanisms – government regulations restricting the remit of college governing bodies and strict external inspection regimes that changed regularly depending on the age and status of learners (Ofsted 2003; 2005; 2007).

This shift of emphasis to running a business and creating economic impact put pressure on colleges to reform their curriculum and delivery to ensure it was efficient and responsive to the needs of the economy. College managers were now being held to account in terms of efficiency, competition and performance from the new funding and quality assurance agencies (Leathwood 2000; Hannagan et al. 2007). Generally FE colleges were perceived as not fully realising their potential; incorporation liberated the individual college, but failed to provide a basis for local strategic planning (Foster 2005). The challenges

that this posed for managers in FE was how to respond to the tidal wave of policy changes and competitive pressures in a positive and productive way. What leadership was needed to allow a college to survive and grow in such turbulent circumstances and how could managers adapt and learn new skills to allow them to succeed in the new landscape?

The literature suggested that as FE moved into the twenty-first century, leaders and managers needed to rethink their conceptions of how to respond to the rapid change (Stoll and Fink 1996). The single largest challenge facing college managers was how to manage change in their institutions to enable the

business to respond to the tidal wave of contradictory policy and funding drivers in order to survive and thrive. If this was the single biggest challenge then it was important to recognise the huge difficulties facing managers in effecting change. Fullan (2001) warned that if there was one cardinal rule of change in human condition, it was that you cannot make people change, you cannot force them to think differently or compel them to develop new skills:

“The real crunch comes in the relationships between these new

programs or policies and the thousands of subjective realities embedded in people’s individual and organisational contexts and their personal histories” (Fullan 2001, p.46).

The leadership approaches adopted traditionally in the college sector were predominantly transactional, it was about getting the job done. Yet this style no longer suited the dynamic commercial world that colleges inhabited (Briggs 2001, 2005; Lumby 2003). The need for leaders to move into a more

transformational approach was never greater, to allow them to shape individuals to be able to respond and react positively to change, to embrace challenges and overcome resistance.

There was also clear recognition of the personal nature of change in the

literature: it was inescapably and intensely personal, because it required people to do something different, to think something different and to feel something different (Duck 1993). Experience of change was highlighted as a key factor to individual resistance to change. Research showed that, for many, the

experience of change had been bleak (Bush 1999, Briggs 2001, 2005; Simkins

and Lumby 2002; Lumby 2003). FE was in a negative position in implementing change due to the many and varied initiatives that had been implemented and failed over the years. In many situations (Kotter 1996; Fullan 1993; Plant 1987; Judson 1991) the improvements had been disappointing and the change was appalling, with wasted resources and burned-out, scarred or frustrated

employees. Fullan (1993) summarised the problem aptly when he concluded:

“Reform is badly needed, yet people’s experience with change is overwhelmingly negative – imposition is the norm, costs outweigh benefits, the few successes are short-lived” (Fullan 1993, p.353).

Naturally when so many in education had had such bleak experiences of change a key challenge was overcoming the subsequent resistance that

individuals exhibited towards it. Individual barriers were many and varied (table 3.1). The range and variety of individual barriers shown in the table showed the complexity and challenges facing a change agent.

Barriers/Rejections

Values - where the proposed change challenges one’s values system, lack of conviction. (Dalin 1978; Katzenbach and Smith 1993).

Power - where people may accept an innovation if it brings them greater power, or they may resist it if it diminishes their power. (Dalin 1978; Buchanan and Body 1992; Plant 1987; Judson 1991; Foucault 1980; Layder 1994).

Psychological/emotional – where people resist the challenge to security, confidence, emotional well-being and homeostasis that change brings. (Dalin 1978; Clarke et al.1994; Deal and Peterson 1990; Katzenbach and Smith 1993; Burnes 1996; Plant 1987; Judson 1991).

Practical - where people will resist change if it threatens to deskill them, if the investment in reskilling is too daunting, or if resources are insufficient to support the change. Threat to core skills and competence. Concerns about how the change will be implemented. (Dalin 1978; Plant 1987; Judson 1991).

Social - Poor relationships. Strong peer group norms. The degree of trust in colleagues. (Plant 1987; Judson 1991).

Fear of inadequacy and admissions of weakness - Fear of failure or looking stupid. (Bowman and Asch 1987; Plant 1987).

Fear of loss of present status and current job satisfaction – (Bowman and Asch 1987).

Ignorance - insufficient information about the change. (Clarke et al.1994; Buchanan and Body 1992; Plant 1987).

Doubt – people are unsure of the value of the change. (Clarke et al.1994). Situational factors – what is being proposed is not seen as an improvement on existing practice. (Clarke et al.1994; Plant 1987).

Previous experience of change – ‘we’ve tried this before and it didn’t work’. (Morrison 1998; Lumby 2003; Sarason 1996; Fullan 1993; Kotter 1996; Plant 1987; Judson 1991).

Table 3.1 Review of theories of individual barriers to change

The key for leaders was to develop methods and approaches that allowed them to think about the challenges posed in a changing sector and how to lead

individuals through change removing barriers and reducing obstacles (Briggs 2001). In any large, complex organisation change needed to be carefully

planned, well resourced and have the involvement and support of the academic staff (Crosling et al. 2008). Gunter et al. (2007) highlighted where change had been successful and suggested the reason why:

“The qualitative data clearly revealed that the project was perceived as a success as it was linked to evidence of visible positive differences to working lives” (Gunter et al. 2007, p.29).

The literature showed that individual resistance to change was natural and perhaps unavoidable (Morrison 1998; Fullan 1993, 2001; Buchanan and Body 1992; Dalin 1978). It was also important to consider whether resistance to change should always be regarded as negative. Teachers and managers that questioned the constant and all encompassing drive for change were

considered as mavericks, yet some academics (Coffield 2007; Coffield et al. 2008; Coffield 2008; Edward et al. 2007) agreed that the impact of policy on the post compulsory sector was far reaching and challenging and the sector needed a voice of dissent.