La vieja historia de las desigualdades y las exclusiones

The TVEI policy is encapsulated in the TVEI Aims and Criteria as developed by the Training Agency. Those aims and criteria,

represent more than guidelines because, in addition to forming the basis on which LEAs developed their TVEI proposals, they are also expected to inform and direct the implementation of the

Initiative and provide a basis for its evaluation. The Aims and Criteria have been reproduced in Appendix I. As can be seen, the TVEI guidelines are relatively explicit although substantial

scope exists, and indeed is recognised in the guidelines, for local initiatives. Hence the indication (Aim b.v) that

individual projects are to be managed at the local level. The guidelines also have important implications for the management of the Initiative and it might be useful to briefly comment on some of them before proceeding to the discussion of the Initiative’s implementation in projects.

The first point is that the TVEI is concerned with both

curriculum content and teaching methods. This is reflected by the explicit reference to the provision of general, vocational

and technical programmes (content) and to the need for schools to be more practical and to help students to develop problem solving skills (method). Secondly, the guidelines recognise that changes

in the curriculum and teaching methods will, necessarily, also make some demands for administrative and management changes. Thirdly, the guidelines contain some clear assumptions about

curriculum and management arrangements. Thus in developing their programmes, LEAs and schools are expected to provide for equal opportunities, work experience, careers guidance and records of achievement. Similarly, with respect to management, the

appointment of project co-ordinators is reflected in the guidelines. This implies that projects will show some

similarities in terms of the provision of certain activities and positions. Also, the emphasis on accountability and cost

effectiveness as well as on careful monitoring and evaluation suggests that TVEI programmes need to be relatively identifiable in terms of activities and how resources relate to them.

An issue which has attracted considerable comment from writers has been the method adopted by the TA for funding the TVEI. The funding arrangements for TVEI programmes, called by some

'categorical funding* (Harland, 1987; Fulton, 1987) and by others 'honeypot management* (Knight, 1987) have involved LEAs in quite a new form of operation (Dale, 1986; Baines, 1987) in which the contract, accountability, monitoring and evaluation are the key characteristics. Harland (1987) argues that policy

implementation through categorical funding comprises several distinct stages:

a policy is developed

funds, generous enough to attract those who can and may deliver, are made available.

voluntary co-operation is invited in exchange for a share of the resources.

- acceptance of the resources is equated with acceptance of policy and ability to deliver.

From the perspective of the Training Agency, therefore, the T VEI’s delivery system consists of a process of competitive bidding in which LEAs compete for resources through their

proposals; of a contract whereby acceptance of funds on the part of an LEA amounts to a bond to deliver; and of categorical

funding in which activities and outcomes resulting from the utilisation of the funds received need to be identifiable for accountability and replication purposes.

There are some obvious implications of categorical funding for education management in general and the management of TVEI in particular. For example, Saunders (1986 and 1988) has identified a number of 'models’ of implementation which reflect different degrees of integration between TVEI and schools’ overall

curricula: adaptive/extension, accommodation and containment. The 'adaptive/extension’ model represents a strong interpretation of TVEI in which a school experiments with the philosophy of the

Initiative across the whole school. Saunders refers to this tendency to spread TVEI developments across the school in the TVEI pilot as 'pre-emptive replication’. Next is the

'accommodation’ model in which TVEI programmes are adapted to fit the general shape of existing arrangements. Finally,

'containment’ represents the weakest interpretation of TVEI as its effect is confined and absorbed by existing school practices. Contrary to categorical funding, which implies that participation amounts a to contract to deliver, this analysis suggests that a willingness to participate is not necessary a contract to deliver according to specifications. The word 'specification’ is

a strong interpretation of TVEI, the 'pre-emptive replication* of

TVEI

requirement that its activities should be clearly identifiable. In other words, the model does not deliver according to the

implied specifications. The analysis therefore indicates that no clear or causal connection can be assumed to exist between policy and practice, and there may well not be congruence between policy

intentions and the reality of implementation.

In resource management terms, the implication of categorical funding is as much about curriculum relevance as about

differences in emphasis and priorities regarding, for instance, the deployment of resources or the balance between educational and financial accountability. With respect to accountability, Fulton (1987, p. 220) has suggested that 'it seems inevitable that the use of categorical funding will create a

disproportionate emphasis on financial as opposed to educational accountability*. Although categorical funding may enhance

accountability by narrowing the scope which LEAs and schools have for committing resources, other pressures and constraints within the implementation arena may prove more influential in the

determination of what goes on and how it goes on in schools. This will now be examined as we turn to the management of TVEI

projects and its implications for educational practice.