Knaves, knights or networks: which assumption of lecturer and manager motivation should underlie further education policy?

Abstract

Julian Le Grand, a well-known economist, identifies two types of public sector employee: Knights (with altruistic motives) and Knaves (with self-interested motives). He argues that the quasi-market, predicated on the assumption of knavish behaviour (or agent self-interest), is the most effective way of directing school managers and teachers towards improving education outputs at lower unit cost. In this article a review of the literature on the English post-incorporation FE quasi-market is undertaken [under the Conservative government (1993), New Labour (1997 and the Coalition government (2010)(2011)(2012)(2013)(2014)] to assess if such a premise is correct. The conclusion from the review is that an over focus on policy, premised on agent self-interest, has limited improvements in the quality of education outputs and needs-based equity for disadvantaged students because such policy marginalises other motivational (Osterloh, Frey, and Frost, 2001). This article reviews the FE literature to assess the extent to which the assumption of agent selfinterest underlying FE policy has been effective in improving the quality of education outputs in FE in line with the human capital requirements of business and needs-based equity for disadvantaged students. The key conclusion is that the governance of post-incorporation FE Colleges, under the Conservative administration, New Labour and the current Coalition government, has over emphasised agent self-interest as a key motivator, at the expense of motivational inputs of productive value such as lecturer intrinsic motivation and professional values. This, a significant body of research on FE suggests (e.g. Hodkinson, 1997;Avis et al., 2001;Gleeson and James, 2007;James and Biesta, 2007) has been to the detriment of the skills agenda, but also needs-based equity for disadvantaged learners. Such a notion of fairness would require education policy to be egalitarian; in particular to direct lecturer and manager effort towards the most disadvantaged in society from lower socio-economic groups or with learning difficulties (Crump, 1994, p. 2, cited in Gerwitz et al., 1995.A significant FE literature also suggests (e.g. Coffield et al., 2008;Hodgson and Spours, 2009) that to more effectively utilise the productive potential of intrinsic motivation and professional values, in line with the skills agenda and needs-based equity, a more trusting form of governance is required; in particular a shift in the nature of governance from hierarchy (involving regulation of processes through government imposed standards) to open systems (devolution to those on the ground) and from rational goals (targets, PIs and the monitoring of outputs) to self-governance (improving agent commitment through capacity building, training and development) (Newman, 2001).

Academic staff governors’ power and professional status in the governance of further education colleges in England

“…This educating function demonstrated the professional criterion related to the ownership of specialist knowledge (Nerland 2016). The findings also reinforced the assertions in previous research that practising teachers and lecturers are an invaluable source of expertise in educational governance (Marchington 2015;Boocock 2015;Earley and Creese 2000;Linter 2001;Pounce 1992) and therefore, could raise their professional status in governance (Nerland 2016).…”

Mission impossible? A strategic approach to improving the recruitment and retention of further education and training teachers in England

“…These options are juxtaposed against the report's assertion that what motivates people to enter FE teaching is the opportunity of working with young people and adults and belonging to a professional body that helps them to gain qualifications and undertake professional development (ETF, 2022). This finding is not new, but rather confirms a growing body of work on teacher employment drivers and aspirations where "making a difference" and "giving back to the community" are reasons given for starting an FET career (Boocock, 2015;Ofsted, 2019;DfE, 2018).…”

Meeting the needs of local communities and businesses: From transactional to eco-leadership in the English further education sector

“…Such a policy may be criticised for having little regard for the heterogeneity of education, the prior attainment of students or differing levels of advantage/disadvantage in terms of social and cultural capital. It meant that colleges with higher numbers of disadvantaged students were judged unfairly in the education market as such students were unable to achieve at the level of the average student encapsulated in national benchmarks (Boocock, 2015).…”

“…Such a policy may be criticised for having little regard for the heterogeneity of education, the prior attainment of students or differing levels of advantage/disadvantage in terms of social and cultural capital. It meant that colleges with higher numbers of disadvantaged students were judged unfairly in the education market as disadvantaged students were unable to achieve at the level of the average student encapsulated in national benchmarks (Boocock, 2015). The validity of such success rates as a proxy measure for improved student performance is, however, questionable given the evidence of gaming behaviours including student plagiarism and ghost writing (Ainley and Allen, 2010), lecturers marking student work repetitively until all assessment criteria are achieved (i.e.…”