Beyond compliance: teacher education practice in a performative framework

1. Beyond compliance: teacher education practice in a performative framework • Robert Lawy University of Exeter UK e-mail r.lawy@exeter.ac.uk • Michael Tedder University of Exeter UK e-mail m.t.tedder@exeter.ac.uk

2. Research • Funded by Quality Improvement Agency (QIA) - now [Learning and Skills Improvement Agency (LSIS)] -through the CETT • Individual Learning Plans (ILPs) and mentoring (Lawy & Tedder 2009) • Qualitative - semi-structured interviews (early 2008) • 10 students/trainees • 9 teacher educators • 9 managers

3. Some background • Lack of mandatory teacher training for FE lecturers • Teacher training based on statements of standards - FENTO (1999) LLUK (2007) and Ofsted reports • Measurable outcomes with tight regulation of standards • Core ideas of subject specificity and mentoring introduced • School sector reforms have been ‘successful’, hence the applicability to FE

4. Broader canvass • Change in education sector not unique to it – marketisation across public sector • Privatisation of sector (1992) – increased numbers of young people (100,000 more 16/18 now than in 1997) • Shift in discourse - Managers right to manage and teachers to teach • Autonomy and independence no longer part of FE lexicon – idea of professionalism - colonised by Institute for Learning (IfL) circumscribes criteria for ‘licence to practice’ in sector • Curriculum control ceded to external bodies (SVUK; ofsted etc)

5. Performativity[1] • Key idea of performativity - practice or policy technology involving the calculated deployment of forms of organisation and procedures and processes, and disciplines or bodies of knowledge to organise human forces and capabilities into functioning systems (Ball 2008). • Contradictions between perfomative demands and expectations of policy, and the assumptions that underpin it Performativity, through its chain of targets and accountability operates within a ‘blame culture’ where accountability becomes a means by which the institution can call to account its members. In many respects perfomativity is reminiscent of Fordist work relations in as much as the worker is tightly surveilled, with attempts to render transparent the details of practice. (Avis 2005)

6. Performativity [2] • Researchers have evidenced changes in the way that managers and teachers working in the FE sector have responded over the last few years to the ‘performative shift’ (Colley et al 2007; Shain and Gleeson, 1999) – allied to different notion of professionalism (e.g IfL) • Performative demands have shaped the presentation (fabrication) of workplace practice to meet auditable and accountability frameworks (Edward & Coffield 2007) • Recently Lawy & Tedder (in press) have identified the impact of the changes on the agency of teacher educators • Taking these ideas one step further Hayes (2003) notes a shift towards ‘forms of self-regulation that are open to a therapeutic orientation’ - broader issues of therapy culture here and role of mentors etc.

7. Findings – managers and tutors [1] • Tension between summative and developmental aspirations of mentoring - Mentoring towards Excellence (2001) & Equipping our Teachers for the Future (2004) • Tension also in respect of ethics – commitment to public service and duty, and to notions of professionalism – articulated in different ways • Specific concerns about use of ILPs If I’m honest, I didn’t really look at the standards at all, I was looking at the ILP itself and referring it back to the individuals… where people were stuck then having general discussions about it and, you know, kind of prompting thoughts with other people. (Maggie tutor)

8. Findings – managers and tutors [2] • Tales of reluctant compliance – many critical of current schema It is about challenging. It’s not about being a friend. It’s not about placating people and saying, “Yes you’re wonderful and you know, how can I help?” It’s about challenging… and about being critical and being, you know, “Have you thought about, what do you mean by that?”… Opening doors but not pushing people through them [laughs] (Jill tutor) • Jill was concerned the emphasis on self-evaluation and action planning - felt that students need to be given guidance and a skill-set and furnished with critical capabilities

9. Findings – managers and tutors [3] • Some mangers/tutors were troubled by conflicts and tensions .. going back to the mentoring, yep you need a buddy. You need that colleague; you need somebody who can say, ‘Well, that was rubbish wasn’t it?’ You say, ‘Yea it was rubbish!’ You also need someone to keep you going if, you know, to jolly you along and say, ‘Oh, keep, you know, nearly half-term’ sort of thing. Yes you need the professional standards, we need somebody who’s going to make a judgement on you and that’s my line-manager. (Claire Manager/tutor)

10. Findings – trainees [1] • Some tendency of trainees new to profession to espouse received views. But not all trainees were new entrants I think ILP’s are a funny thing anyway. I think they’re ultimately a bit of a waste of time, but I kind of - I know why we have to do them. It’s all to do with getting money… we haven’t done hardly anything ‘cos I think my mentor thinks they’re a bit of a waste of time as well. (Kate) • Kate was experienced in use of mentoring and ILPs. She commented on the sceptical attitude from her mentor that she saw as part of a wider staffroom culture in the college This attitude may have come from other people saying, “Oh load of rubbish.” You know, I work in a, I work in a staffroom, I hear people talking about stuff, “Blah, blah, blah, bloody ILPs” whatever. (Kate)

11. Findings – trainees [2] • Trainees were frustrated by the bureaucratic and functional nature of ILP systems and processes I think the, the value of [the standards] will perhaps kick in, you know, as everything else becomes more normal. At the moment, you know, I’m thinking all the time of the lesson plans, scheme of work, etcetera, etcetera. I’ve got to do this and once that becomes done, then you know, perhaps pay more attention and focus to the standards. (Ian) • Despite commitments on time – to their own students and to writing, marking and assessing – many of the trainees were focused on doing the necessary to meet the formal requirements

12. Conclusions and recommendations [1] • Confirmation of lack of clarity re mentor roles and functions • Identification of 4 different facets of mentoring • induction into an organisation • membership of the teaching profession (community of practice) • subject-pedagogy/specificity • personal development • Contradiction between formative and performative models – whether emphasis is focused on support or assessment

13. Formative model In confidence Formative purpose - focussed on personal and professional development Supportive through transitions Profession-centred Suitable for all Emphasis on networks Led by mentee Performative model Necessarily public Summative purpose - focussed on judgement of performance (performative) Concerned with standards Subject – centred Mainly for trainees Emphasis on individuals Led by mentor Conclusions and recommendations [2]

14. Final Thoughts • A question of priorities • Is it for trainees to become part of a community of practice and/or develop as a particular kind of teacher and/or as a subject specialist? • A suggestion … it is time that the emphasis was shifted away from the sterility of arguments about standards and away from the leaden bureaucracy of writing plans, records and policies. … Hence the proposal for a pedagogical mentoring function that is individually tailored to meet the developmental needs of each student teacher with a focus upon history and context (including external performative needs and requirements), curriculum and pedagogy. (Lawy & Tedder working paper)