See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/281112447

Leadership Challenges

Book · January 2005

CITATIONS READS

5 10,562

2 authors:

David L Collinson Margaret Collinson

Lancaster University Lancaster University
194 PUBLICATIONS 10,113 CITATIONS 33 PUBLICATIONS 1,092 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by David L Collinson on 23 August 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Working paper series

The nature of leadership

Leadership
Challenges
Margaret Collinson and Professor David Collinson
 Working Paper Notices

Working Papers

Many of the documents in this series are prepublication/preprint articles, which may
subsequently appear (part or whole) in peer reviewed journals and books. In most cases they
are draft documents, the purpose of which is to foster discussion and debate, prior to
publication elsewhere, whilst ideas are still fresh.

This paper relates to Working Paper LUMSWP2005-038. Further information about research
programmes and other papers in this series can also be found at the following websites:
http://www.lums.lancs.ac.uk/leadership/cel/ or http://www.centreforexcellence.org.uk

Citation notice

Citation should conform to normal academic standards. Please use the reference provided or,
where a paper has entered into print elsewhere, use normal journal/book citation conventions.

Copyright

The Copyright of all publications on work commissioned by Centre for Excellence in Leadership
is owned by Inspire Learning Ltd, from whom permission should be sought before any materials
2 are reproduced. Short sections of text, not to exceed two paragraphs, may be quoted without
explicit permission, provided that full acknowledgement is given.

Centre for Excellence in Leadership

The Centre for Excellence in Leadership (CEL) is a Leadership College funded by the Department
of Education and Skills (DfES) to whom all the results of the research project will be reported.

Disclaimer

This project has been commissioned by, but does not necessarily reflect the views of the Centre
for Excellence in Leadership.

Contact Details

Centre for Excellence in Leadership

Lancaster Leadership Centre
Lancaster University Management School
Gillow Avenue
Lancaster
LA1 4YX

Professor David Collinson

Project Co-Director and Researcher
Tel. No. 01524 593147
Email: d.collinson@lancaster.ac.uk

Margaret Collinson
Project Co-Director and Researcher
Email: m.collinson@lancaster.ac.uk
Contents

Introduction 4

From Community to Commercialism 5

The Power of Auditing? 7

Leadership Style 11

Staff Commitment 12

Barriers to Staff Retention and Recruitment 13

Barriers to Career Succession and Career Planning 15

The Impact of Inequalities 16

Working Environment 17

Extending Access 19
3
Gender and Extending Access 23

Learning Skills Councils and Extending Access 25

Conclusion 26

Recommendations 27

Further Information and Contacts 29

Bibliography 30
 Introduction

“I was told that the problem for us is that people above us say ‘F.E.
takes anybody’. This is stated as a negative. I said I am proud to
say that ‘we take everybody’. Our message to the community is,
‘come to us and we will help you reach your potential’.”

The previous working paper, (Leader-Led Relations in Context), emphasised the

importance of context for understanding leader-led relations in the UK post-16
education sector. It also outlined some initial findings about the widely perceived
significance of leadership in the sector and the broadly preferred leadership style
based on consultation. One of the most enlightening findings of our research
to date is the extent of staff morale, commitment, dedication and
professionalism. Given that the U.K. government saw leadership in the sector
4 as problematic, we had expected to encounter a demoralised and passive
workforce. But far from it, we have repeatedly interviewed staff at various
hierarchical levels who are highly committed to ‘making a difference’ and to
enhancing the learning and social benefits for students in the sector.

Yet, despite these positive findings, we have also discovered a number of key,
frequently interwoven ‘leadership challenges’ for the post-16 sector. These relate to the
issues of power, distance and inequality discussed earlier and are now elaborated
below. This second working paper seeks to highlight some of the issues that impact
negatively on leadership within the sector generally and on staff, students and
institutions more specifically. First, it explores the impact of intensified monitoring and
auditing on post-16 leadership and leader-led relations. Second, it examines several
issues related to inequality (for both students and FE Colleges) that constitute
significant ‘leadership challenges’ and barriers to effective leader-led relations. Third,
this paper offers specific recommendations that we are beginning to feed back into
the sector based on the foregoing preliminary empirical analysis.
From Community to
Commercialism
The nature and extent of government monitoring of the whole U.K. education sector
has intensified in recent years. This has produced a very turbulent working
environment in which change has become a constant reality (Leithwood et al 1999).
Within the educational literature there is a growing recognition of the need for leaders
in education to cope with change, complexity and paradoxical reform initiatives (Day et
al 2000). Within the FE sector, this change represents a broad shift from ‘community’ to
‘commercialism’.”

In recent years the post-16 sector has seen the introduction of a ‘new managerial’ culture
characterised by much greater attention to performance monitoring and standardized
targets, increased competition between institutions and the general encouragement of a
much more entrepreneurial way of organising post-16 education. Issues around financial
and behavioural monitoring are of crucial importance for leadership in the post-16
education sector. There is now much greater government influence over the everyday
practices of FE and 6th Form Colleges in terms of rigorous targets, Learning Skills
Council, (LSC) funding and budget controls and numerous audits.
5

Designed to increase accountability and transparency, these changes at national level

have intensified work across the post-16 education sector. Local autonomy has been
eroded as the number of inspections and auditing processes have increased
dramatically. In addition to added workloads, pressures and stress, this can produce a
conflict, highlighted by some respondents, between these new more commercial
values and more traditional notions of the intrinsic value of education as an end in
and of itself. It was often for these more intrinsic and community-based reasons that
many of those interviewed so far originally decided to take-up a career in the post-16
education sector. Increasing commercialism sits somewhat uncomfortably with the
more traditional role and values of the post-16 education sector and it produces a
number of tensions, as the following comments illustrate,
 “I was told that the problem for us is that people above us say ‘F.E. takes
anybody’. This is stated as a negative. I said I am proud to say that ‘we take
everybody’. Our message to the community is, ‘come to us and we will help
you reach your potential’.”

“The most successful 6th Form in this area offers the least options for students.
That is supposed to be an example to us! Yet, we are covering a multitude of
needs within the community in terms of learning. The government is constantly
talking about choice, it just doesn’t make sense.”

Many respondents remain attached to the traditional community-based role of the F.E.
colleges. Hence, alongside the traditional role of the F.E. colleges as the providers of
community-based learning opportunities is a growing pressure on the post-16
education sector to be much more commercially accountable and to be structured,
6 organised and controlled by tight financial targets and priorities.
The Power of Auditing?

A key finding that has emerged in research interviews so far focuses on these
performance targets and funding mechanisms that are now routinely used in the post-
16 sector. These are an important mechanism through which the Government and the
LSCs seek to provide leadership for the sector. Interviewees repeatedly highlight what
they see as the excessive monitoring and contradictory funding mechanisms that
characterise the post-16 sector. Many respondents at various hierarchical levels express
the view that the multiplicity of audits has now reached counter-productive levels.

A number of respondents in senior positions complain that the amount of staff needed
to provide the very detailed information to service and satisfy the audit requirements of
the different bodies is extremely expensive and unsustainable for F.E. and 6th Form
colleges. The frustration of many respondents is increased by the belief that much of
the micro data required for different audits and assessments is of little real value. One
of our case study FE Colleges is subject to the following audits:

7
Financial Statements Audit

(Annual audit of the accuracy and fairness of the contents of the financial
statements. The opinion is expressed to the Corporation Board).

Regularity Audit

(Annual opinion on the regularity and probity of the expenditure that the
college makes. The opinion is expressed to the Corporation Board and to the
LSC).

Internal Audit

(60 day programme of audit assignments that are performed by an

independent third party to give the Board assurance that financial controls are
working effectively. The Board approve annually the areas to be audited).

PFA Audit

(Provider Financial Assurance arm of the LSC are part of the inspection process
that look at the Governance and Financial Management aspects. Not annual
but in line with inspection cycle).

ILR Audit

(Individualised Learner Record audit is an annual audit of the accuracy of the

learner record system, returns and claims for funding made to the LSC.
Auditors are employed by LSC and opinion is to LSC).
 Many research respondents express the view that the government in the guise of the
LSCs has become fixated with auditing as the solution to all leadership and
management problems in the sector. Their comments not only raise issues about how
the government is exercising leadership within the sector, but also about how national-
level policies might compromise leadership within post-16 organisations.

Our preliminary research suggests that the extent and the nature of the auditing
processes may well be damaging leadership at local level, especially in the eyes of
followers, as the following comments indicate.

“Work in the post-16 education sector is frequently driven by performance

targets. One of the problems here is that these different targets can be in
tension with one another. Leaders and more junior staff alike are under intense
pressure to achieve multiple and at times conflicting government targets.”

8 “The Learning and Skills Council are much more performance related but they
keep changing the goalposts. We have postcode funding and a ferocious audit
regime with no tolerance. We are paid three times a year. If the students are
here in November we get the funding. If they are gone in February then we
have no funding. Therefore most lecturers have retention targets per course.
This does not take into account that in this area we have a transient
population with a lot of students passing through. We also have an area in
which it is easy for young people to get work. So students often move on or
are drawn away from study to earn quick money.”

“There is so much time devoted to the data collection that drives funding.
The number of staff needed to service data collection is unbelievable.”

It is very evident from our research so far that the social, political and financial
conditions and consequences of target-driven evaluation systems, mediated through
the LSCs, constitutes a central challenge for local leadership in the post-16 sector.

A number of respondents have argued that the policy of ‘management by audit’

produces a significant disparity: while the LSCs require detailed performance
information from FE Colleges and 6th Form Centres, they provide little or no guidance
on likely future plans for the sector. The Government and the LSCs demand highly
specific data, frequently updated very regularly, even in some cases on a daily basis,
to calculate funding. Yet, by contrast, mid and long term policy on education seems
to be a complete mystery to many we have interviewed in the sector.
 They also feel very distant and unable to influence strategic decision-making made at
LSC and Government department level. To many of our interviewees, there appears to
be a fundamental inconsistency in the way that leadership at this level is being
enacted within the post-16 sector.

In addition, many respondents view governmental policies in relation to education as

perpetually in a state of flux and change, which in turn can create confusion and
frustration at local level, as one FE College Principal explained,

“There are a lot of pressures from outside, a multitude of targets and at times,
conflicting targets. There are real pressures to achieve phenomenal targets.
Nobody objects to being accountable but this constant changing of the
goalposts is very difficult. Funding regimes in FE are highly complex.
IF GOVERNMENT WOULD JUST GET OFF OUR BACKS FOR 5 MINUTES!”

“This is the worst period of instability in relation to F.E. funding ever.” 9

One 6th Form Head expressed his considerable frustration,

“The Government want changes yesterday. Instead of a 2 year plan we need a

10 year plan. The government changes the aims annually. These changes are
imposed on us. They don’t just move the goalposts they move the pitch! The
problem is that politicians are worried about headlines and the next election.
In my view education should come out of politics. If I wasn’t retiring, I would
pack it in!”

A further related issue which has recently arisen in the research is that in 2005 the
LSC in one region of the country has advised colleges (mid-year) that, due to LSC
over-spending, they need to claw-back £3 million pounds from the whole of the
education sector. This claw-back is being imposed on colleges by the LSC. Many
college principals see this as a breach of trust and are considering how to respond.
Most senior staff we have interviewed believe they will have to accept the LSC’s
demands for this claw-back, as the comments of one finance officer illustrate,

“They can ask, we can say no, but the perception is, if you resist
them you will be penalised next year.”
 This unexpected claw-back announcement has strengthened the view of senior staff
in the sector that funding commitments given to colleges by the LSC are increasingly
perceived to be totally unreliable. It suggests to many of our respondents that the
stated LSC policy of operating with a three year planning cycle now seems little more
than ‘hollow words’. Several respondents have highlighted the point that while FE
Colleges are held to account by LSCs and are penalised for ‘poor’ performance or
inconsistent practice, the same does not appear to be the case for LSCs themselves.

“Policy development from the LSC is on the hoof.”

“The LSC has said that the three year development planning is off,
they will only look at year 05-06.”

10 Such (perceived) inconsistencies raise fundamental questions about the

relationship of the LSC to FE Colleges, about how performance is managed
and how leadership is enacted. They also raise questions about the local and
national LSC management structure, financial controls and accountability.

A particularly important and recurrent finding here is that Principals, Heads and other
senior managers have lost confidence in the LSCs. Although they frequently acknowledge
a collaborative relationship with their local LSC representatives, they view these local
organisations merely as conduits for national LSC agendas. The main concern of national
level LSCs is financial control through the management of targets that are in turn driven
by central government. Hence, the Principals and Heads we have interviewed in both F.E.
Colleges and 6th Forms consider local LSCs to be largely powerless bodies who simply
provide a buffer zone to ensure the implementation of national LSC policy. On the one
hand, F.E. leaders emphasise that they have developed, and wish to maintain, very cordial
and collaborative relations with local LSC representatives. On the other hand, the national
LSC organisation and its policy-making is perceived to be too rigid and mechanistic to
respond to any specific local issues raised by Principals.

Hence, a key preliminary research finding here is the disillusionment of both leaders and
led in FE colleges and 6th Forms with the intensified audit culture and with the
contribution of the local and national LSCs to the post-16 sector. Whilst this was not an
initial focus of the research, respondents have repeatedly highlighted this issue (without
prompting from us). It raises fundamental questions regarding leadership in education
both at national and local levels. The fundamental impact of this audit culture in the post-
16 sector also has a number of very important ‘knock-on’ effects in the sector in terms of
leadership style, staff commitment, retention and recruitment and career succession,
which are now considered in turn.
Leadership Style

As stated in the first working paper, respondents’ widely preferred leadership style is
consultative and open. However, when asked whether there are any barriers to
adopting their preferred leadership style, various respondents have highlighted a
number of issues, many of which are related to the audit culture in the post-16 sector.

Q. What are the key barriers and dilemmas you face in implementing your
preferred leadership style?

FE Principals and other senior managers acknowledge that the pressurised

culture of responding to numerous, highly demanding audits and sometimes
unrealistic targets can force them to adopt a more directive, controlling and
detached leadership style, even though this is not their preferred approach.
The auditing demands of governing agencies and their multiple, sometimes
conflicting, targets mean that in certain circumstances, Principals are not able to
fully utilize their preferred leadership style.
11

This in turn can erode trust in leadership further down the hierarchy. The research
has found that staff at lower levels of the organisation frequently believe that the
Principal’s leadership style reflects their personality and values. Hence, the
relationship and trust between Principal and more junior staff, between leaders
and led, can suffer because of the severity of the targets imposed on educational
organisations by LSCs and central government and the pressures this produces
within post-16 organisations. It is sometimes difficult for those in leadership
positions to act in consistent ways given the changing nature of the pressures
and expectations placed upon them from outside funding bodies. In this sense,
these pressures for ever-more accountability and scrutiny may actually be
damaging and eroding leaders’ credibility (especially in the eyes of ‘followers’)
within the post-16 education sector.
 Staff Commitment

The first working paper outlined our finding of the high level of staff commitment to
their students, programmes, colleges and communities. This commitment is set
against the ever-increasing changes and pressures within the sector. However, the
research has also found that staff’s energy and enthusiasm is under threat due to
increasing workloads and ever changing targets. The research so far, has identified
that the key constraints on staff motivation are a lack of time and money, as the
following statements illustrate,

Q. What are the most significant constraints that impact on staff motivation?

“Staff feel that they are constantly being asked to do more for less.”

“Time is a key constraint. There is just not enough time to discuss issues fully
with people. I need more time, all the staff need more time.”

“The workload is so diverse. The paperwork is horrendous! Then there is the

12
teaching time and we are also internal examiners for each others’ work. On top
of that, the key criteria for my assessment is, improve student attendance,
absenteeism, retention and also update my qualifications.”

“Everyone is bogged down. Staff work so hard. I used to do outreach to the

community but I can’t do that anymore due to time pressures. We really need
to give people more time.”

“Lack of money. For example we had a change of systems twice, this means
we need a change of books but there is no money. The first change, we made
do with the books, but with the second change, we just could not do that. We
were told to improvise and use the internet. It can be so demoralising.”

“Strategies are introduced and it is not clear to anyone what value they have.
We just do not have the time or money to play around with these things. Then
resistance occurs from departments and senior people wonder why!”
 Barriers to Staff Retention and
Recruitment
An important leadership challenge within FE colleges in particular is staff retention and
recruitment. This is a constant concern for employees at various hierarchical levels.
Within FE colleges pay levels and terms and conditions (such as teaching hours and
holiday entitlement) tend to compare unfavourably with those in schools and
especially in 6th Forms Centres. As a result FE Colleges are experiencing a ‘brain
drain’ from the college to the schools sector of experienced staff due to these
comparative inequalities in pay and benefit levels.

This loss of staff to schools and 6th Forms presents significant problems and
contradictions for senior and middle managers. Research respondents have described
various examples of staff who have resigned to take up a position within schools or
6th Forms after their managers had been unable to grant a request for a pay rise.
Paradoxically, the same managers were then forced to advertise the position and
ultimately had to pay the replacement person the equivalent, or, in some cases even
more than, the original staff member who had requested a salary increase.

13

“It is really frustrating. I have just lost a really long-standing and

highly valued member of staff to a local 6th Form. She didn’t want
to leave and I did not want to lose her because she is excellent in
all areas of her work. She really was committed to the college, but,
at the end of the day, I could not offer her any kind of a pay rise.
The real sting for me is that, we have had to offer her replacement,
who is much less experienced, a higher salary, and I know if we
had offered this increase to ‘Sally’ she would have stayed.”

“In the last year I have lost three experienced and valued staff to
school sixth forms. It is so frustrating because I know none of them
wanted to leave. They were longstanding staff who felt a deep
connection to the college. But what can I do, except wish them
well? I just could not reward them. It can be soul destroying to
have to watch it happen.”
 “You need to make sure that staff are told ‘well done’. However,
realistically pay is a big issue. Salary levels have now slipped
below schoolteachers. We are struggling to reward and recruit.
This is true across the sector. The government gives money but
then takes it away again i.e. National Insurance. People in the
sector don’t feel as valued in pay terms.”

“I want to be able to give my staff a regular pay rise. I can deal with
all the rubbish round the edges but I want to reward them.”

14 Most research respondents recognise that the staff who leave tend to be the most
marketable teachers. This means that there is pressure on new recruits to provide the
same very high level of courses and to manage and discipline classes for students
whose expectations have been shaped by more experienced teachers.

Pay is therefore a key leadership issue for the sector generally and FE colleges
particularly. When leaders are unable to retain their most experienced and valued staff,
their power and authority as leaders can begin to be eroded in the eyes of their
subordinates. Equally, it can intensify their own workload, not least because they have
to invest precious time in recruiting new colleagues.

One middle manager in an FE College explained that after being unable to dissuade
several highly experienced members of his department from leaving, he was forced to
recruit much less experienced replacement staff who he then had to coach in the
skills of producing interesting classes and in disciplining students. Although this
‘tutoring of the tutors’ was not part of his job description, it became a priority
responsibility and resulted in him having to neglect other important aspects of his
formal responsibilities.
 Barriers to Career Succession
and Career Planning
Respondents, especially Principals, have also expressed the view that the audit culture
is hampering succession planning. Principals we have interviewed are of the view that
the increasingly diverse and intensified workload of Principals is becoming a
significant barrier to senior and middle managers applying for jobs at Principal level.
Interviews with staff at different levels of the colleges have supported this perception.
Many respondents from senior manager to lecturer level emphasise that the job of
Principal is highly stressful and in some cases almost impossible. As the following
senior manager stated,

“I could never do the Principal’s job. It is so diverse. You have to

know what goes on in the college, what is happening in the
region, what is going on at a political level. You need to be out in
the community, seen to be active at all levels within the college,
15
keep up-to-date with the constant changes from the politicians,
deal with all the Government bodies and manage the finances. It
is an impossible job.”

To summarise, our research has found that the intensified and seemingly all-pervasive
audit culture is tending to erode and damage leadership within the post-16 sector. In
some cases respondents’ preferred consultative style of leadership is being
compromised in order to meet targets and satisfy auditors. The growing pressures of
work and the lack of time and money are increasingly impacting negatively on staff
commitment, retention, recruitment and succession planning.
 The Impact of Inequalities

In many ways the FE sector is at the ‘leading edge’ of disadvantage in their local
communities. FE colleges play a crucial role in providing a 2nd chance for those
students who, for a multitude of reasons, have under-achieved in mainstream
education and/or who experience barriers to their education as a result of
disadvantage, poverty and other domestic problems. Yet, not only is this valuable role
often under-appreciated, but colleges themselves can become trapped within a similar
vicious cycle of disadvantage to that experienced by some F.E. students. Certainly,
within the UK education sector, FE colleges are frequently perceived as low status
educational institutions, dealing with the most deprived and difficult students. They are
viewed as the ‘poor relations’ of the U.K. education system. From Principals down, staff
in the FE sector have expressed strong views that their sector has not received the
funding and support enjoyed by other areas of the UK education sector such as
schools, sixth form centres and universities. Respondents have referred to FE Colleges
as the ‘Cinderella sector’ of UK education.

16 In many research interviews so far, respondents have expressed, often in quite forceful
ways, their frustration that those in government do not value or even fully understand
what is accomplished in the FE sector, not least because they know so little about
what happens in this area of education. It is widely believed that ministers have no
personal, direct experience of FE colleges because the children of MPs are much
more likely to attend 6th Form Centres and to then go on to university. Many research
respondents therefore perceive most Ministers to be largely distant and detached from
the FE sector.

This sense of being ‘a second-class sector’ (particularly in the eyes of successive

governments) is reinforced on a daily basis in a number of ways. In what follows, we
illustrate this sense of being undervalued by discussing issues around, first, the quality
of the working environment in many colleges and second, the specific policy of
‘extending access’ that is currently a key issue for FE Colleges in their local
communities.
 Working Environment

Within the FE sector generally, there appears to have been an under investment in
buildings, décor and facilities (and these are certainly perceived by respondents to have
been neglected). Principals and other senior managers highlight the de-motivating
effects of a degraded environment. Unlike the universities, which have been able to
develop their own financial resources, FE colleges have enjoyed no such financial
freedom. In addition, the banks are unwilling to provide funds, as they apparently
remain sceptical about the future of the FE colleges, as one Principal explained,

“We have run out of cash and our two existing banks have said no.
They explained that the reasons are not related to our college but
are F.E. related. We have now been told that we have to borrow
40% from the banks before any other LSC funding will be given.
The problem is that there are only a limited number of banks that 17

are willing to play in this market.”

Similarly, while schools receive 100% funding for capital projects, F.E. Colleges are
required to ‘match funding’. This clearly represents a disadvantage colleges face in
seeking to manage their infrastructure especially when compared with other
educational organisations in the UK.

During research interviews respondents have raised this issue (unexpectedly) many
times. Staff within F.E. colleges are frequently working in quite shabby and tired
premises. This is the case even in some institutions that are very successful in terms
of Ofsted assessments. Respondents have repeatedly expressed concerns about the
negative effect on staff and student morale alike of the poor quality of the environment.
Certainly, the energy, professionalism and enthusiasm of F.E. employees is, in many
cases, in stark contrast to their working environment.

Another recurrent example of the poor quality working environment in the post-16
sector and one that (again somewhat unexpectedly) is repeatedly raised by
respondents is that of litter. Frequently, in research interviews especially with senior
staff, the issue of litter has been mentioned as a particular problem on campus. Staff
appear to be divided about the best way to deal with this problem. One group adhere
to a disciplinary view which suggests that anyone seen dropping litter should be
spoken to at once. This is seen by some interviewees as the best way to deter
students. Another view is that litter should be seen as ‘everyone’s problem’ and FE
employees should pick up litter as an example to students.
 At one institution, the Head was very visible in spending time picking up litter. Some
teachers considered this to be a futile exercise when there were no sanctions for
students who did throw litter. Research interviews with students in both Sixth Form
Centres and FE colleges on the issue of litter have given quite strong support to the
latter view. While students agree that litter is a problem on campuses, they are
adamant that seeing staff pick up litter does not provide the good example that
certain teachers believe it does. Students have stated very clearly, that if teachers pick
up litter, then they would just allow them to continue to do so, as the following
statement demonstrates,

“Most students want better control on the litter……but we just think

less of the teachers who pick up litter……..students say ‘let them do it’.
We want a litter free environment but we don’t know how to get it.”
18
It would appear from the research interviews so far that litter is seen as a significant
problem by many staff and students. Students are very clear that attempts by staff to
set an example (to students) by picking up litter is counter-productive. One way
forward may be to create a space for discussions between teachers and students on
the best way to tackle this problem of litter.
 Extending Access?

At the same time as the government is introducing a new commercial culture, it is

also encouraging post-16 organisations to ‘widen access’ to their learning
programmes. Indeed ‘extending access’ is currently a core feature of government
policy for the FE sector. A significant proportion of FE college students are from
disadvantaged backgrounds. In this context, the policy of extending access has
considerable potential and is strongly supported by the FE staff we have interviewed.
Yet, the research has discovered a number of tensions and contradictions regarding
the implementation of this policy at local level. This section presents examples of
some of these tensions that can constitute major challenges for leadership and for
implementing the policy of ‘extending access’.

Staff at various levels have raised issues about the local implementation of this
national policy. Respondents have complained that there is a lack of government
understanding about the practical implications of extending access at College level.
Identifying young people from deprived backgrounds and encouraging them back into
education requires a deep understanding of many issues and problems that these 19
students can bring with them into college. The commitment of disadvantaged
students to college work can (for different reasons) be somewhat variable. Several
respondents have acknowledged that students from deprived backgrounds, the very
students colleges are trying to attract, enrol and retain, sometimes bring with them
particular problems such as swearing, fighting and general disruptive behaviour.
As one respondent explained,

“We have students from disadvantaged backgrounds. This means

everything takes more time. We do not have too many middle class
parents who value education. Some of our kids are swimming
against the tide, at college and at home.”

“I would make it compulsory that every member of staff spends

time in an associate school with middle ability kids for 3 days a
year…….if they were to go to the poorest wards it would shock some
of the staff here. It is desperate in these places. There is violence
and drugs. Incredibly awful things happen to some of our kids.”
 The emphasis on extending access is frequently in tension with the considerable
pressure on colleges to meet other government targets, as the following comment
exemplifies,

“There is too much evaluation and the problem is how it is

measured. We measure ‘value added’. This is the only meaningful
measure when recruiting from disadvantaged backgrounds. When
we do widen our participation, our success rate goes down. There
is an inherent contradiction in what they are asking us to do and
how they measure us.”

20 At one highly successful FE college based in a seaside town, attracting, retaining,

motivating and educating students is a particular challenge because of the nature of
the communities it serves. The abundance of low paid, seasonal jobs in a seaside
economy also means that students from poor backgrounds can be attracted into
seasonal jobs rather than education. For example, the local leisure park rewards
temporary workers with a bonus if they stay in employment until the end of the
summer season (defined as the end of October). This clashes with the start of the
academic year at College and thus can crucially threaten student registration, retention
and performance that, in turn, can jeopardise college performance targets and
ultimately funding levels.

In this community, where there are wards with approximately 40% of people who are
illiterate and innumerate (well above the national average), a number of factors can
restrict student access to further education opportunities. Staff highlighted some of
the issues that disadvantaged students are more likely to experience:

A lack of money for everyday living expenses that other students take for granted.

Difficult home environments where there can be abuse, drug taking, poverty
and hunger.

Pressure to earn money not just for themselves but also for their families.
Such pressures on students can subsequently create significant problems for post-16
employees who are responsible for their educational and personal welfare whilst in
College. Students from disadvantaged backgrounds can experience more difficulties in
managing the academic requirements of courses, which in turn, means that staff have
to spend much more time supporting them but this ‘support time’ is not adequately
acknowledged within the timetable. This in turn increases pressure on staff who are
already trying to manage ever-increasing workloads. As we stated earlier, research
respondents in FE and 6th Form Colleges at all levels have highlighted a lack of time
as a key constraint on their everyday working performance. This scarcity of time for
staff to meet ever-increasing workloads, targets and paperwork is a clear finding of the
research so far.

The FE staff interviewed at various hierarchical levels again tend to be split into two
quite discrete views on the issue of how best to deal with disruptive types of student
behaviour. The first group subscribe to a ‘disciplinary view’. Believing that a few
disruptive students can undermine the learning of the majority of students, they argue 21
that there should be a consistent approach to students who are demonstrating poor
behaviour in terms of repercussions and discipline. The second group highlight the
contradiction in the Government’s policy of extending access. They feel that the
government does not really understand that extending access means that the
colleges are taking students from very poor backgrounds and these students can
struggle in many different areas. Their approach tends to be less focussed on
discipline and more concerned with understanding some of the tensions that can
arise for these students.

The following case was highlighted by one of the respondents in the latter group.
A student was caught fighting in a corridor over a minor incident with a bag. Staff
wanted him to be disciplined in order to deter this type of behaviour in others. The
Senior Tutor for Pastoral Care discovered that the student was living at home with just
an alcoholic father who was abusive and who took all the money. Consequently, the
student had no money, had not been eating properly and was highly stressed. Another
student had kicked his bag and he had reacted by hitting him. The tutor resisted
pressure from other colleagues to discipline the student. Instead, he arranged for the
relevant people within the college and the social services to help the student. Working
together, these departments assisted the student to acquire independent living
accommodation. The student has since been progressing well.
 This type of careful, patient and persistent pastoral support and supervision takes
considerable time and resources that have to be met within the existing work time
schedules and within the existing workforce. The increasing pressure on colleges to
meet externally-defined targets (such as registrations, retention and access extension)
results in college staff having to engage increasingly in these kind of supervisory
pastoral and social work responsibilities. For example, the pressure on colleges to
meet student attendance targets means that considerable staff resources can be
dedicated to morning telephone calls to the homes of all those who are not in class.
Such additional pressures that accrue directly from the policy of ‘extending access’ in
the context of other tight performance targets constitute a fundamental challenge for
the local leadership and management of FE colleges and 6th Forms.

22
 Gender and Extending Access

In addition to issues of poverty, student age, gender and ethnicity profiles can also
weaken the effectiveness of the policy of extending access. In relation to age, there is
a widespread feeling across the sector that older students are less favourably funded.
Yet, it is often the relatively mature students, who have previously been marginalized by
mainstream education, that ‘extending access’ is designed to help. One FE Principal
explained to us that,

“The Colleges that are doing well are those that focus on the 16-
18 range. Funding and student numbers in this area are at their
highest level for 20 years. Colleges that have high adult numbers,
like we do, are not doing so well.”

Accordingly, staff at all levels within those FE colleges that are seeking to extend
23
access by attracting adult learners back into education feel that they are being
disadvantaged by present funding arrangements.

This is particularly evident when disadvantage, age and gender intersect. Interviews with
several relatively mature women students identified specific pressures and contradictions
for single mothers who have returned to education in order to obtain qualifications that
would enable them to move off benefits and enter the labour market. For example, a
single mother who takes a full-time HND course loses her benefits. This increases the
pressures associated with trying to balance studying, earning sufficient money to
maintain the household and also the additional expense of childcare whilst working to
fund their studies. The following research interview quotations illustrate the barriers to
study that are a central part of the every day lived experience for many mature students,

“I need to take a full-time course to get a qualification which will enable me to

come off benefits and work. I cannot take a full-time course because I will lose
my benefit and have to work to study. I have no money for childcare while I
work and couldn’t earn enough combining working and studying to pay my
bills and keep my children.”

“I will have completed 7 yrs of part-time study when I finish this course but
things have changed in that time and I have been told that employers will be
looking for a higher education qualification now. I try not to give up but it just
gets harder. I need to get into a reasonably paid job. It is really important for me
to show my children that education will get them a job and a job will get them
a better life. I want to set them the example, there is only me who can do that.”
 “The course is 15 hours so it enables me to keep my benefits. Transport is also
funded, Monday all day, Tuesday afternoon and Wednesday morning. The catch
is now that the further educational course is more vocational so at the end of
studying it will not allow you to get a job with an adequate salary level to come
off benefits.”

“I already work doing school lunches for 3 days a week to make ends meet
and even now I cannot pay all my bills even though I never go out. I wake up
at night worrying about the bills. It is just one worry after another, how to
manage the studying, the working, look after my children and pay all the bills.
It is my dream to come off benefits one day.”

“It can be so difficult meeting work deadlines especially during school

holidays. There is childcare available for the Easter holidays but it costs £40 a
week for children between 8-14. £40 a week is impossible for me. It is an
enormous sum of money when you are living on benefits. I cannot even begin
24 to think what it would be like to be able to spend £40 a week just on
childcare.”

“There is no way I could take the loan. How could I pay it back? I keep myself
debt free by working as much as I can, juggling the money and worrying.
Why would I get myself into debt? That is why I want to work to avoid getting
into debt.”

Hence, some of the very issues that the policy of extending access is intended to
address (for example poverty, age, gender) can become significant barriers to its
effective implementation. In sum, this policy of extending access to students from
disadvantaged backgrounds raises important leadership challenges for senior, middle
and junior teaching and administrative staff as well as students themselves. It also
raises important questions about the contribution of the LSCs to policy implementation
at local level.
 Learning Skills Councils and
Extending Access
Particularly where education has a low priority in the lives of many in the community,
extending access is especially important. In theory, colleges can apply to the local LSC
to fund new courses that ‘extend access’. These can be funded by the LSC under the
heading of ‘Any Other Provision’ (AOP).

At one FE College, the LSC agreed to fund a basic skills course in the area of motor
vehicle maintenance. This type of course can be a very important starting point,
especially for students with poor literacy and numeracy skills. Whilst the course does
not provide a qualification, it can help build student confidence, enabling them to
return to mainstream FE and thus reinforcing the policy of ‘extending access’. Staff at
this college spent considerable time preparing this new course. However, just before
they were about to begin, the LSC announced that it had overspent for the year and
could no longer provide funding. With all LSC funding under AOP cancelled at very
short notice, the course had to be withdrawn by the college. One of the course
organisers commented,

25
“We have done all the work to get the courses off the ground and
now we have to just drop them. It is very frustrating. The outcome
is that staff lose confidence in the LSC’s ability to deliver.”

“We have students ready to take the course but we have had to
turn them away. All the work has been for nothing.”

This is one of several examples we have found of promised LSC funding that was
subsequently withdrawn just at the point when the new course was about to be
delivered in the classroom.
 Conclusion

These initial research findings identify some very significant leadership challenges and
barriers to effective leader-led relations within the post-16 education sector. In particular,
they raise fundamental questions about power, distance and inequality in the post-16
sector. Paradoxically, those in local leadership positions express frustration about the
level and nature of the power and control exercised by central government, the LSCs
and other auditing bodies. In this sense the current audit culture in F.E. Colleges and 6th
Form Centres appears to be eroding rather than strengthening leadership at local level.

The high levels of frustration expressed by many of our respondents, particularly about
the nature and extent of monitoring and auditing is further exacerbated by the extent
to which respondents believe that there is a problematic distance between themselves
and those designing policy for the sector. Respondents expressed the view that they
have very little opportunity to influence the formulation of the policies that they must
then implement. Their responses reveal a fundamental sense of distance from and
frustration about policies that they frequently believe are misconceived from the
26 perspective of the local level. Equally, we have found that issues of inequality both for
students and for colleges constitute a fundamental challenge for leadership in the
post-16 sector. The deprivation of many students and the disadvantage of the FE
colleges frequently seem to reflect and reinforce one another.

These preliminary research findings reinforce our initial assumptions about the nature
of leadership as a complex organizational and social rather than simply an individual
process. We have found that in many cases our respondents act as both leaders and
followers at the same time, skilfully managing these two identities. Yet in addition, and
of more concern, we have also found that the intensified audit culture that currently
shapes post-16 education, tends to force staff, including those in the most senior
formal leadership positions, into the role of follower. This can significantly weaken
leadership in the post-16 sector.

On the basis of these initial findings (about power, distance and inequality), the final
section of this working paper now outlines various preliminary recommendations for
improving leadership (and educational practice) in the post-16 sector. We would
recommend that these issues are integrated into the CEL programme delivery.
More broadly, we also present them as challenges for government in managing and
leading the post-16 education sector.
Recommendations

Initial research findings that could be translated into ‘actionable messages’ for national
and local leadership include the following:

*CRITICALLY EVALUATE AND CHANGE CURRENT FUNDING AND

AUDIT MECHANISMS

Alternative evaluation processes and funding mechanisms that are better able to
recognise and encourage good practice should be explored. Currently, it appears
that the intensive audit culture is eroding the potential for creative leadership within
the sector.

*CRITICALLY EVALUATE AND CHANGE THE CURRENT ROLE, PRACTICES AND

POWER OF THE LSC

Our preliminary research suggests that the role, focus and leadership of the LSC in
relation to FE is in need of urgent review. Currently, it appears that the role of the LSC
is eroding the potential for creative leadership within the sector. 27

*PAY

This has been repeatedly mentioned as an important issue both for teaching and
administration staff. Pay is no longer competitive with other areas of U.K. education.
Consequently, the recruitment and retention of staff can present significant leadership
problems for FE colleges. In order to support local leadership within the sector, the
government as a matter of urgency could address the disparities in pay and working
conditions (e.g. teaching hours and holidays) between FE college employees and
those in schools and in 6th Form Centres.

*WORKING ENVIRONMENT

Respondents at all levels have highlighted the importance of working environment.

Various examples of small but effective changes have been provided. Staff who have
experienced even slight improvements in their environment repeatedly point to the
uplifting effect on morale and motivation (e.g. new desks and chairs).

*PROVIDE STABLE FUNDING AND SUPPORT FOR ‘EXTENDING ACCESS’ POLICY

At minimum the objectives of extending access need to be clarified and the various
tensions in the present system should be addressed. These are important issues for
leaders in FE colleges. Current problems at local level highlight the need for more
nuanced and subtle national policy initiatives to facilitate implementation. Without
effective national-level leadership, support and stable funding, the policy of extending
access will almost certainly falter at local level.
 *SYSTEMATIC SUCCESSION PLANNING

Given the increasing remit and responsibilities at Principal and Head level, providing a
systematic approach to career succession planning is of crucial importance to assist
the sector in identifying prospective leaders and senior managers. A preliminary
recommendation of the research is that any leadership succession planning should be
designed in ways that can actively identify and encourage talented staff at the Head of
Department level and not just concentrate on those in senior management teams.

The research has identified extremely talented and able staff, particularly at the level of
Head of Department, who demonstrate the ability to manage a variety of tasks in a
competent and enthusiastic manner. They also appear to be contributing new ideas
and creating systems that assist the smooth running of their departments. These staff
are enthusiastic about and empathise with the student body and also demonstrate,
through example, the importance of remaining student-focussed whilst managing the
increased administration tasks. It should be possible to ensure that ‘fast-track’ career
28
progression is achieved through the effective integration of leadership development
and certification. We would also recommend that any training and evaluation systems
for succession planning should ensure that future F.E. leaders retain a strong student
focus in their policy and practice.

A further initial finding is that Principals and Heads of School who have had
experience of working at different institutions during their career appear to bring a
wide knowledge, experience and perspective to the job of Principal. This early finding
suggests the importance of developing career structures that encourage potential
principals to gain from the experiential benefits of geographical mobility as a valuable
step for achieving promotion to the position of Principal. It is also recommended that
any new career succession programmes will need to be developed through the
involvement of the professional staff within the sector.
Further Information and Contacts

The Centre for Excellence in Leadership (CEL) would like to engage existing research
communities and practitioners working within the Learning and Skills Sector on these
and related issues. We hope to hear from all those in the sector concerned with
researching leadership and management, or applying ideas from this sort of research,
and to build a virtual research community on leadership and management issues
within the sector.

The current research programme will advance our understanding of leadership in the
sector and will be grounded in detailed case studies. The methods they will employ
will range from interviews and observation to statistical analysis of comparative
performance. The Centre is interested in finding out:

How leaders and led talk about their experience of leadership;

What practical activities are done by leaders at different levels;

How these practical ways of talking about and doing things might be inadvertently 29

gendered, raced and discriminatory, and what might be done to change that;

How institutional structures and systems play a part in constructing the identities
of skilled and educated people;

How networked learning using ICT might impact on these processes;

What leadership development processes are ‘out there’ and what are most
promising; and

What are the strategic choices and ways of ‘doing strategizing’ that impact
on performance.

We recognise that there are many innovative and effective leadership practices in the
Sector that warrant investigation, analysis and wider dissemination of best practice.
We would like to engage with existing networks within the Sector and develop a wider
practice-led research community contributing to current debates on leadership and
other related issues.
 If you would like to receive further information on the research programme, or would
like to receive details of other titles in the Working Paper Series, please contact:

Research Support Officer

Centre for Excellence in Leadership
Lancaster Leadership Centre
Lancaster University Management School,
Gillow Avenue,
Lancaster,
LA1 4YX
Telephone No: 01524 - 510733

Further information is also available at:

http://www.centreforexcellence.org.uk
http://www.lums.lancs.ac.uk/leadership/cel/

30

Bibliography
Day, C., Harris, A., Hadfield, M., Tolley, H. and Beresford, J. (2000) Leading schools in
times of change. Milton Keynes: Open University

Leithwood, K., Jantzi, D. and Steinback, R. (1999) Changing leadership for changing
times. Buckingham: Open University,
 Further information

Research Support Officer

Centre for Excellence in Leadership
Lancaster Leadership Centre
Lancaster University
Gillow Avenue
Lancaster
LA1 4YX
Tel: 01524 510733
Fax: 01524 510757
Email: researchsupportofficer@lancaster.ac.uk
Web: www.lums.lancs.ac.uk/leadership/cel

View publication stats