Prickett, Stephen & Erskine-Hill, Patricia. (Eds.). (2002). Education! Education! Education!: Managerial ethics and the law of unintended consequences

	Prickett, Stephen & Erskine-Hill, Patricia. (Eds.). (2002). Education! Education! Education!: Managerial ethics and the law of unintended consequences. Thorverton, UK: Imprint Academic. Pp. xi + 204 $25     ISBN 0907845363 Reviewed by Barbara S. Smith Mansfield University of Pennsylvania October 10, 2003 Rarely does a book about ethics in the management of schools primarily address national politics, party policies, and educational slogans of a conservative administration leading to the mismanagement of schools, but such is the elaborate and fascinating collection of essays in Education! Education! Education! The book title derives from a slogan used by the controlling party in the late 1990s. The exclamation marks in the slogan, and knowledge of the results of that slogan on practice, suggested to editor Stephen Prickett that the outlook and practice of the reformers was “an explosive new mixture of control and moralism” (p. 9). Prickett and ten other essayists in the book identify and describe from a variety of perspectives the results of conservative control and reform brought about by the Woodhead years. Chris Woodhead, Chief Inspector of Schools, led the drive for reform at the end of John Major’s and the beginning of Tony Blair’s administrations. The collective analyses of the writers in Education! make a major contribution to the literature on school reform based on a top-down, national strategy. The means of the “reform” was massive measurement (testing) and extensive reporting (accountability). The result of these “accountings” according to the editor, “has done more to damage the UK’s educational system than any of the original problems the reformers set out to cure” (p. 9). Thus, it may be that the subtitle of the book suggesting unintended consequences might have been derived. It remains a puzzle to me, actually, why the editors foregrounded the concept of “unintended consequences” in the title of their book. Since nothing is said to the credit of the governmental reformers in the book, it seems to be giving more acknowledgment than the authors genuinely believed was due. The book is not written for ethics scholars primarily, though the title causes one to wonder, and there is no attempt to define what is meant by ethics. “Managerial ethics” is an oxymoron from beginning to end in the book. The definition seems unnecessary as the self-interested, unreflective, and hollow moralizing practices depicted on the part of politicians are not in danger of appearing to be ethical. Indeed, managerial ethics was defined as neither managerial nor ethical at the outset of the book. Though the book skirts defining what is ethical in the management of schools, there are important works that do address such issues specifically. One example is Terry Cooper’s (1998) The Responsible Administrator: An Approach to Ethics for the Administrative Role which addresses the basic problem described in Education! Education! Education! Cooper, not surprisingly, describes responsibility as the cornerstone of ethical behavior. While the “accountability” called for by the Woodhead administration of the UK seems to have a ring of responsibility in the meaning, the collective work of the present book under review reveals that it was devoid of that meaning. Self-serving politicians and managers had a bookkeeping and reporting function in mind, not responsibility, and measurement was an opportunity to seize power and use it to narrow political ends. Accountability in its technical sense carries almost the opposite meaning to those democratic, egalitarian, radical, and “empowering” values that are associated with the term in general usage. The drive for increased accountability may operate as an excuse to justify managerial takeover. Behavior is labeled as unaccountable (hence unacceptable) simply because it is not subject to managerial control, and this is taken (by manager and politicians who wish to control this behavior) to imply the need to introduce audit systems. Audit systems may then be set up to advance the interests of those who have introduced them. (Charlton, p. 19). Cooper’s thesis, however, resonates with Prickett’s that at bare minimum, ethical leaders, including those at the national level, must forego personal gain as a primary interest in decision-making while giving only lip service to democratic values. He tells us that so long as the practices of our cultural values so easily employ such “pathological bureaucracy,” more functional and ethical approaches will be sidelined. Many US educational writers have made similar clarion calls (Gardner et al., 2000; Glickman, 1998; Sergiovanni, 1996) as have writers in sociology (Braverman, 1974; Mills, 1958) and business (Blanchard, 1999; Covey, 1989). The book basically has two parts bookended by the introduction and conclusion of the editors. The first part deals with the mismanagement of universities by opening with a chapter on accountability, continuing with two chapters on the issue of access, and then four chapters focus on the contested purposes of higher education. The four chapters on the purpose of universities, written by four separate authors, are not monolithic, but each is thought-provoking. The first one by Anthony Smith illuminates the “Laura Spence Affair” which was a trumped-up case about a young woman who was not selected for admission to Oxford, presumably because of elitism and a socially-biased selection procedure. This charge was made by the Chancellor of Exchequer who singled out this one case rather than debating principles or generalities as was the customary practice. The resulting widespread public indignation was, according to Smith, inevitable and intended, and the firestorm it produced played in the media for over a year. Smith’s chapter examines the facts of the case in detail showing how the government’s rush to judgment was likely a political ploy. “It was more than a breach of manners or political manner, it was an attempt to insult and outrage. And if that was the intention, it did not fail” (p. 31). In the end, the press attention actually brought out how thoroughly, with nearly “obsessive concern,” the Oxford and other Oxbridge schools had attempted to find suitable candidates from the public system. The facts did not bear out his charge and damage was done even if some benefit might have been derived, and Smith believes the Chancellor owes an apology he has never given. The next two chapters regarding the university address issues of access and purpose. The chapter by Robert Grant is especially provocative. One of the remedies he offers for the current “disastrous” policy governing British public schools and universities is to privatize them. In “Education, Utility, and the Universities,” he posits that “it is simply the external pressure on universities—in short, their dependence on government—that creates most of their difficulties” (p. 62). He believes that utilitarian subjects and vocational education should be sponsored through apprenticeships and “polytechnics” and that liberal education, which many find impractical because it alone does not provide a living, should be the sole enterprise of the university. “With utilitarian education off their hands, governments should be well able to afford it” (p. 65). He admits this solution unlikely to be tried though it is a major point of his chapter. Like every tyranny from antiquity to the present, what the modern democratic politician especially fears is public criticism, especially when that comes from an informed, independent source, whose authority is only reinforced by its lack of formal power... . It is hardly surprising, then, that the Prime Minister is not anxious to defend, or to continue recruiting, a liberally educated class. (p. 67) He therefore believes that some “real” universities (not “multiversities”) will survive only if they go private. The subject of privatization of education in the US is usually discussed in a wholly different light by university scholars. More conversations about these varying approaches, and why they might actually be similar as well as different, would be enlightening. Also interesting would be the varying approach to the subject of access to universities. The position of more than one author in this text is that another of the chief remedies to the current damaging policy governing UK universities is that they should not become more open to enrollment, but more selective. A reason offered by Robert Grant is as follows: Education is not all of the same kind or degree, and, so long as people differ in intelligence, background, and motivation, not everyone can be raised to its highest level… . On the other hand, the very same feature gives education an equalizing tendency (p. 52). In contrast, a towering figure of democracy, John Dewey (1937), took a different approach on the principle of individual difference: Belief in equality is an element of the democratic credo… . [E]ach one is equally an individual and entitled to an equal opportunity of development of his own capacities, be they large or small… . The very fact of natural and psychological inequality is all the more reason for establishment by law of equality of opportunity, since otherwise the former becomes a means of oppression of the less gifted. (pp. 219-20) Dewey is probably speaking of K-12 education whereas Grant is discussing university education in the present discussion. Even if that is the case, a discussion of Dewey’s and Grant’s proposals for action and the merit or demerit of restricting access would be of inestimable value to the current educational situation in both the UK and the US. While providing an engaging text, the last of the four authors I believe to be off the mark. Roger Scruton, holds that any periods of intellectual freedom have been the exception rather than the rule and that universities since Hegel’s day have fared badly, including American ones (which are referred to as an ultimate standard throughout the book). His examples do not prove his position which is ironically more ideological than “open enquiry.” A visitor to the American university today is more likely to be struck by the indigenous varieties of censorship, than by any atmosphere of free enquiry… . Books are put on or struck off the curriculum on grounds purely of political correctness; speech codes and counselling services police the language and conduct of both teachers and students; courses are designed to impart ideological conformity. (Scruton, p. 78) He goes on to list courses which he purports to show ideological positions even in their titles: feminist studies, gay studies, and gender studies. He wonders how university authorities would have reacted to a course on Nazi studies if taught exclusively by Nazis. He then states that “women’s lot was happier in the traditional family than it is today” and that “if women have not been great artists, mathematicians or composers this is not the fault of men.” His positions on women’s lot are not self-evident as his text suggests, and the irony is that one of the premises of the book is that British politicians are incorrect in large part because they assume their positions to be self-evident when they are not. I wondered why this chapter was included in the book, but indeed its inclusion demonstrates the editor’s commitment to his premise that a “polyphony” of ideas is to be preferred to a monopoly of ideas. However, Scruton’s ideas do not rise to the level of scholarliness that the other chapters do, and there is much in a wide range of literature to show his positions are not justified, even if sincerely held. His dislike of critiques of western civilization and his disdain for the changing role of women seem to me to be old saws, and his discussions of both are exaggerated. Though there is disagreement among the four authors, there is also agreement, particularly in the belief that the current accountability and management culture in the UK has reduced the quality of a university education in many cases and threatens to undermine the whole “idea of a university” if the trend continues. Massive resources are being siphoned away from teaching and classrooms and into new careers of auditing and accounting of the standards. The second part of the book deals with K-12 education and the devastating consequences of the “Quality Assurance” (QA) program designed to reform it from the national level. QA is not a relative of Deming’s Total Quality Management (TQA, designed by engineers), but is a product of financial accounting. One result is that “the activity [of accounting] focuses upon systems and processes almost to the exclusion of the excellence of the product” (p. 20). Quality means only “auditable.” The stories told in this section by a head-teacher, a parent, and a board member provide insight into the devastating effects of the way the reform has been carried out. Their section of the book is titled “Testing to Destruction: The New School Environment.” The parallels to the strategies and efforts of the Bush administration in the US since 2000 are striking in this section. Though that is not the subject of the book, US readers are likely to find themselves wondering, almost subconsciously, whether the UK or the US conservatives had written a playbook for massively increasing their control of education. Both countries have employed ever more extensive testing, not just of schools but also of universities and colleges. Both have employed an unquestioned, moralizing “accounting” approach to incorrectly define and measure the problem. And neither is bothered with complexity or consideration beyond what they assume is or should be a monocultural society. I often thought the phrase “unintended consequence” employed by the UK writers might have been phrased as “intended conspiracy” if written by US analysts. Both would be correct. The results of conservative UK and US efforts are largely unintended--because they are ill understood in both countries. When a party obtains the power to change an enterprise whose problems are not well understood, there are bound to be resulting unintended consequences. This by no means suggests innocence to the UK writers. Rather, the personal empire-building, crude managerialism, and narrow economic objectives are richly described in chapter after chapter. Such descriptions, and the collective impact of all the essays in the book, suggest, in contrast a highly intentional as well as moralistic and unquestioned agenda on the part of the reformers. That there are similarities to the crusaders of reform in the US is unmistakable. Control and change of the nature of education by conservatives in both countries has been accomplished whether intended or not. One “unintended consequence” described in the UK is “the cumulative effect [of increasing emphasis on testing] has been to lower teaching morale… [and] increasing numbers of well-qualified teachers, who can equally well do other, better-paid jobs, vote with their feet, and leave to do so” (p. 8). Of course the same has been well documented in scholarly, descriptive pieces in US scholarship. Another consequence of the move toward conservatism in both countries, intended or not, is a shift in the aim of education toward economic values over individual development. Targeting funds and testing only toward objectives that can be measured has had the effect of reducing classroom teaching primarily to what will be tested. Field trips, physical education, music, drama, art, and other avenues of individual development and expression have at least been diminished, and in some cases have disappeared, as a result. At the same time, wealthy parents in the UK who can afford it are willing to pay twice for a private education that does include these enriching subjects for their children than the cost of a public education. That wealthy US parents respond similarly to a more limited public school curriculum by turning to private education seems likely, but it is not one of the common reasons US parents list for choosing private schools. A great deal could be learned by mining the meanings of parallels and contrasts between the two countries here. The book is an important work for a scholars examining school reform from a number of perspectives. Sociologists, historians, and philosophers of education will find the collective work of eleven British scholars a substantial contribution to other literature, including US literature, that exists on school reform efforts. Those looking for stories to tell will find them in the K-12 section in more detain and relating impact on the students, teachers, and head teachers. Because there are so many apparent parallels between UK and US policies, it would be a worthy pursuit to explore where those parallels begin and end, and why. Scholars of leadership and/or management may benefit by examining the differences in definition in the two cultures. The term “leadership” was barely used in Education! Education! Education! Rather, “management” seemed to be used as an overarching term for both leadership and management. Beyond that, but not addressed in the book, there is a new scholarship on followership. One may wonder if followership is exceptionally relevant in a culture that is largely managed rather than led, however; there is less choice involved which implies less following if following has anything to do with volition. The subject merits further consideration and analysis. In any case, the portrayal of the present book is that the UK suffers under a greater degree of bureaucracy than does the US. Definition of terms becomes critical to an intelligent discussion of the matter. In general, the book would be more useful to a U.S. audience if the authors had been more conscious that they would be read outside the UK. Terms such as “FCO” and “TUC” were completely unintelligible to me whereas “MIT” which was defined as Massachusetts Institute of Technology for British readers, was easily understood by me, a non-UK reader. Additionally, there was no explanation of who “Woodhead” was, though he was referred to by many of the writers as the worst of the culprits in leading the misguided reform effort. A check of the Times Literary Supplement (28 February 2002) now shows him to have joined University of Buckingham, the only private university in Britain, and his current research interests are the involvement of the private sector in raising educational standards. This is ironic since one of the suggestions for reform by the writers of Education! was to privatize education. An examination of who intends what by privatizing would be a valuable and fruitful endeavor. Finally, an index to the book would be a welcome addition given the wealth of topics it could include. References Blanchard, Kenneth. The heart of a leader. Tulsa, OK: Honor Books. 1999. Braverman, H. (1974). Labor and monopoly capital: The degradation of work in the twentieth century. New York: Monthly Review Press. Cooper, T. (1998). The Responsible Administrator: An Approach to Ethics for the Administrative Role (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Covey, S. (1989). The seven habits of highly effective people. New York: Simon and Schuster. Curriculum guidelines for advanced programs in educational leadership for principals, superintendents, curriculum directors, and supervisors. National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education Guidelines. Alexandria, VA: Educational Leadership Constituent Council. 1995. Dewey, J. (1937). Democracy and Educational Administration. In J. Boydston (Ed.). The later works. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press. Gardner, H., Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Damon, W. (2001). Good work: When excellence and ethics meet. New York: Basic Books. Mills, C. W. (1959). The sociological imagination. New York: Oxford University Press. Littlemore, S. (2000, February 8). School strategies paying off. BBC News. Retrieved August 18, 2003, from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/634724.stm Sergiovanni, T. (1996). Moral leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Weber, M. (1946). In H.H. Gerth and C.W. Mills (Eds.). Max Weber: Essays in sociology. New York: Oxford University Press. About the Reviewer Barbara S. Smith, Ph.D. is an assistant professor at Mansfield University of Pennsylvania in the in the Education and Special Education Department. She coordinates the Educational Leadership Program and her scholarly interests lie in the organization and leadership of schools. Before becoming a professor she was a classroom teacher, assistant principal, and principal.