 |
|
SECTOR Home | What's
New | About SECTOR | Meetings
| Publications | Discussion
Forum | Contact Us | Links
| Site Map |
|
|
Lifelong Learning in the Twenty-First Century:
|
Go to the main meeting page.
Cover photographs: ILO/G. Cabrera; UNESCO/Vidal;
To purchase this document,click here |
This chapter explores two complementary themes: means by which key actors, especially educational personnel, can participate more fully in educational decision-making; and ways in which employers, workers and their organizations foster workplace learning.
For many years, educational personnel, and teachers especially, have been targeted directly or indirectly in education reform measures as the principal “problem” or obstacle to change. They have been “demonized” as being too conservative in their approach to teaching and learning, enjoying unjustified job security and benefits which have sapped resources from more productive educational “inputs”; above all, they have been accused of being too deeply entrenched in efforts to defend their individual and corporate interests through unions to accept, much less initiate, needed change.
Predictably, much educational reform has therefore been designed and put into place without their input, in outright conflict with their viewpoints, or imposed under duress. The repercussions have been twofold. One, reforms have often failed or did not attain their objectives. A persuasive account of the “going through the motions” which is often a by-product of a top-down approach has been provided by a study of educational reform in Norway, which concluded that:
Although teachers may be going through the motions of implementing the policy in schools, they do so because they have been rendered powerless by change which is couched in the rhetoric of professional responsibility and competence (Klette, 2000).
Second, those who work in schools, and others who support learning and teaching, have accumulated greater workloads, higher levels of stress, a decline in professional status, and a loss in relative benefits compared with other professional sectors. Declines in educational quality feed off these phenomena.
As it has become clear that personnel indifference or hostility to necessary reform creates a terrain of conflict which undermines positive change, more and more thinking is going into ways and means to include educational staff fully in all phases of decision-making, individually and collectively. This reflection is driven in part by recognition from ministries of education that “teachers are key actors in educational change” (ICE, 1996), thereby leading education reform movements to heed the clear message from the International Commission on Education for the Twenty-First Century: “No reform has succeeded against teachers or without their participation” (Delors, 1996). Following on from this recognition, the conclusions of the last ILO meeting on education and structural adjustment are instructive:
Governments are ultimately responsible for education policies which increase access to education and deliver cost-efficient and high-quality learning ... Government decisions are most likely to succeed when planned and implemented with the full participation of teachers and their organizations, since they are the ones who will ultimately implement policies (ILO, 1996c).
The same might be said for school heads and teaching support personnel in an environment where greater numbers of the key decisions affecting learning are adopted at the school or learning site by those immediately responsible. Alterations of learning structures, roles and responsibilities, and the accompanying professional development, employment and workplace frameworks which facilitate lifelong learning, are increasingly predicated on this thesis.
The central issue is then to ascertain who should participate in decisions and how that participation should be secured, as changes occur and expectations are addressed. At the level of principles, the search for answers leads towards the concept of social dialogue in its various forms, from national consultative forums or negotiations to workplace collective bargaining. The ILO increasingly promotes dialogue as a mechanism which provides the kinds of forums that build consensus, fortify democratic governance, and build vigorous and resilient institutions that contribute to long-term social and economic stability. Engaging in dialogue, the social partners help solve difficult problems and foster social cohesion (ILO, 1999b).
There is a growing consensus in many countries that labour-management relations in education need to be not only cooperative and consultative, but also negotiated, and not subject to the notion of a “one-way street” in which managers consult but ultimately decide as they please. Professional workers, as others, are more likely to enjoy their working lives if they are constructively empowered to exercise some control over their work environment and, in turn, have the capacity to increase the successful outcomes for their workplaces so as to embrace lifelong learning strategies. Paradoxically for societies – and even more so for institutions based around knowledge – there is evidence that education unions have lagged behind their counterparts in other economic sectors, partly because rights to full freedom of association, collective bargaining and other means of participation have often not been fully respected.
The road to applying broadly defined social dialogue concepts which encompass consultation, bargaining and other forms of decision-making in education arguably leads through respect for basic principles and rights of freedom of association, collective bargaining, and where relevant, tripartite consultation, a point confirmed by the ILO’s tripartite constituency (ILO, 1996a and 1996c). There is little point in designing a participatory house for educators in relation to lifelong learning decisions if the foundations are weak or non-existent. The principal international standards are ILO Conventions Nos. 87 and 98,[9] supported in the specific context of teachers’ decision-making by the ILO/UNESCO Recommendation concerning the Status of Teachers, 1966, and more recently by the UNESCO Recommendation concerning the Status of Higher Education Teaching Personnel, 1997. The freedom of association standards cover not only teachers but educational administrators, school management and all other staff.
These standards provide a set of principles in the construction of sound decision-making structures which will only increase in importance as the locus of decision-making in schools and learning sites evolves over the next few generations. They establish rights which both workers and employers should enjoy with regard to the freedom to establish and join organizations independent of public authorities so that they might represent their interests, engage in voluntary negotiations (collective bargaining above all) and alternative forms of deciding on workplace issues (for instance in the civil service and for certain categories of staff), and set out means of resolving disputes when these are unavoidable. The ILO/UNESCO Recommendation of 1966, and its companion instrument in higher education, especially emphasize the crucial role that teachers at their respective levels, as individuals and through their organizations, should play: in defining a range of educational policies; in cooperating with educational partners – educational authorities, employers and workers, parents, cultural and learning institutions – to demarcate objectives, determine school organization and ensure the interests of pupils and education; in establishing standards of professional performance; in participating fully in social and public life; and generally balancing their rights with the enormous responsibilities that society entrusts to them.
Unfortunately, in a less than perfect world, these principles and rights are less than perfectly respected. The ILO’s Committee on Freedom of Association records numerous cases each year of violations of educational workers’ rights (more than 20 countries from all continents have been examined in recent years, some on multiple occasions). The Joint ILO/UNESCO Committee of Experts also regularly receives communications from teachers’ organizations about alleged non-application of the Recommendation’s provisions in member countries. Research carried out in 1998 by the largest international teachers’ organization Education International (EI,1998), covering more than 120 countries around the world revealed many positive aspects, and also wide discrepancies between law and practice: educational personnel denied or restricted in their right to join and form unions or to bargain collectively, especially those with civil service or public sector status; salaries frequently set by unilateral government decisions rather than through negotiations; non-recognition of the right to strike, or severe limitations on its effective use through complicated dispute resolution procedures, considerations of “national interest” and classification of education staff as essential services. Despite or because of restrictions, during the period 1996-98 strikes in education were reported in more than one-fourth of the countries surveyed, over refusal to dialogue, negotiate or recognize freedom of association rights, demands for salary increases or payment of salary arrears, and issues of school or work reorganization.
Although in recent years improvements have been noted in some regions evolving generally towards more open and democratic societies, the picture globally remains one of a world in which participation is preached conceptually, but frequently undermined or ignored in practice. A strengthening of basic principles and rights must be on the agenda if decisions on lifelong learning are to be fully participatory in the future. The ILO’s Declaration on Fundamental Rights and Principles at Work adopted in 1998 targets promotion and universal application of these basic rights.
As suggested earlier, transformations in education, which mirror the sweeping transformation of society, have created an emerging, global consensus on the need for learning and expectations for schools – at least if documents from key international institutions and the espoused policies of governments are taken as a guide (Chapman and Aspin, 1997; Delors, 1996). A review of developments around the world (Caldwell and Spinks, 1998) suggests that the transformation with regard to schools is occurring on three tracks, though at different speeds for schools, systems of schools, states and nations. The first track is the building of systems of self-managing schools, which have been decentralized or to which a significant amount of authority and responsibility for decisions have been devolved; these schools nevertheless remain within a centrally determined framework of goals, priorities, policies, curricula, standards and accountabilities. Track two calls for a seemingly unrelenting focus on learning outcomes for all students in every setting, reflecting the consensus on expectations for schools. Track three envisages the creation of schools for the knowledge society, involving the re-engineering of almost every aspect of the design of a school, taking account of the fact that more and more learning is occurring elsewhere.
Application of decision-making concepts in education must be set against the dramatic social, economic and political trends at the end of the twentieth century cited earlier in this report. These are generally acknowledged as marking the end of the industrial era and heralding the movement towards the knowledge era, not dissimilar to those associated with the movement from the agricultural era to the industrial era at the end of the nineteenth century. The hallmarks of the industrial era, consistency and control, and organizations best served by deeply hierarchical models of management with clear lines of control, responsibility and accountability (Leadbeater, 1999; Stewart, 1999), are being eroded by the forces of this knowledge era. These forces have rendered obsolete many of the work practices and management models which sustained them. Furthermore, in recent decades there has been an emphasis on providing a more humane working environment where workers’ job satisfaction, and hence life satisfaction, can be improved. In addition to the breakdown of traditional hierarchical models of organization, global trends reflect a movement towards greater worker participation, and the development of organizational and individual skills and competencies. These changes are evident in education, impacting on educational personnel as much as they do on the workforce in general.
One of the central aspects of reform in education concerns the how and why of successful innovation in schools and other learning sites. A growing body of research and analytical work on this question pinpoints the central place of teachers in participating in defining and even initiating reforms if they are to succeed. At the same time, teaching and support staff are not expected to undertake this in isolation. Increasingly on the policy agenda is the notion of partnerships to decide on change involving several levels of decision-making – central, regional, state, province or municipal/local – and parties internal to education as well as external to it – parents, employers, trade unions, community leaders, etc.
A key feature of the partnership concept recognizes that decisions on issues such as curricula and pedagogical practice, or on ways schools are organized to innovate, are not ready-made at central levels or by external authorities and simply imposed on educators in the school/classroom/training site; they grow out of a process of dialogue between the partners on what works and what does not. The role of educational authorities is thus to establish the framework for effective dialogue, and resolution of differences, on the basis of mutual respect and interdependence (Olson, James and Lang, 1999).
An example of the relative failure of top-down approaches cited by one analyst is the Escuela Nueva school of Colombia (see Chapter 2, box 2.2). Local teachers who were at the heart of the programme’s development initially, lost this organic involvement in the later stages of mass application which were based on model guides printed and distributed by central managers. The accompanying resistance to change on the part of later generations of teachers has been identified as a major factor in the less than impressive results of more recent years (McGinn, 1998).
Contrast this with the participatory approach identified as one of the strengths of secondary education reform in Chile during the 1990s. Using a combination of professional development programmes to encourage teachers to reflect on and initiate change in pedagogical practices, a programme of educational improvement projects which are initiated by teachers, supported by the school, and funded on a competitive basis, and regulations designed to encourage more participatory decision-making, a much greater sense of teamwork and ownership of reform, is reportedly developing within schools. Autonomy and decentralization of decision-making has been strengthened, especially in the use of teacher-designed school improvement projects (LeMaitre, 1998).
The rise in employee involvement programmes, generally defined as a means of giving personnel a greater part in the decision-making process within an organization, is predicated on three assumptions: (1) that more informed and involved employees will perform better though a stronger sense of commitment and belonging; (2) that involvement will lead to improvements in efficiency, quality and morale; and (3) that such programmes will develop in employees an attitude which incorporates the philosophy of continuous improvement. These assumptions are particularly important in the context of redesigning education for lifelong learning, and for the professional transformation of teaching advocated as a central concept of that process.
Recent research outside education (IRS, 1996) suggests that benefits accruing to staff involvement programmes include a decrease in absenteeism and staff turnover, and an increase in job satisfaction, commitment, and quality. Further, employees demonstrate a greater sense of commitment to, and identification with, the goals of the organization, aligned with a stronger sense of ownership and knowledge contribution. Improvement in skills areas such as flexible thinking, problem-solving, adapting to change and quality awareness are also attributed to greater employee involvement. Ellmin’s research on Swedish school decentralization (1995) has shown how teacher job satisfaction can grow with clearer work goals, increasing teacher leverage over the work environment and better cooperation within schools, even where much more needs to be done to improve cooperation within work teams or units, and between teachers, students and parents.
Involvement programmes can be grouped within two broad categories: participation (which allows personnel to be directly involved in decisions related to their own work and to the sharing of gains that accrue from that work); and representation (giving employees access to decision-making processes through the actions of others who represent them). In the framework of educational decision-making, the first corresponds to a broadening of forms of consultation which influence, directly or indirectly, decisions at various levels – schools, local authorities, central ministries – on issues which are often in the realm of general policy – training of teachers and other staff, curricula, school organization, teaching methodology. The second involvement pattern can be said to encompass the negotiating framework through various means on issues which impinge directly on staff conditions, of which collective bargaining on terms and conditions of employment and dispute resolution mechanisms – individual and collective – represent the classic vehicle for reaching decisions.
Participation programmes provide greater opportunities for direct participation in decision-making at schools and learning sites and for sharing in the gains that accrue from success on the job. Implicit in such programmes is the desire to: create fulfilling working conditions; allow educational workers individual development; and confer a sense of worth and responsibility. These are key elements of the professionalization in education advocated earlier. The sine qua non of such programmes is the commitment from senior personnel to regular monitoring of schemes, effective communication channels, and, importantly, trust; desirable and feasible in educational settings as in any other setting. Reviews of experiences with school-based management in Africa, Latin America and Asia conclude that “school staff, both teachers and head teachers, have to be interested in, and capable of, developing their schools”, trusted in other words by central educational authorities and the public/community to do better (Shaeffer and Govinda, 1998).
A framework for staff involvement in decision-making at the school level has been in place for some time in many countries. Indeed, professionals in education visiting other workplaces would immediately recognize approaches evident for a long time in school meeting rooms. On the other hand, interest in high performing teams and quality circles in schools are relatively recent developments.
If a major feature of the global transformation in education has been the emergence of self-managing schools, then the framework for employee participation ought to include models that have emerged as this movement has unfolded around the world. Caldwell and Spinks (1988) offered such a model on the basis of research in effective schools in Australia, ideas that have been widely taken up in the last decade. The approach depends on the creation of high performing teams that operate with a great degree of transparency and accountability. Their model for collaborative school management calls for the creation of programme teams to engage in planning, budgeting, implementation and evaluation. Programmes are considered to be clusters of activities that reflect the work of the school in areas of learning and teaching, and support. Every staff member should be a member of at least one team. Teams make decisions on most aspects of their work, operating within a framework of goals, policies and priorities that are set for the school as a whole which, in turn, reflect a system-wide framework that applies to all schools. Educational personnel are directly or indirectly involved in establishing this framework through their representation on school councils or similar bodies (see below).
The concept of a “high performing team” has gained currency as part of the school improvement movement focused on student outcomes. In addition to intensive professional development to advance their knowledge, competences and skills, teams of professionals meet regularly to consider student progress, share information on what works and why, and generally perform as specialists along the lines of other professions such as medicine – a “new professionalism” according to some (Caldwell and Spinks, 1998).
A key feature of participatory decision-making is the presence of a school council, board or governing body. Such bodies in public schools, present now in many decentralized systems, normally operate within a framework of centrally determined policies, curricula, standards and systems of accountability. While the mix may vary, membership typically involves parents, teachers, members of the community such as prominent business or professional people, sometimes students, and the school head as executive officer. Their tasks vary, but include setting the overall strategic direction of a school, its goals, policies, budget approval, monitoring of outcomes and programme evaluation. In countries such as Australia and New Zealand, the vehicle is a “school charter” which reflects the understanding on directions between either the school and the education system as a whole, or the school and the community, or both. Much of the preparation of this strategic document is the product of the “policy group” within the school, often committees or other forms composed of all stakeholders, in which educational personnel usually play a prominent role (Caldwell and Spinks, 1988). The Educational Improvement for School Projects, part of School-based Educational Projects (PEIs) in Peru, are examples of a shared management framework based on teaching teams which identify and propose solutions to problems such as professional development and weak school-parent relationships (Hidalgo, 1997).
In line with the partnership strategy which permeates other aspects of new learning frameworks, the process of school-based consultation on reforms and strategic directions should also include the “end-users” of such services – employers and workers, community leaders, parents and students. Consensus that emerges from reliance on such partnerships can be critically important to permit and sustain change with a minimum of conflict, particularly in times of structural adjustments to schools or systems, or attempts to expand access in rural areas of poorer countries. Important elements to build effective partnerships include sufficient time, transparent procedures, effective communication with all interested parties, and clear definitions of which partner does what, particularly community actors in local education management frameworks (ILO, 1996c; Shaeffer and Govinda, 1998).
School-based management may also extend outward, altering relationships among other partners within education or outside it, to permit greater sharing of resources, facilities and ideas in networks, and to allow linkages to be established (for instance to early childhood and to adult education) which increase the seamless nature of learning in a lifelong framework. School cluster networks in Cambodia are directed by committees comprised of elected principal and teacher representatives, village chiefs, parents associations and religious figures as appropriate, with objectives ranging from the economic (more resources) and pedagogical (equal student access to teacher specialists, teacher resource centres) to school community (monitoring school services, mobilizing enrolments) (Dykstra and Kucita, 1998). The community-based Lok Jumbish school management programme in India features critical teacher assistance in school mapping to increase enrolments, preparing education action plans and a pivotal role in school building renovation (Govinda, 1998). Thailand’s National Education Act of 1999 foresees the creation of both school boards and education area committees composed of representatives of parents, teachers, education administrators, communities, religious leaders and scholars.
The dominant trend towards school-based forms of decision-making should not
hide contradictions between the interests of various components of a partnership.
Research on the emergence of school-site councils in Nicaragua is illustrative
(box 4.1). Critics of the school-based movement in Australia contend that the
centralized accent on accountability to state authorities who review school
charters and approve funding on the basis of performance standards effectively
undercuts real school decision-making (Smyth, 1993). A recurrent theme is concern
over trends to devolve teacher employment practices to school governing bodies
which are composed of a majority of parents. These might undermine concepts
of merit and qualifications as the basis for a renewed professionalism, as well
as negotiated provisions of collective bargaining agreements in local settings.
The latter concern has been raised in the framework of the new parent/teacher/student-community
bodies created under the South African Schools Act (Garson, 1997). Attempts
to eliminate “clientelism” in hiring principals, teachers and other staff is
a recurrent theme of Brazilian reform efforts.
|
Box 4.1. Begun as part of the autonomous schools programme which may be initiated by teachers, these councils have allowed parents and teachers to increase their participation in school management, the former more than the latter. Composed of a majority of parents, their selection reportedly ranges from very democratic, based on elections of teachers and parents, to very undemocratic, based on selection by a principal, local mayor or ministry official. They have extensive human resource powers, including hiring and firing staff. The contradictions appear most significant, however, in the preferences for teaching methods. Ministry officials, supported by teachers, have initiated innovative teaching-learning methods but the parent majorities on councils often prefer and vote for more traditional teaching methods. Source: Gershberg, 1999. |
In contrast to participation emphasizing individual engagement, representation programmes seek to give staff access to decisions beyond immediate workplace concerns through trade union or other organizational representation. In education they include national or local curricula and training advisory councils, membership on school governing boards and joint consultative committees. Such access to decisions which affect educational directions or future plans, while more macro in scope, still espouse the same aims: the democratization of the workplace, increases in quality and productivity in the form of learning outcomes, and guarantees for individual job security. They also set out to sustain ability of the educational system or individual school, private or public. The range of programmes varies widely, with some having statutory support and others being based on the individual organization level, where local stakeholders are more able to have an immediate impact on the strategic direction of the school.
National (or state, i.e. Länder in Germany) consultative councils, or national advisory agencies exist in many European countries. They are composed of representatives of the major stakeholders – ministry officials, teachers’ organizations and representatives of administrative and support staff, representatives of parents and students, and representatives of economic and social sectors such as business, minorities and culture. Education staff and ministry representatives are in the majority in some countries (France, Italy, Scotland). The mandate of councils is to advise on national level education questions – policies, reforms, operation – or initiate proposals of their own. In more decentralized systems, the greater part of school management decisions are taken at that level. Separate national councils to advise on vocational training exist in practically all countries (see also Chapter 1) (EURYDICE, 1996c).
School-management bodies with representative functions essentially are divided into three categories: consultative bodies on school organization (curricula, timetables, security,etc., in Belgium, Germany, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway); decision-making bodies which share authority on some school operations, including budgets, with school heads (Denmark, Greece, France, Italy); and the very autonomous school management bodies existing in England and Wales. Composition of the stakeholders varies by country (EURYDICE, 1996c).
As the concept of greater staff participation has grown at the end of the twentieth century, it is significantly altering roles of employers, educational administrators and personnel. Greater fluidity and flexibility in the organization of work implies that employers, managers and trade unions must develop the creative capacities of social dialogue mechanisms – and of collective bargaining especially – as tools for social progress and industrial democracy, rather than being concerned merely with the economic conditions of the school system or their members (Kerchner, Koppich and Weeres, 1997). As school-based decision-making spreads, relying more on the focusing of staff skills and knowledge in a constructive “partnership”, with teamwork at its core, more flexible and local labour relations are likely to follow.
In this environment, educational unions are perceived to have two major roles. The first is the maintenance of broad agreements on working conditions, set across the education sector, ensuring basic working conditions for their members through the collective bargaining mechanism. Supplementing, rather than replacing collective bargaining, are local agreements between management and employees. This kind of two-tiered bargaining system finds its echo in many reformed public sector industrial relations systems dealing especially with pay determination in recent years (ILO, 1998d). In education, two-tiered bargaining which prevails in some Canadian provinces has been described by Thompson (1994) and Cooper (2000) as a framework in which mostly economic and some non-economic issues are negotiated at central level, leaving many important non-material issues (professional development, school discipline, health and safety) to local levels. The provincial teacher union body plays an active negotiation training and support role for local affiliates.
Specific schools or learning sites, rather than national or sector-wide associations, need to respond to the changes in the workplace environment and technological change by adapting quickly and creatively. They are best able to do this by reaching agreements at the local level. In a less centrally regulated environment, unions have a role to play in helping workers negotiate in more decentralized schemes where the parties can make local agreements, while ensuring that minimal standards are met. This suggests, for educational unions, a move away from traditional “advers” bargaining towards a more constructive social partnership.
Second, unions in the knowledge era have a central role to play in assisting educational workers to develop skills and competencies which are underscored by adaptability and a future orientation. Initial education and continual training schemes, professional development programmes, school/external workplace transition schemes and lifelong learning strategies offer unions a unique domain within which to defend and promote professional reskilling for the changing demands of the modern learning site. Direct measurement of professional skills and competencies and the exploration of alternative remuneration methods – for example, salary structures based on diversified career paths and professional competencies – offer unions an alternative path to provide constructive partnerships with educational workers and management. These opportunities are more likely to be based on cooperation and improved industrial relations rather than what is perceived to be an obsolete confrontational model.
The challenges for educational authorities, private school employers, and public school leadership are not dissimilar. First, a change in mind set is necessary, representing a move away from one in which decisions are made unilaterally, either from prevailing concepts of the State, democratically elected or not, as the ultimate arbiter of public decisions, or a culturally based notion that power properly belongs to those in charge and the less sharing the better. In this attitudinal change, private schools or learning sites are sometimes more adaptable, reflecting their objective-oriented rather than rule-based approach; however, they may also be more resistant to sharing power with often non-unionized educators out of ideological, cultural or religious reasons. A key part of this attitudinal change is that which is identified for partnerships mentioned earlier – trust in the counterpart to be working in the same direction, and the willingness to establish the framework for effective dialogue and settlement of differences.
Second, employers and managers, like their trade union counterparts, could train and be trained to alter notions of how to negotiate; foregoing an advers, position-driven bargaining stance and adopting one dominated by cooperative, consensual, interest-based bargaining. Associations of educational administrators, school heads and private school employers which exist in most countries can play a pivotal role in promoting such concepts, and ensuring their realization through training and providing negotiation support services for their members. Their impact may be enhanced through partnerships with the diversified training providers noted in Chapter 2.
As part of the movement away from system-wide negotiated contracts governing labour relations and decisions in education, some thinkers have advocated reliance on a dual track process: a relatively small system-level contract and a more comprehensive school-based compact. The central contract would establish the “philosophical and operational architecture” – the educational goals agreed upon by union and management – and some basic wage and working conditions which would nevertheless be subject to modification at school level (Kerchner, Koppich and Weeres, 1997). This could be done through the school compact, which would deal with not only the philosophy or strategic vision, student performance, community outreach and resource allocation of the school, but also employment and working conditions variables, such as staff hiring, salary determination, class organization, professional development, performance appraisals and dispute settlement. A companion concept is a jointly agreed procedure and criteria for reviewing and taking action on non-performing schools. School compacts closely resemble school charters in places like Australia (Victoria).
An example of a cooperative negotiation approach which is spreading to bargaining frameworks in Canada and the United States is interest-based bargaining. At the beginning, both sides – management and staff – are asked to identify common concerns rather than demands or positions. A neutral bargaining facilitator, similar to a mediator or conciliator, works with the parties from the start. There is shared responsibility for reaching agreed decisions with the parties, seeking solutions and policy options for the identified issues within a group or team, rather than acting as adversaries out to protect or advance their positions. Once the details are hammered out, the agreement is considered final. Communications and problem-solving skills developed through training are considered essential to this approach.
This kind of interest-, goal-, or vision-based bargaining also opens up possibilities for third party stakeholders to make contributions which broaden the participatory circle. This might take the form of the involvement of parents, business, trade union or community representatives as observers, or even participants in the identification of problems and their solution – provided there is a clearly delineated set of roles so as not to undercut the central role of voluntarily agreed collective bargaining.
At national level, a form of direct representation which has emerged in some English-speaking countries is a general teaching council (GTC), based in part on the kinds of self-governing bodies that set and monitor standards in the medical profession (Hargreaves,1997). The institution has been entrenched in Scotland for some time, was introduced in South Africa in the mid-1990s as the South African Council of Educators (SACE), will become operational in England and Wales in 2000, and is under study in other African and Pacific countries.
Teaching councils are increasingly seen as an attractive forum to address a range of issues which together build a more solid professional foundation for education. They constitute at national level a significant complement to the greater participatory effort at school level, much as a two-tiered bargaining framework can address purely employment issues, since they have a strong educator presence in their elected or appointed composition – a majority in England and Wales, rising to a two-thirds majority in Scotland and South Africa. Purposes and functions vary by country, but generally involve: establishing standards for teacher qualification and certification; maintaining a register of all licensed teachers which is mandatory for entry into the profession; monitoring professional conduct and sanctioning violations, which may include deregistration and exclusion from teaching; and advising on professional issues – teacher education, induction, curricula and methodologies, and professional development. This position at the crossroads of professional issues is likely to enhance their importance to lifelong learning in the future.
Similar systems have taken root in other countries but they have less extensive power to control professional access. In the United States, a National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS) has emerged with a mission to develop an assessment system to certify teachers who meet or exceed the NBPTS professional practice standards. Similar schemes include the New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (INTASC), the PRAXIS project of the nationwide Educational Testing Service, and the Professional Teacher Initiative of the National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) that sets standards for university-based teacher education. While teachers’ trade unions play a role in many of these bodies, their presence does not necessarily carry the same weight as statutory teaching councils. In New Zealand, the Teacher Registration Board (TRB) defines the criteria of a satisfactory teacher in relation to a required, renewable certificate for permanent status as a teacher, and may cancel registration if teachers fall below standards; however, it does not have the range of authority, nor participation, of the teaching councils.
Many nations have well-developed approaches to the settlement of disputes (though this is far from universal), ranging from conciliation to arbitration, industrial or labour courts. Evolving structures in some countries seek to bring the bargaining and dispute settlement mechanisms under one roof to facilitate a seamless process of labour relations in education. The South African Educational Labour Relations Council (ELRC) is one example, with elaborately worked out settlement processes for both individual and collective disputes; it also advises the Government on educational labour relations (Garson, 1997).
Will the current thinking on the advantages of staff involvement programmes and cooperative collective bargaining over traditional labour management relations mechanisms foreshadow changes in the settlement of disputes? The answer is more likely no. Cooperative bargaining to enhance higher performance and quality in schools can lead to greater collective ownership of the results and therefore more opportunity for decisions to be applied without contention. However, it does not eliminate: the need for processes or mechanisms to resolve differences of interpretation; failure by managers, staff or their representatives to properly apply agreed understandings; or changes in the political, economic or educational environment which alter the assumptions behind the agreements, be they at school or system level. Reflections associated with the development of a school compact approach to bargaining also assume different ways of settling disputes which are based on joint union-management bodies or jointly approved “umpires”. These are similar to arbitrators which make decisions balancing the mutually agreed objectives of the bargained agreement, the visions of the school or system, and the interests of stakeholders with the interests of individual teachers; such concepts would create a balance of “individual teacher equity with issues of general school welfare” (Kerchner, Koppich and Weeres, 1997).
Whatever the change in decision-making structures, it is unlikely that a uniform model of decision-making or labour relations will emerge in the near future, given the diversity of employment cultures existing around the world. In this connection, as new forms of decision-making and participation in education spread and become more sophisticated, there is a need for more research and reflection on what means are appropriate to settle disputes short of strikes, and other forms of defending educators’ interests. The fact remains that international labour standards continue to recognize such means as a fundamental right, one that educators are not hesitant to use – whether it is officially recognized or not – when basic interests and workplace rights are at stake.
New workplace methods, with information and communication technology support, are turning the development of teams and individuals upside down. Across the world, attention to “training” is reducing and attention to “learning” is increasing. Today, learners are the centre of attention and may need training “facilitators” to support their learning only when necessary (Oxtoby, 1999).
For effective use to be made of methods using information and communication technologies for developing team and individual competencies, innovations need to be rooted in a framework or model for change and learning which relates to the organization being served. It is against this background that the roles of employers, employers’ associations, workers and their unions have been considered in relation to the fostering of workplace learning.
As already noted, new technologies and the globalization of markets – including labour markets – are fundamentally altering enterprises and the way they do business. Knowledge, and how it is applied, is the major contributing factor to the new economic order, putting a premium on enterprise learning. As this knowledge predominance grows, the shelf life of technical know-how is reduced, and there is a need for a wider variety and higher level of basic skills which enable enterprises to be flexible, responsive and innovative, and which contribute to an individual’s employability: communication; self-management and teamwork skills; print and computer literacy; problem solving; and creative thinking. These changes impact on workplaces in many countries, creating huge retraining and up-skilling imperatives within enterprises. Employers more than ever before have a major role to play as educators and facilitators of learning.
Enterprises perform effectively when their employees are learning faster than – or keeping up with – the pace of external change. This presupposes that learning has to focus on the enterprise’s current and future outputs – what people have to know and do to produce the outputs. For employers in large or small and medium enterprises (SMEs) alike, the learning culture must start with the vision and business objectives of the enterprise and further encourage risk-taking to meet these objectives. An environment of trust, accountability and problem-solving are imperative for learning.
Decisions on the way appropriately skilled people are going to be acquired, retained and rewarded, and the likely formal training and support structures needed, should be integrated into all elements of the normal business planning cycle. At this strategic level decisions may be made about the hiring of apprentices, for example, or involvement in other formal training systems, and how the on-job training will happen. Employers usually define “training” in terms of structured or formal learning, with time and money set aside for the purpose. Yet they also consider that training is merely one choice from a menu of options for employee development, and that most people learn best on the job where learning has practical application and immediate relevance.
Workplace learning, then, is a continuum, covering at one end traditional structured programmes with a mix of on- and off-the-job training, and at the other end unstructured or informal learning on the job, with a huge range of learning options and opportunities in the middle. Small enterprises also fit into this learning spectrum, which is determined by many factors: the diversity of products; suppliers; customers; number of employees; location; and operational modes. Consequently, one training format cannot possibly be applied to all. According to Telecom NZ, one of New Zealand’s largest private enterprises, lack of skill contributes to less than 20 per cent of the reasons for poor performance. The answer to performance or productivity improvement may lie not so much in training as in coaching, mentoring, and a range of other development opportunities best identified at the grass-roots level.
Workplace learning comprises all the training and learning opportunities which employers sponsor for their employees. It divides usefully into two categories: in-service training for existing employees, typically adults; and pre-employment training, typically for youths taken on under contracts of apprenticeship rather than employment. The two categories involve two different types of skill development. Apprenticeship aims nowadays at the wider development, personal as well as vocational, of the trainee. In-service training focuses more narrowly on skills related to actual or prospective job assignments, including induction and job training for new hires, as well as upgrade training and retraining related to promotions, transfers and lay-offs of established employees.
In-service training is important in all economies. Apprenticeship is selectively prominent, notably in European countries such as Germany and its neighbours (Austria, Switzerland and Denmark). Some apprenticeship can be found in practically all advanced economies and it dominates training in the informal sectors of many developing countries.
In developing countries, given the lack of resources for government and individuals to sponsor training, the employer’s role is pivotal, guiding the training of employees for both the large enterprises of the formal sector and, through apprenticeship, their smaller counterparts in the informal sector (Middleton, Ziderman and Van Adams, 1993). The importance of employer sponsorship is underlined further by widespread evidence that it contributes more reliably to improved economic outcomes, for employers and workers alike, than do other forms of sponsorship, particularly public training programmes (Grubb and Ryan, 1999).
Two broad sets of influences on employer-provided workplace learning may be distinguished. Economic approaches emphasize the market context, particularly the labour market; managerial ones emphasize the wider business strategy adopted by the employer. Economic analysis links the willingness of employers to provide training to their technical and financial attributes. Skills are treated either as specific, i.e. of value only to one employer, in an internal labour market, or general, i.e. of value to many employers, in an occupational labour market. Decisions concerning business strategy in general, and production methods, work organization and employee motivation in particular, also carry implications for workplace learning. Training surveys by the New Zealand Employers’ Federation (NZEF, 1997) indicate that employers are interested in training if it addresses a defined lack of skill and provides an answer to business problems such as government regulation and compliance requirements, the introduction of new technology, new products or services, changes in production processes or work organization, and choices about new markets.
Decisions related to training or learning are especially acute for SMEs, often the sector with the largest employment growth, greatest risk-taking, and best innovations. It is important to recognize the diversity of learning options between large and small enterprises (Abbott, 1994). The kind of training in small enterprises, predominantly informal and responsive to needs as they arise, is all too often devalued in terms of the skill and competence development of people working in these businesses.
Production strategy has attracted considerable attention in determining learning requirements, largely over the choice between “mass” and “flexible” production. Employers who opt for flexible rather than mass production choose a skill-intensive, high training route over the opposite.
The implications of flexible production need not stop at job-related learning. Some employers also subsidize employee education independently of any direct link to job requirements. Ford Britain offers a striking example. Its decision to sponsor adult education for its employees has been motivated by the potential competitive benefits of increased employee interest in learning, as well as by industrial relations (see box 4.2).
Strong relationships have been found between the training efforts of employers
and their production strategies: lower training efforts with mass production
of lower quality products; higher training efforts with “high performance work
organization” practices, including autonomous work teams, job rotation, quality
circles, statistical process control and decentralized quality control, as in
the United States (Osterman, 1995).
|
Box 4.2. Since 1988 Ford Britain’s Employee Development Assistance Programme (EDAP) has sponsored educationally oriented courses outside working time for employees at its 22 plants in the United Kingdom. Courses must not relate to job requirements. The most popular courses have been modern languages, technical skills (bricklaying, computers, automobile repair) and personal health and fitness. The programme is administered by joint management-union bodies, on which unions enjoy majority representation and can choose their own chairpersons. The fund is generated by a company contribution per employee/year. Employee interest has far outstripped expectation: 45 per cent of employees participate every year; 70 per cent have participated in total. Although EDAP was partially inspired by the 1982 Employee Development Training Program of the parent Ford Motor Company in the United States, it has spent less on educational facilities, favoured general education rather than remedial education or retraining, and placed fewer restrictions on the use of funds. Sources: Ford Motor Company (1996); Mortimer (1990); and unpublished company materials. |
The adoption of high training practices is also associated with technological sophistication. United States and British workers are significantly more likely to receive training if their employer produces higher technology products, invests more in research and development and introduces more innovations in products and processes than is the norm in other sectors (Dench, 1993). In developing countries, too, indices of employer research and innovation efforts are associated with training provision (Tan and Batra,1995).
Training practices may also embody a specifically corporate component, reflecting influences of a multinational corporation’s origin on the training policies of national subsidiaries. In foreign-owned high technology manufacturing in Ireland, the companies which use “high performance work organization” practices are more prone to send their Irish employees abroad for training than are others. The training practices of international joint ventures in China are influenced by the parent company (Lu and Bjorkman, 1997).
The implications of flexible production for employee training depend also on the national system of vocational preparation. In advanced economies with weak initial vocational preparation, such as the United Kingdom and the United States, the demands placed on employer training in association with flexible production are correspondingly great. By contrast, the extended training provided by apprenticeship in Germany reduces the need for additional adult training for flexible production and multiskilling (Scott and Cockrill, 1997).
In many developing economies, the problem is more acute. Deficiencies in basic skills discourage employers from implementing flexible production, as expensive prior investments in remedial education are required. For instance, three Brazilian manufacturers who attempted to adopt various forms of flexible production attributed the scaling back of their efforts to unfavourable basic skills, aptitudes and attitudes amongst their employees.
Other determinants include the role of line managers (who, in the case of small enterprises, may well be the employer/owner/operator of the business) to take on HRD responsibility as a core part of their job. They are in the best position to plan skill and performance improvement with employees through communication on an ongoing, informal basis, as well as in more formal performance appraisals and reviews.
The effects of employer-provided workplace learning are potentially wide-reaching. Plants which use flexible production and associated HRM practices, including high-level training, enjoy greater labour productivity and product quality than do those which conform to mass production and associated personnel policies (see box 4.3). The adoption of “high-powered work organization” practices, including greater provision of employee training, is positively associated with higher productivity in a sample of nearly 1,000United States corporations. Similarly, the benefits to employers of high levels of employee training are increased by two other attributes of Japanese-type employment systems: job security, which encourages long-term commitment between the two parties; and employee involvement, which encourages employees to share their knowledge of training-related issues.
|
Box 4.3. The economic performance of 62 worldwide automobile assembly plants around 1990, measured in terms of labour productivity (labour hours per vehicle) and product quality (assembly-related defects per vehicle), proved closely associated with the presence of three dimensions of business strategy: (i) lean (low buffer) production; (ii) team working; and (iii) innovative human resource management (HRM) practices. Training provision, for both new hires and ongoing employees, constituted two out of the five practices in the HRM dimension. There was evidence of complementarity between the three dimensions: the effects on productivity of production, work organization and HRM practices when present together exceeded their sum when taken separately. The implication is that the benefits of training for productivity depend strongly on the choice of a compatible organization of production, work, recruitment and compensation. Source: MacDuffie (1995). |
In terms of the workplace, employers generally take the position that costs should be shared by enterprises as well as employees. The more integrated learning becomes with earning, the harder it is for employers to measure true (direct and indirect) costs and benefits. Despite the risk of “poaching” by other enterprises, enterprises will often train and provide other learning opportunities for employees if the employees are willing to meet some of the costs and/or the skills not considered to be easily transferable.
Employer associations commonly try to influence government training policy so that both the economic interests of – and the particular information possessed by – employers are taken into account in policy formulation. Thus in countries like Germany and the United Kingdom, employers’ federations have been influential in surveying members, sharing information and mobilizing members to support changes in official training legislation or boards, often despite trade union opposition.
In the state-led, educationally oriented initial training system of France, employer associations are formally involved, at both national and sectoral levels, in systematic consultations concerning public training policy. These often lead to agreements, which are converted directly into public law: the institution of paid educational leave; training for redundancy and training levy grants; and the recurrent multi-sectoral “orientation” agreements which have moulded national training policies from the 1980s onwards.
In countries which lack extensive, high membership employer associations – notably the United States and developing countries – the formulation of public training policy faces an important difficulty: that of establishing employer attitudes and mobilizing employer involvement. The difficulty can be seen in widespread United States reliance on locally based training partnerships between public agencies and local employers (Herschbach,1997; Mitchell, 1997). Similar difficulties face government efforts to build training partnerships in Malaysia and Chile (Espinoza, 1997; Kiong, 1997).
A second area of importance for employer associations concerns occupationally oriented training in general, and apprenticeship in particular. The occupational training in some sectors typically involves apprenticeship, opening up an even wider role for the employers’ association. As apprenticeship is generally treated as part of vocational education, not simply job training, public and trade union interests impinge on its design and implementation. Apprenticeship works best under social partnership, i.e. governance by joint bodies on which employers, government, educators and trade unions are all represented. The classic instance of such a regulatory structure is Germany, but less elaborate forms operate in neighbouring countries; however, the dual system of formal training for apprenticeship, modelled in many northern European countries and followed with varying degrees of success by countries in both hemispheres, appears to be losing popularity despite the numerous advantages for enterprises, apprentices and government authorities (Hannart and Bossio, 1998). It is being seen by many as insufficiently responsive to rapidly changing industrial demands.
If they continue, the apprenticeship-style programmes of tomorrow will be very different from those that have operated until the present. Australian group apprenticeship schemes, for example, have for a number of years been employing apprentices and hiring them out to several small enterprises. This brokerage arrangement ensures that: the full range of skills is acquired; more SMEs have the opportunity to share the responsibility for training apprentices; the problem of the shortage of qualified employees is partially remedied; and there is a “try before they buy” approach. Group schemes like this provide a way of spreading the risks and sharing the costs. SMEs, whose employee turnover is usually higher, especially depend on collective training provision, more than large firms, who are better placed to retain skilled workers.
Many governments, particularly in developing countries, express interest in developing work-based learning in general. Recent examples include the Republic of Korea, Malaysia and Chile. In all three countries, the reported weakness of employer organization has proved a major constraint on the success of such policies, making it harder to get employers to participate, and to discourage them from providing low-quality training when they do participate (Espinoza, 1997; Jeong, 1995; Kiong, 1997).
The aspirations and influence of trade unions in the area of training and workplace learning are widely debated. The importance of training to unions is highly variable, as are the training-related goals which unions pursue, and the influence which unions exert in practice. Workplace learning is important to some unions, unimportant to others – though its importance to unions does, however, appear to be on the rise. Training-related goals of unions divide into the substantive and the procedural, the former concerning patterns of training, the latter the institutions through which training decisions are made.
Unions traditionally press employers to sponsor more training for their members. A common reason is that the typical member stands to gain from receiving more training. In the first place, members may welcome training as a fringe benefit. Union pressure for the extension of paid educational leave in the 1960s leading to the adoption of rights to individual training leave (Congé Individuel de Formation), was motivated by such considerations. Ford Britain’s EDAP scheme (box 4.2 above) is in part a further development along such lines, excluding job-related courses while permitting some leisure-related courses. Support for international labour standards may play an important role in encouraging greater recourse to training leave.[11] The greater priority for members of pay and job security has, however, limited this source of union interest in training: workers prefer to take the benefit in the pay packet itself.
A more current prospect is that union members may value training as a source of improved pay and employment prospects, to the extent that it is actually associated with higher pay, promotion and job security. Low prospective benefits of training to individual members under deskilled mass production have in the past helped explain in turn low interest in training amongst the unions which organized less skilled employees.
To the extent that employers nowadays implement the “learning organization” called for by the advocates of flexible production and HRM exponents, union interest in training could increase. The associations between flexible production, training and higher productivity encourage trade unions to press for more employer training as a source of improved pay and employment prospects for their members. Various unions which nowadays seek to move training up the bargaining agenda make frequent reference to the benefits for members of improved employer competitiveness associated with increased training (TGWU/GMB, 1997).
The interest of union members in training often appears however to be galvanized by impending redundancy and the benefits it carries for improved re-employment prospects.The potential appeal of training to trade unionists on competitiveness grounds resides in its financing by employers. A further reason for supporting employer training is strategic: a workforce in which an employer has committed greater investments is more costly to replace by external recruits, and thus better placed to bargain over terms and conditions of employment. The increase in “insider power” gives unions further reason to prefer employer-financed training.
Unions often interest themselves in training for reasons of equity as well. Given that employers typically ration access to training and slant its provision towards more highly educated males, many unions try to reduce inequalities of access within the membership. A favoured negotiating goal of many unions in the United Kingdom nowadays – five days annual entitlement to training for all employees – deals explicitly with unequal access to employer training (TUC, 1996). Similarly, unions have also pressed at national level for increased training content in public programmes for the unemployed.
In some cases, unions themselves have acted as training sponsors, offering technical training courses to members. Many unions train their own representatives in industrial relations skills, in particular how best to promote collective bargaining through training.
The procedural objective of unions is typically to participate in the making of training decisions. Such efforts are motivated in turn partly by a desire to secure the substantive goals already discussed, and partly by the interest of union officials in sharing the exercise of power. Unions typically seek the development of regulatory institutions enjoying powers to make or influence training decisions, along with formal representation for unions on such bodies.
In the relatively deregulated economies the main prospective avenue for union regulatory influence is collective bargaining. Two approaches have proved popular. The first is the negotiation of training agreements with individual employers; the second is the institution of durable joint bodies to determine training policy and regulate training disputes as they arise.
In the more regulated economies of continental Europe, union pursuit of influence over training decisions has resulted in extensive involvement in the joint bodies which influence training decisions, ranging from works councils through sectoral and regional bodies to national policy-making institutions. Aspirations to influence training have generally been more successful for initial vocational preparation and public programmes than for further training of employees.
In an era in which union organization and influence is being severely tested, rising union aspirations to influence training might be expected to remain largely unrealized. On the other hand, if increasing numbers of employers see training as central to business success, resistance to union objectives for training may also be declining, leaving the door open for unions to exert more influence. By some accounts, the advent of flexible production is transforming the bargaining environment facing unions over training, enlarging the area of common interest with employers and encouraging cooperative and productivist – rather than conflictual and distributive – negotiations. Examples can be found in Australia and in the consensual approaches to skills and training within Japanese enterprises (Benson, 1996).
A striking instance of the change in the bargaining environment facing unions in some sectors is provided by Ford Britain’s EDAP programme. Recognition by management that improved competitiveness required a more cooperative industrial relations environment led to a programme which promoted broadly based education, in which the company’s interest was indirect rather than directly related to the job training. It also offered joint sponsorship to the unions (Mortimer, 1991).
The extent to which flexible production opens the door to cooperation over training is however disputed. The implementation of HRM has often involved work intensification, skill polarization and redundancies. Some variants of HRM in particular often embody an individualistic and unitarist view of the employment relationship which is intrinsically hostile to the collectivist and pluralist values associated with trade union influence (Stuart,1996).
Nonetheless, conflict between HRM and trade unionism does not appear to be
extensive in practice. HRM techniques in some countries prove more widespread
in unionized than in non-union employment. It makes sense to think of flexible
production as leading to expanded overlaps of the interests of employers and
unions in the area of training, while recognizing that important conflicts of
interest are also to be expected. As noted above, employer training is widely
constrained by fear of losing skilled labour and is typically made available
only to an already advantaged subset of employees; consequently, employer willingness
to share the benefits of training with employees through higher pay and promotion,
or through permitting the external certification of skill, is often low. In
all these respects union and employer interests diverge, implying significant
scope for collective bargaining over training. One pragmatic response, favoured
by the large GMBU union in the United Kingdom, offers to support increased functional
flexibility, in return for increased job security and access to training. An
agreement along such lines is outlined in box 4.4.
|
Box 4.4. Following restructuring and redundancies in the early 1990s, associated with increasing competition in global product markets, Guinness’ whisky distilling subsidiary negotiated with the GMB and five other unions in 1994 a three year “partnership” agreement under which employees agreed to flexible working, redeployment, retraining and even relocation; the company further agreed to job security, at least for the duration of the agreement. A network of joint consultative committees was set up to decide detailed changes and training programmes were developed to meet agreed needs. It was decided that pay should be negotiated separately from training. The agreement has since been renewed annually. The GMB’s regional officer depicts a rapid change from low to high trust industrial relations, noting the absence of industrial disputes since 1994. Source: IPA Magazine, March 1997. |
The outcome of a union’s interest in training also depends on its strength. Those with sufficient leverage can require employers to attend to their interests in the training area. In relatively deregulated economies, unions have centred on getting unionized employers to treat training as an item for negotiation, hopefully leading on to the negotiation of training agreements and the creation of joint training committees. In much of continental Europe, however, trade unions enjoy legal rights to participate in training decisions and more employers willingly engage in joint regulation of at least some aspects of training. German unions have acquired significant influence over apprenticeship training through formal representation on the hierarchy of joint bodies which regulate training curricula, examinations and methods. In the United States automobile industry, local joint boards of employers and trade unionists have historically administered what remains of apprenticeship for the maintenance crafts, and, more recently, the collectively agreed payroll-based training funds which fund local training initiatives for members.
Statistical evidence for the more deregulated economies suggests that unions have a significantly positive influence on training. Positive associations between unionization and training have generally been found for employer-sponsored training only, including on-the-job training and apprenticeship. Experience in the United States has shown that training conducted apart from employment is not more common for union members than for others – a finding consistent with widespread union preference for employer provision.
Women and racial minorities feature prominently as employee categories with particularly restricted access to employer training. Limited evidence from some countries suggests that unionization not only increases female access to training, but that the benefit may be significantly greater than for males, in which case unions would reduce inequality of access to training. The levelling up of female relative to male access to apprenticeship in Germany in recent years is attributable partly to union efforts, inspired by interest in increased female recruitment. Similarly, the tendency of non-union Australian employers to offer less training to racial minorities than to other employees is apparently not present in the union sector (Kennedy, Drago, Sloan and Wooden, 1994).
Against a backdrop of lifelong learning systems which are largely still in their infancy, if they have recognizable shape at all, the report has looked at the changing roles and responsibilities of educational personnel, their remuneration and work organization in schools and training sites, means of greater participation in educational decision-making, the roles of employers and workers in promoting workplace learning, and their involvement, along with other stakeholders, in formulating general education and training policies. A need for learning to become a lifelong function has been identified as a pivotal conceptual change in the way education and training operate so as to enable individuals, communities and nations to be at the cutting edge of – and where necessary adapt to – the constant and sweeping political, economic, environmental, technological, and social transformation of societies. At the forefront of political rhetoric for the last couple of decades, lifelong learning is now the guiding principle for policy strategies concerned with multiple objectives: economic well-being and competitiveness; employability; personal fulfilment; democracy; and social cohesion.
To make lifelong learning more than rhetoric, education systems need to focus on a learner-centred approach and culture committed to learning where no such culture exists – or where it is still very weak. They must also ensure the necessary opportunities and infrastructure, marked by a variety and diversity of provision. Formal schooling increasingly constitutes the cornerstone of a decades-long educational and learning chain. At present, however, there are major disparities in formal education participation rates – universal enrolment in primary school is still an ideal, as is universal literacy and the elimination of child labour. Disparities in gender have largely disappeared in the developed countries, yet remain powerful in the least developed. Furthermore, a reorientation is required to balance the academic-vocational dichotomy in secondary and higher education levels, ensure access to these levels, and provide for the transition from school to work. To respond to the challenges of the modern workplace, education, training, schools and enterprises are becoming more interlinked, with multiple pathways between them, and strategic partnerships formed to facilitate transitions. Two primary objectives in reorienting education and training systems are to reduce unequal access to non-formal and adult education, currently marked by differences according to age, employment status, income level, and educational attainment, and to improve gender equilibrium in education and labour market access.
Educational access and quality are dependent on adequate financing, and numbers and quality of educational personnel, especially teachers. Underinvestments in educational funding in relation to a recommended standard of 6 per cent of GNP will significantly impact on both access and quality. To meet the needs, diversified funding measures will have to grow based on a mix of public and private partnerships. Tax incentives, individual learning accounts, training levies, education leave schemes and reliance on small-scale loans are among ideas advanced as measures to finance more access. Worldwide there has been a considerable slowdown in rate of teacher recruitment in recent years, and a huge gap exists between the least developed countries (LDCs) and the most developed, seriously affecting participation. The report foresees an increased feminization of the teaching profession at higher levels of education – a continuation of trends already experienced at lower levels.
Beyond questions of financing and organization, redesigning systems for lifelong learning depends on new or differently performed roles and responsibilities of educators, and policy options chosen with regard to initial education, continual training, qualifications and competencies of staff, their recruitment, and professional and career development. Administrators and school heads have experienced and can expect to see more responsibilities in terms of: forecasting (planning for) change; advisory services and communication with staff, students and constituents; development of strategic visions for their institutions; fund-raising; encouraging and organizing staff development; assessing staff; and exercising leadership to foster innovation, teamwork and collaboration within learning sites. Teachers and the way they perform their work are at the core of any successful strategy for lifelong learning reforms. Based on the concept of greater professionalization, teachers will be expected to exercise more responsibility for learning outcomes through: curricula development and change; research, reflection on and alteration of teaching approaches in the direction of collaborative teaching; assessment of student progress and failures; and modification of work and especially classroom organization in association with educational support staff and parents. Support staff roles to facilitate more collaborative learning approaches are higher up the change agenda.
Information technology use at learning sites is growing, but low “computer literacy” persists, compounded by lack of professional training on integrating technology with learning potential which has led to a defensive reaction by many teachers. Proper training and even more involvement of staff in planning and implementing technological change will be necessary to break down these barriers, expand distance learning, and open up learning environments.
New roles and responsibilities will require all staff – administrators, school leaders and teachers – to have high levels of initial education and opportunities for, as well as a strong individual and institutional commitment to, continual training. Initial teacher education is now largely set at the level of higher education, at the same time that the teacher education providers have become more diversified, and their links to school performance strengthened. The roles and responsibilities of teacher educators have been modified in line with other reforms. The previously ad hoc nature of continual training is becoming a thing of the past, but it remains underfunded and inaccessible to the extent needed by many school heads and teachers. Policy responses have been to mix learning sites and alter strategic objectives by undertaking more school-based, network and distance training linked more directly to educators’ needs and school improvements.
The confluence of altered education and training with expectations for new roles and responsibilities has prompted greater emphasis on lifetime professional development for educators. Increasingly, professional development is linked to redesigned career structures geared to rewarding high levels of competence, skill, and performance, as opposed to an overwhelming reliance on formal qualifications and seniority. The report argues that a more open and diversified career structure, including different paths to positions of responsibilities, non-linear criteria for promotion, and more fluidity between education and other professional job possibilities (such as exchanges between school and public or enterprise staff), will enhance both job satisfaction and performance. Different staff appraisal systems constitute linchpins for performance and career development. Many levels of education are moving towards more gender balance in career opportunity; the growth in women school heads is but the most prominent sign of the times, with positive implications for more collaborative, team-based organization of learning sites.
An integrated strategy for changing the learning environment will require alterations in the remuneration packages and the way that educational work is organized in schools and in the other components of lifelong learning. Salaries will need to be at levels sufficient to attract top-quality candidates to education jobs, retain them over a reasonable career span, and to be structured in a way to motivate and reward innovative performance. Salary levels remain relatively stable in high-income countries, though they do not compensate for all potential recruitment shortages. They remain relatively low in countries in transition and developing countries, where structural adjustment formulas continue to guide much policy. More thought is going to the need for a diversified salary approach within countries, and even more to realigning compensation to performance criteria. School leadership salaries have a strong component of performance pay in some countries, an idea being considered more and more for teaching positions despite unease over its destabilizing potential for classroom and school teamwork. New compensation arrangements can, however, be structured on a group/school/system basis rather than for individuals in order to avoid the pitfalls of individual merit pay.
The required working hours of educational personnel have not changed in recent years, but their effective hours have for some categories, school leaders notably, whereas new expectations are and will continue to alter the intensity of teachers’ work. The class size debate, and concrete measures arising from it, have shifted more in favour of smaller classes in some high-income countries. Very large classes at all levels prevail in most developing countries, undercutting cooperative learning and teacher-student exchanges. More flexibility in school organization and other learning opportunities are expected for learners with diversified profiles, including flexible timetabling, working time arrangements for teachers, and integrated school-community services to maximize infrastructure use. Concerns over violence and stress in schools is growing, requiring a multi-pronged policy response to ensure a safe, healthy and innovative learning environment.
The failure of educational reform efforts in the past to properly involve personnel, especially teachers, in key decisions has led to a global rethinking and proposals to augment staff involvement in the redesign of lifelong learning components. Social dialogue broadly conceived, and respect for fundamental rights to freedom of association and collective bargaining, are important factors in building a participatory framework. Regrettably, these rights are still too often infringed in many countries. School-based decision-making, management concepts, and bargaining are spreading, fuelled by a desire to improve learning outcomes at the principal teaching/learning source. School-based management is increasingly based on a partnership concept involving the main stakeholders so as to mobilize maximum resources and decide on their effective use. Staff involvement may come through a participatory framework of local or national consultative processes, or via representation approaches, including collective bargaining. The nature of bargaining is changing in some countries towards cooperative, interest-based approaches, as opposed to confrontational ones, without obviating the need for appropriate dispute settlement mechanisms, or undercutting the right to strike to defend educators’ interests.
In addition to contributing to public education and training policy formulation, employers and workers have a primary role to play in fostering workplace learning, which is constantly being altered by an increasingly globalized business context. Employers and their associations facilitate workplace learning by linking learning to the enterprise’s strategic vision and business objectives, encouraging employee learning and development, engaging in public education and training policy, and forming dynamic partnerships with the public and private education sector – especially in areas such as occupational and apprenticeship training and the establishment of qualifications. Workers, through their unions, influence workplace learning by: pressing employers for more training opportunities through collective bargaining and the institution of joint bodies to determine training policy and settle disputes; jointly sponsoring with employers new education programmes, not always directly related to the workplace; and reducing unequal access for women and minorities.
Arising from the information presented in this report, the following points are proposed by the International Labour Office as a basis for the meeting’s discussion, it being understood that, in line with the general characteristics of ILO sectoral meetings, the meeting is free to organize its work as it sees fit.
1.Organization, financing and employment policies to install progressively lifelong learning opportunities for all, with special attention to:
(a) universal participation and gender balance;
(b) integration of schools, higher education institutions, workplace learning sites, adult and non-formal education in educational provision; and
(c) new financing arrangements for lifelong learning, including learning accounts.
2.Partnerships for education – policy formulation, governance and resource use.
3.Roles and responsibilities of all categories of educational personnel in lifelong learning, with special attention to:
(a) school leadership;
(b) teachers’ roles and professionalization;
(c) roles of workplace learning facilitators – trainers, managers and union officials; and
(d) integration of information technology.
4.Initial education and continual training for educational roles and responsibilities.
5.Professional and career development, including use of appraisal.
6.Salary levels and compensation structure, including individual or collective performance criteria.
7.Organization of the teaching and learning environment, with attention to:
(a) hours, class size and flexible timetabling; and
(b) infrastructure, health and safety.
8.School-based management and participatory decision-making.
9.The role of consultation mechanisms and collective bargaining, with attention to:
(a) cooperative bargaining; and
(b) settlement of disputes.
10.Roles of employers and workers in the promotion of workplace learning, and the organization and structuring of lifelong learning.
11.Proposals for ILO action.
[9] Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98). Other standards applicable in either a public/private or purely public context include the Workers’ Representatives Convention, 1971 (No. 135), the Labour Relations (Public Service) Convention, 1978 (No. 151), and the Collective Bargaining Convention, 1981 (No. 154).
[10] Parts of this section draw extensively on Ryan (1998).
[11] Paid Educational Leave Convention, 1974 (No. 140).
