Neoliberal Performance Management In Schools. How Does It Affect Teachers' Motivation To Improve?

Author(s):

Kevin Proudfoot(presenting / submitting)

Conference:

ECER 2017

Network:

26. Educational Leadership

Format:

Paper

Session Information

26 SES 13 B, Educational Leadership, Agency and Performance Management

Paper Session

Time:

2017-08-25

13:30-15:00

Room:

K6.02

Chair:

Joanna Madalinska-Michalak

Contribution

This mixed-methods study investigates teachers’ perceptions of the factors which motivate them to ‘improve’. This is a timely and pertinent area of enquiry given the rise of neoliberal performance management reforms in Europe and internationally (Arriazu Muñoz, 2015; Apple 2011). Ryan and Weinstein (2009) have a simple yet valuable insight in respect to neoliberal performance management: that such ‘reforms represent ‘a motivational approach’ (p225), because of their linkage of outcomes with rewards/punishments’. They therefore argue that teacher performativity can and must be analysed through a motivational lens. In the present study, drawing on self-determination theory (Deci and Ryan, 2000) as a theoretical framework, an evaluation is made of the intrinsic and extrinsic motivations which might incentivise (or dis-incentivise) teachers to develop. Recent European studies (Gorozidis and Papaioannou, 2014; Wilkesmann and Schmid, 2014) have demonstrated the relevance of self-determination theory in understanding how to effectively motivate teachers in the modern neoliberal context. This context of teacher performativity (Page, 2015; Ball, 2003) is considered in detail, exploring the extent to which teachers perceive that they are motivated by ‘external regulation’ influences such as the school inspection systems, performance-related pay, lesson observation dynamics and numeric targets. The fraught concept of ‘improvement’ is also debated, exploring the potentially conflicting notions of ‘performance management’ and ‘professional development’ and examining the liminal areas between these. Of relevance here are Deci and Ryan’s (2000) concepts of introjected, identified and integrated regulation, particularly when examining the extent to which teachers can or should internalise the extrinsic motivators employed by their managers and the wider educational system. Similarly, the degree to which teachers are intrinsically motivated is given consideration, alongside the ways in which a teacher’s internal impetuses can either be sustained or eroded by contextual performativity factors (or if intrinsic motivations are to some extent impervious to these influences). In the American context, Sheldon and Biddle (1998) have also used self-determination theory to illuminate the potentially negative motivational implications of neoliberal performativity in schools, including a narrowing of the curriculum; transmission of negative pressure from teachers to children; a stifling of experimentation and creativity on the part of teachers (and by extension, children); a diminishing of learning for its own sake (with minimal intrinsic value placed upon subject matter) and accountability as a perpetual distraction from teaching and learning. In the present study, reflections are made as to the whether such consequences are playing out in a modern European context such as England. In summary, given the neoliberal educational context of teacher performativity and the relevance of a motivational lens to this phenomenon, a clear opportunity can be identified. Though performativity is much prevalent in the English context and elsewhere in Europe, current studies which quantitatively examine the motivational efficacy of this neoliberal approach on working school teachers are less common; this therefore makes the study particularly timely. It is proposed that the synthesis of these quantitative findings with rich qualitative data in the form of semi-structured interviews will therefore provide an insight into how working teachers’ motivations have been shaped by what can be seen as dominantly neoliberal educational policy, which may be of real relevance in England and similar European contexts.

Method

The study conducted an ordinal factor analysis (Basto and Pereira, 2012; Lorenzo-Seva and Ferrando, 2013) of an attitude scale survey of qualified teachers who have completed initial teacher education in England, using self-determination theory as the underlying construct. Both Velicer’s (1976) MAP and Parallel Analysis (Timmerman & Lorenzo-Seva, 2011) were used on the resultant data, which resulted in the same number of factors being extracted in both cases, thereby enhancing the credibility of a two-factor solution. The use of a sample from a university alumni database was regarded as the most ethical and practical approach, given the performance management-related nature of the attitude scale. A survey distribution involving schools would have entailed obvious difficulties, as this would necessarily occur via the headteacher, making teachers wary about responding negatively about performativity. Alongside factorial analysis, the data was further subject to Kruskal-Wallis tests for variance between groups, examining any relevant differences which occurred on the basis of gender, years of service, awareness of performance pay, school sector, professional role (any additional responsibilities) and school type. Similarly, any pertinent overall descriptive statistics were considered, based on median responses evident in the ordinal data, exploring orientations towards differing motivational stances. These quantitative results were then aligned with the findings from qualitative data garnered from a series of semi-structured interviews conducted with a broadly representative sample of teachers working in different school contexts. Teachers rather than school managers were interviewed, as the purpose of the study was to explore the impact of performativity on teacher motivation from working practitioners themselves, rather than the intent of it by those responsible for its implementation. These interviews used a ‘funnel-effect’ to elicit responses, first exploring teachers’ broad motivational stances, and then, more narrowly and specifically, the perceived motivational efficacy of neoliberal performance management strategies in school. This qualitative data was analysed using theoretical thematic analysis (Boyatzis, 1997), using an approach similar to that exemplified by Gorozidis and Papaioannou (2014), drawing upon self-determination theory, but with more dynamic theorisation in response to the data as appropriate. In terms of the integration of these research strands, the study adopted the approach of convergent triangulation (Creswell, 2002), as this allowed both methods to illuminate one another in a rich, flexible and equal way, in order to avoid subordination of one mode to another and/or sequential analysis.

Expected Outcomes

Conclusions are drawn as to how teachers’ position themselves in relation to various motivations to improve their practice: intrinsic and extrinsic, symbolic and financial, collective and individual. In the qualitative element, notions of external regulation and amotivation appeared strongly applicable to the data, with frequent references to themes such as external pressure, control, demoralisation and depersonalisation, and the theme of introjection also revealing itself through references to the absence of managers’ esteem and not feeling valued. These themes co-occurred, suggesting a collapsing of these categories into a more general negative orientation toward teacher performativity. Similar clustering proved evident in respect to the more autonomous end of the self-determination theory (SDT) spectrum (identified, integrated and intrinsic motivations), though this possessed a finer grain. In the quantitative element, the factorial analysis proved supportive of the SDT construct in that there was a clear and observable division between what might be called a ‘control’ cluster and an ‘autonomy’ cluster. The absence of a 6 factor solution that would be expressive of the theorised SDT model was intriguing and supportive of some previous studies. In relation to this, Kaplan (2013) argues for an ‘integrative’ and ‘dynamic’ (p61) theorisation of teacher motivation due to its inherent complexity and the present study is reflective of such. The findings therefore extend beyond self-determination theory and also encompass aspects of motivation-hygiene theory (Herzberg et al, 1959; Stello, 2011) and achievement goal theory (Senko et al, 2011; Urdan, 2000). In respect to Kruskal-Wallis tests, interesting variances emerged in relation to teachers’ awareness of performance pay and years of service. Areas for future investigation are identified, including aspects of performance management which school leaders could re-evaluate. At a systemic level, this research also offers a challenge to the prevailing neoliberal orthodoxy as to what motivates working teachers.

References

Apple, M. (2011) Democratic Education in Neoliberal and Neoconservative Times, International Studies in Sociology of Education, v21 n1 p21-31 Mar Arriazu Muñoz, R (2015) European Education Policy: A Historical and Critical Approach to Understanding the Impact of Neoliberalism in Europe, Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies, v13 n1 p19-42 Jun Ball, S.J. (2003) ‘The teacher’s soul and the terrors of performativity’, Journal of Education Policy, 18(2), pp. 215–228 Basto, M. and Pereira, J.M. (2012) ‘An SPSS R -menu for Ordinal factor analysis’, Journal of Statistical Software, 46(4). Boyatzis, R.E. (1998) Thematic analysis: Coding as a process for transforming qualitative information. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Creswell, J.W. (2002) Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Deci, E.L. and Ryan, R.M. (2000) ‘The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior’, Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), pp. 227–268 Gorozidis, G. and Papaioannou, A.G. (2014) ‘Teachers’ motivation to participate in training and to implement innovations’, (39), pp. 1–11 Herzberg, F., Mausner, B. and Snyderman, B.B. (1959) The motivation to work. 2nd edn. New York: John Wiley & Sons Lorenzo-Seva, U. and Ferrando, P.J. (2013) ‘FACTOR 9.2: A comprehensive program for fitting exploratory and semi-confirmatory factor analysis and IRT models’, Applied Psychological Measurement, 37(6), pp. 497 Page, D. (2015) ‘The visibility and invisibility of performance management in schools’, British Educational Research Journal, 41(6), pp. 1031–1049 Senko, C., Hulleman, C.S. and Harackiewicz, J.M. (2011) ‘Achievement goal theory at the crossroads: Old controversies, current challenges, and new directions’, Educational Psychologist, 46(1), pp. 26–47 Sheldon, K. M., & Biddle, B. J. (1998). Standards, accountability, and school Reform: Perils and pitfalls. Teacher College Record, 100, 164-180 Stello, C. M. (2011). Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory of Job Satisfaction: An Integrative Literature Review. Minnesota: Department of Organizational Leadership, Policy, and Development. Timmerman, M.E. and Lorenzo-Seva, U. (2011) ‘Dimensionality assessment of ordered polytomous items with parallel analysis’, Psychological Methods, 16(2), pp. 209–220 Urdan, T. (2000). The intersection of self-determination and achievement goal theories: Do we need to have goals? Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA Velicer, W.F. (1976) ‘Determining the number of components from the matrix of partial correlations’, Psychometrika, 41(3), pp. 321–327 Wilkesmann, U. and Schmid, C.J. (2014) ‘Intrinsic and internalized modes of teaching motivation’, (2), pp. 6–27

Author Information

Kevin Proudfoot (presenting / submitting)

University of Cumbria

Faculty of Education

Carlisle

Search the ECER Programme

Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
Search for authors and in the respective field.
For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.