The Education Reform Bill was a political response to the

growing crisis in education which was exacerbated by the three

year teachers' pay dispute of the 1980s. It must also be seen

against a background of attempts made by central government to

remove much of the influence of local councils in many policy

areas, one of which was education. The Thatcherite government did

not approve LEAs as the controllers or managers of the education

system. Through the Act central government gained the leading

role while that of the LEAs and teachers diminished.

The Education Reform Act was undoubtedly the most important

Act relating to education since 1944 as it altered its basic

structure. The Act not only increased the powers of the Secretary

of State for Education and Science but it unequivocally restored

the government's control over the curriculum and set a mechanism

for exercising and enforcing its new powers, putting the

education process in the hands of government (top management).

The Act marks a radical shift in direction for schools,

education in the past had been "producer dominated" as noted by

James Callaghan (1988, piv). A change in the financial support

for schools was an attempt to ensure those schools that were

successful in attracting pupils would gain the greater funding.

Consequently schools have had to adjust to the commercial

pressures of a market economy (however artificial) with education

now becoming consumer dominated. As a result, governors and staff

have had to 'sell' their school to potential customers, in theory

putting power in the hands of parents in a flexible and open

system (as outlined by the "Parents Charter", D.E.S. 1991).

Taylor believed in economic incentives for individual workers

aimed at increasing efficiency and production. In the same way

economic incentives exist for teachers who feel pressured to

carry out more work, to raise standards and so attract pupils to

the school, saving their jobs and futures.

In the same way as Taylorism aimed to measure and control

the output and efficiency of workers, there have been moves

towards the assessment of performance of schools, such as the

publication of exam results, school evaluation (Salford education

Authority, 1991, p1) and HMI reports, leading to greater

accountability and a belief that there should be value for money.

Accountability means that parents are given a choice of school:

"the schools that do not offer the product which

parents want should lose their custom and go out of

business" (Brown.p and Sparks.R. 1989, pp42-43)

The hope is that market pressures will improve standards along

with additional legislation to control the content of the

curriculum. The belief is that parents will want to see

examination passes and not what has been regarded as liberal

teaching that may not produce this.

Taylorist management techniques were originally applied to

capitalist industry successfully. The Education Act has attempted

to push education in the same direction. Control would be easier

to achieve through market pressures. At the same time as the

introduction of the Act there was talk from central government of

the possible introduction of a voucher system making it possible

for parents to move their children from school to school and from

the public to the private sector. Longstanding assumptions and

practices are rapidly being replaced by market concepts of supply

and demand, with current political thinking dragging the

educational institutions into the competitive market place in the

hope that improvements can be made. If schools are to be

successful in attracting pupils, the teaching labour process has

to be rationalised, thereby turning away from broad educational

aims to one of examination achievements now regarded as the end

product of the teaching process.

Arguably the education service has begun to move backwards

to something resembling the centralised control which existed

from the inception of state education. For example, the "Revised

Code" of 1862 linked grants for elementary schools to attendance

and attainment of pupils (Evans, 1978, p25). Dale (as early as

the 1970s) saw moves of this nature in terms of a shift in the

relative autonomy of schools to "regulated autonomy":

"Control over the education system is to become

tighter, largely through the codification and

monitoring process and practices previously left to the

teachers professional judgment taken on trust or

hallowed in tradition" (Dale.R. 1979, p104)

The freedom for teachers to manoeuvre (autonomy) has been reduced

with a variety of control strategies now visible. However,

although autonomy has not been removed, it has been reduced.



The Reform Act requires all maintained schools to provide a basic

curriculum to be known as the National Curriculum (section 1(2))

and states that there should be three core subjects and seven

foundation subjects. The core subjects are Maths, English and

Science while the foundation subjects are History, Geography,

Technology, Music, Art and a Modern Language. The door is left

open for the Secretary of State for Education to introduce and

control the assessment of subjects. Two curriculum councils and a

schools examinations and assessment council are to advise the

Secretary of State on matters of assessment. It should be borne

in mind that the members of these councils are nominated by the

Minister. Taylorist methods aimed at putting the management

firmly in control in terms of organizing and directing work, the

Act appears to have set the framework allowing for this strategy.

The Act seems to extend what could be an aid to indirect

control in that it ensures that parents are given the maximum

information about the studies their children are following with

regular reports on progress (section 22). This is one of the ways

that the Secretary of State can exercise his/her authority to

require LEAs governors and headteachers to provide any other

information about the education of pupils. In addition, section

23 requires local authorities to establish ways of dealing with

complaints regarding the curriculum not being followed, or a

failure to provide information under section 22. This seems to be

a form of quality control as teachers cannot deviate from working

within the framework of the 1988 Act: thus "soldiering" has

become more difficult. Nigel De Gruchy suggests that complaints

could be fed into the appraisal system, working against the

interests of teachers:

"Teachers will be devastated to realise that their

future employment prospects and pay levels could be

subject to gossip and tittle tattle fed into the

appraisal process by some malicious parents or

governors"(De Gruchy.N. 1991, p1)

Fear may ensure conformity and obedience.

The Act has ensured that there are no illusions regarding

where the legal control of the curriculum falls, with the

Secretary of State. It specifies exactly those subjects that are

to be taught and sets the scene for systematic assessment and

recording procedures for monitoring pupils progress. In this way

the control of the labour process of teaching and the autonomy

and discretion of teachers has been vastly reduced and placed in

the hands of top management. Through the Act top management now

dominates, to a large extent, the day-to-day teaching in the

classroom by setting the tasks though the National Curriculum (to

be discussed later). It also has great influence over almost

every aspect of the education system.

Ozga and Lawn (1988, pp324-325) suggest that

"Proletarianism" is the process which results when the worker is

deprived of the capacity to both initiate and execute work, and

where there is a separation of conception from execution,

breaking down the process into separate controllable parts. This

was also one of the aims of Scientific Management. It could be

argued that the 'Proletarianisation of teaching' is the result of

the central control of the curriculum, as there has been an

erosion of teacher autonomy along with vastly increased

managerial control. Furthermore there is evidence of the

deskilling that Braverman refers to (in an industrial and white

collar context) as a result of direct control. Although most work

on Proletarianisation is focused on the technical process of

production and the contrast between the craft worker and assembly

line production, the process of proletarianisation is probably

common to all types of work (as supported by Lanes and Kumar's

work on White collar workers and Shaw in education, 1987 and


Deskilling can be linked to the introduction of technology

and so it is important to state what the "technology of teaching"

actually is. On a production line it is easy to determine what

the technology is as it can be machinery, or in the office it

could be in the form of automation and computer systems. However,

teaching relies on less technological hardware, consequently we

must look at the process of teaching. Dreeben (1988, p325) refers

to teacher's work as been structured by the organisation and the

technology of the task, in that both the layout of classrooms and

the strategies and methods of teaching are seen as part of

technology. We can regard the availability of resources,

teachers' specialist knowledge and the allocation of time to the

tasks as being related to the 'technology' of teaching.

Current legislation means that much of the technology of

teaching is determined by central authority. Through its

financial policies and the resourcing of schools the teaching

process has been influenced and therefore the technology has

changed. Schools have had to restructure to accommodate the

Education Reform Act and the National Curriculum. Just as the

introduction of technology into the factory is seen as an aid to

control as it can take the form of a production line, the

influence of technology (as outlined by Dreeban) in teaching

helps support a production line process within schools (this will

be discussed later). This is a key issue as it follows that there

are many aspects of a teachers work where the ability to control

the pace, content and number of tasks have been reduced.


The National Curriculum covers the school life of a pupil

from the age of five years to sixteen years and can be divided

into four stages. Keystage one and two relate to junior and

primary schools whilst keystage three covers the age range eleven

to fourteen - those pupils in first to third year of secondary

schooling (the National Curriculum calls this age range year 7 to

year 9, APPENDIX 1). Keystage four relates to examination years

in the fourth and fifth year (years 10 and 11 of the National


There is general agreement within the teaching profession

that the National Curriculum has been imposed on teachers and

schools with only the minimum of consultation. It can be regarded

as the main task for teachers in the same way as tasks are set by

managers for production line workers, following the Taylorist

pattern. Taylor considered that tasks could only be carried out

efficiently if workers followed directions from management who

carried out all aspects of planning, "separating planning from

doing" (Hill.S. 1981, p25). Certainly if it is considered that

the National Curriculum is the backbone of the teaching labour

process, control of the process has passed from the hands of the

individual teacher to that of top management.

Administrative methods of managing and directing the

teaching process have "ebbed and flowed" in England, Wales and

the USA (Simons.H and Elliot.J. 1989, p36). In England and Wales

the Revised Code of 1862 attempted to measure the efficiency of

teachers in elementary schools by relating payments to results.

It led to a narrowing of the curriculum and 'teaching to the

test' (this view is supported by the teacher interviews, chapter

4) and so was similar to todays National Curriculum. In this way

the curriculum determines the labour process (much in the same

way as an industrial management strategy controls a production

line) and has become known as the "process-product" system of

education (Simons.H and Elliot.J. 1989, p37), the teacher merely

attends to the set tasks of the National Curriculum with the

pupils given the opportunity to learn what is later tested. The

National Curriculum has led to a change in styles and

methods/techniques of teaching. The teaching process has been

altered with the teacher becoming ultimately responsible for

presenting or delivering an externally developed curriculum at

classroom level (this is new to the lower school). This is one of

the contributing factors leading to the rationalisation of the

teaching process.

National Curriculum Technology is composed of five

previously separate subjects: Craft Design and Technology, Home

Economics, Business Studies, Information Technology and

Textiles/Art. Within the "new" subject there are five Attainment


1) Identifying Needs and Opportunities

2) Generating a Design

3) Planning and Making

4) Evaluation

5) Information Technology

Pupils' work should cover each Attainment target, within which

there are ten levels of ability. A pupil should progress up the

levels through his/her school life. Each Attainment Target and

level is achieved through 'Programmes of Study' which specify

what is to be taught to the pupils, giving examples (see appendix

2). Progammes of Study and the Attainment Targets make up the

framework within which both pupils and teachers must work. In

this way not only is the labour process determined but also the

production process (the production process being the educating of

pupils). The main difference is that the curriculum is set for

the lower school, whereas previously teachers could devise their


One could argue that the teacher has a form of responsible

autonomy, however the teacher generally finds that this

responsibility is limited to working within the framework of set

skills directed by the National Curriculum. Responsible autonomy

aims to keep supervision to a minimum yet the Technology

Coordinator (the overall coodinator of the subjects contributing

to Technology) must ensure that the Attainment Targets and levels

are met (National Curriculum Council, 1990, pb7). The Coordinator

must also ensure that staff teach to the National Curriculum

requirements, therefore supervision is increased with record

keeping supporting this strategy. It would appear that the higher

one is up the managerial ladder, the more responsible autonomy is

granted, with main scale teachers following the directions of

Heads of Departments. In industry it is suggested that the more

skills one prossesses the greater autonomy one is allowed. If

this applies to teaching, it is management techniques that are

regarded as skills and not classroom teaching skills.

The production process can be considered to be that of

educating pupils throughout their journey from Keystage one to

Keystage four. The pupils can be regarded as objects moving on an

education production line/conveyor belt and as they progress

along it they achieve levels within each Attainment Target. If we

accept this view it is almost axiomatic that Taylorist techniques

can be adopted to achieve optimum efficiency and control both of

the labour and production processes. Taken in its entirety the

effects that can be attributed to the National Curriculum and

other educational policies is a shift from "formal" to "real"

subordination of teachers work. The worker (the teacher) is

reduced to a "living appendage of the production process". As

Gorz suggests (1982, p46) scientific management has made it

impossible for the worker to experience work as a creative

process. Now, in the context of the National Curriculum many

teachers would support a similar view of teaching. (see teacher

survey, chapter 4)

As discussed earlier one of the aims of the National

Curriculum is to provide parents with information concerning

their child's educational progress. Although parents previously

received reports and could attend parents evenings, for the first

time parents are able to identify the level of attainment their

child should be at and compare it to the level they have actually

achieved. For example, a pupil of twelve years should reach

levels within Keystage three (levels 3 - 7). If a pupil is

falling below expected levels, parents will become aware of it.

This is a significant increase in surveillance not only of the

pupil but also the teacher. The teacher must now ensure that

detailed records of progress and evidence of pupil's progress are

kept up to date and available for scrutiny (see appendix 3 ,

example of CDT record of progress). This continuous surveillance

exerts further control over the teacher so that he/she does not

deviate from what is required by the National Curriculum. This

appears to be a form of bureaucratic control as outlined by

Edwards (1982, p263)through his work on corporations.

Bureaucratic control is an indirect form of control and is not

restricted to the production line. In this way, although parental

pressure is not part of the teaching process, it has the effect

of placing restrictions on teachers.

The sample Information Technology "Record of Progress"

(appendix 4) shows how a pupil is monitored and to some extent

shows how the subject matter taught by teachers is now

restricted. The pupils have to achieve each of the levels through

a set of narrow projects. For example, in order to achieve the

level 4c ("amend and add information to an existing database")

the pupil must carry out a task which includes printing out an

existing database, adding and editing some records and producing

a second printout. The printouts provide the evidence that the

levels have been achieved, although the level of understanding by

the pupil may be minimal. The pupils are directed by the teacher

to carry out a number of specified tasks and they tick the

appropriate level on the record of progress. The teacher can no

longer use a variety of techniques to improve a pupils

understanding of Information Technology, as the limited time

allocation given to the National Curriculum does not allow this

(such as using different database software). Within the

Information Technology Attainment Target the techniques that are

taught are largely predetermined by the National Curriculum and

therefore the teaching process is directly controlled, reflecting

Edwards Technical control (Edwards.R. 1982, p263)and Taylorist


The limitations of the task-approach reflects the structure

of Taylorism which is characterised as rigid and unyielding. The

task approach ensures control of both production and process. In

the case of Information Technology, this effects what is taught

and the way it is taught. In many ways the teacher can be seen as

the foreman and just as Taylorism reduces the autonomy and number

of tasks they carry out on the production line, the same is

taking place within this subject and National Curriculum


Taylorism inevitably resulted in a reduction of the level of

skill possessed or exercised by workers. Definitions of skill and

training are extremely vague in most areas of industry. Certainly

teachers have gained little from the decline of their command

over the labour process and this is not compensated by the

increasing command on the part of managers. The teachers'

traditional skills (subject related skills) have undoubtedly

fallen without an adequate increase of new skills, the skill

level has fallen in a relative sense (see teacher survey, chapter

4). This appears to be supported by the work of Braverman, in

relation to industry (1974). Hargreaves (1989, p83) suggests that

subject commitment and skill in a specialist area is developed

over many years of study and exploration of a subject, including

university training, and argues that the acquisition of skills is

a cognitive process. The National Curriculum and its rapid

imposition has abandoned this process.

The five National Curriculum Technology specialist subjects

are becoming fragmented, their skills diluted and delivered by

non specialist staff. For example, the design process once taught

by Craft, Design and Technology teachers is expected to be

followed by all Technology subjects (Home Economics, Business

Studies etc...).

It is easy to read Taylorism into many aspects of teaching,

however a variety of managerial control strategies are available.

"Polyvalence" according to John Child (1988) is frequently

adopted in connection to the introduction of new technology. This

places the worker in a situation in which workers perform (or at

least are available to perform) a range of tasks which cut across

or extend traditional skill and job boundaries. In this way

demarcation is removed and often additional tasks and

responsibilities are placed on workers. However, this is still

aimed at controlling the process of production and the work

force. Polyvalence is often used along with responsible autonomy.

Strategies such as these have advantages such as a reduction in

staffing and an indirect form of control rather than direct

control. This model can be applied to National Curriculum

Technology, as Technology teachers find themselves delivering

skills that previously were the preserve of other specialist

subjects. Polyvalence does not necessarily accompany the

introduction of new technology but is an effective tool against

"custom and practice demarcation" (Child.J. 1988, p87) as seen

within subject areas.

It has already been suggested that Information Technology

has suffered drastically from deskilling. According to the

National Curriculum, Information Technology is "cross-curricular"

in nature and as such should not be taught as a discrete subject.

I.T. skills should be used when required by other subjects such

as science or technology. As a result, many schools are removing

I.T. from the timetable: "The I.T. programmes of study are best

taught through other subjects" (National Curriculum Council,

1990, c2). For example, science may require the use of a database

for pupils to examine the properties of the periodic table. When

situations like this arise an I.T. specialist may be required to

teach the use of such skills, in this case to a science class.

Before the National Curriculum the I.T. teacher may have had a

term (twelve weeks) in which he/she could teach such skills in

depth. However, such is the pressure of the National Curriculum ,

that subjects such as Science may only allow two lessons (one

week) for the teaching of such skills. The skills taught by the

teacher are therefore diluted and reduced to those that are

minimally essential for the Attainment Targets and levels within

other subjects.

Not only are the pupils suffering from the effects of what

would appear to be a deskilling policy but so are the teachers.

It is now becoming less necessary to have a specialist I.T.

teacher. Those in this post are rarely needed and now only teach

basic skills; now it is possible for non specialist I.T. staff to

teach their subjects limited I.T. skills. This deskilling

reflects the aims of Taylorism and views of Braverman; if the

workforce is deskilled they have less control over the production

process. They can be done away with completely or replaced by

less skilled staff (licensed teachers ?). In the case of I.T

teachers it is likely that many will find themselves teaching

other general subjects rather than their specialism.

Her Majesty's Inspectorate (1989, p82-83) have

identified one teacher in ten as revealing insecurity in the

subject they are teaching. Like any other employee a teacher who

feels insecure and has little say over the labour process is more

likely to comform to the tasks presented to him/her.

Teachers of National Curriculum Technology feel uncertain

about their futures, especially with the prospect of being

replaced by less skilled staff (possibly just one teaching all

aspects and Attainment Targets of Technology - see teacher

survey, chapter 4). Schools looking for financial savings may

look towards Technology realising that only one or two members of

staff are needed to teach all the Attainment Targets and levels.

Subjects contributing to Technology try to hold onto their skills

jealously with the aim of preventing other subjects teaching them

and so securing their employment.

National Curriculum Technology is an combination of several

subjects; Craft Design and Technology (CDT), Home Economics,

Textiles/Art, Business Studies and Information Technology. An

obvious problem arises here, because with so many previously

separate subjects contained within this new subject there has

been a watering down of the skills taught, with the five areas

contributing the minimum of skills to the new subject. We can

take as an example one of the essential ingredients of

Technology, the 'design and problem solving process'. The pupils

begin by finding a "need or opportunity", (a design problem) and

then begin to generate designs and ideas in the form of notes and

sketches. This is followed by the "planning and making" of the

project. Finally after the project has been completed the pupil

must show that he/she is capable of evaluating the ideas

expressed throughout the design process. In total this gives use

four stages/areas of design.

The above process appears to be the deskilled version of the

one that operated within CDT over the previous decade, which

involved a ten stage design process (appendix 8). This process

was much more detailed and followed a specialist designers

approach. The ten stages include;

1) Recognition of problem

2) Design Brief

3) Analysis

4) Synthesis

5) Research

6) Specification

7) Generation of Ideas

8) Development

9) Solution

10) Evaluation

The deskilling is highlighted by the fact that it is now

considered that virtually any teacher can teach National

Curriculum Technology (see teacher surveys, chapter 4) whereas

previously specialist staff were required to teach the

contributing subjects. The overall design process has been

reduced. Just as the skilled craftsmen of the 19th and early 20th

century found that production line technology meant their skills

were no longer required, so Technology teachers are finding

their specialisms undermined.

Accompanying the National Curriculum has been an assessment

and monitoring system that has been under development by the

Consortium for Assessment and Testing in Schools. These tests, as

we will see later, help set some of the tasks for both pupils and

teachers to perform. They have further reduced the teacher

autonomy / discretion over the nature of the labour process and

have increased the amount of surveillance that the teacher and

pupil faces. This provides further evidence that Taylorist

management techniques are continuing to be introduced.


The SATs are in their development stage but they are likely

to be introduced as a national method of assessing the levels

that pupils have achieved while working within National

Curriculum Technology and other subjects at the end of each of

the Keystages. At the moment they are running as pilot schemes

and within Technology they are a form of extended activity

lasting between ten to twelve hours. They are set tasks and

teachers are legally obliged to carry them out. They are

administered by the usual class teacher, providing a "standard

set of assessment procedures" (C.A.T.S. 1990.p002/1) . All

teachers are faced with the legislation and therefore they have

to stay within the law to avoid disciplinary action. The SATs

have been imposed on schools and writers such as Sue Rogers

(1991, p3) see it as testing the "teachers professional

judgement". The teachers judgement is no longer trusted and the

SATs provide a standardised approach to assessment, confining the

discretion of the teacher to a "formal assessment methodology"

(C.A.T.S. 1990, p002/1) operating through the National Curriculum

programmes of study.

Prior to the introduction of SATs, one of the tasks of

teachers was to assess informally and formally a pupils ability,

attitude and personality. Just as the introduction of technology

to the office meant that the more intellectual tasks were taken

over by computer (Kumar.K. 1978, p210), the introduction of the

mechanical type of assessment has reduced substantially this

important intellectual aspect of teaching. SATs do not ask for

opinions or views of teachers with regard to pupils but

measurable academic facts only. Also just as technology (such as

computer systems) can determine that hours worked in the office

as labour hours may be tied to the availability of hardware, the

SATs are beginning to determine the annual course planning. The

SATs are becoming part of the technology of teaching. A survey

carried out by "Teachers Weekly" (1991, p4) in schools found the

timetable was dominated by SATs when they have been carried out,

and in many cases teachers spent up to twenty hours of their own

time, each week (while the SATs were being conducted), preparing

for tests.

Again the autonomy of the teacher is being reduced as he/she

cannot develop an individual approach. Before SATs, a teacher

could mark work on a weekly basis or even on a random basis, and

could use professional judgement when and how to assess a pupils

work. The National Union of Teachers claim that the teacher's

professional autonomy and influence on the nature of the

curriculum and assessment has been displaced by teacher

accountability to parents and the community (Teachers Weekly,

1991, p4)). Before SATs the teacher's ideas on assessment,

diagnostic testing and recording helped schools to formulate

independent assessment policies, but this has now been reduced if

not removed.

Thus, for example, the SATs state clearly when (during the

activity) assessment is to be carried out and under what criteria

a pupil's work will be judged (see appendix 5). This removes the

flexibility the teacher once had, and their ability to make

subjective judgements relating to a pupils ability, as it is

imperative that the pupils be assessed in a systematic fashion

and then recorded in the same way (an excellent example of the

way in which responsible autonomy has been reduced) (see appendix

5). Furthermore, the teachers judgement is not enough: the pupil

must have written evidence to support his/her claim to levels and

Attainment Targets. "We are not testing kids we are testing

teachers" (Hamarth.S. 1991, p5).

The SATs also offer "learning strategies" for pupils,

providing five context or areas of study (CATS. 1990, p002/2)

home, school, recreation, business and industry (see appendix 6).

This narrows the field of study that teachers of the individual

contributing subjects may normally teach through (this has become

further prescribed since Middlsex Polytechnic began the further

development of SATs). Technology teachers are expected to choose

a context and develop a project from this starting point. The

SATs go as far as providing guidance for the teacher on getting

pupils into the context (see appendix 7, Teachers Notes). These

are in the form of written instructions and courses for staff.

This can have the effect of imposing a framework on the teaching

process, limiting the teachers input. The pupils are even faced

with "prompt questions" (appendix 6) from the SATs literature,

(aimed at focusing a pupils thoughts on the project) and so can

by-pass the teacher's advice. The discretion of the teacher is

even further reduced by the provision of a "SAT Activity Teaching

Plan" (appendix 7) which is aimed at helping teachers integrate

their planning with previous course work.

The latest information from Middlesex Polytechnic concerning

the development of SATs states:

"The agency will will recommend a theme on which a

design and technology task and test should be based.

Both test and task should be the focus of the same

theme.....The theme will identify aspects of the

programme of study within which the pupils will need to

work. It will be expected to indicate the prescribed

context, range of materials and processes and body of

knowledge appropriate to the theme" (Middlesex

Polytechnic, 1991, p2)

Teachers appear to have little say over the management of

the SAT, and must carrying out the activity with only limited

choice concerning its nature. The management of the SAT tends to

be a separate function, with the Schools Examination and

Assessment Council having primary responsibility. Training is

provided for school senior management (middle management) who

have central control over the curriculum and timetable. Decision

making is the task of the 'management' team with the team being

invited on specialist training courses. The classroom teacher has

become the technician or operative delivering a course and

administering the SATs assessment over which he/she has little

influence. As Littler and Salaman suggested :

"The establishment of management as a separate function

with unique expertise and responsibilities...upon which

the efficiency of the whole enterprise a

crucial first step to control over the work force"

(1982, p259)

It can be said that one of the consequences of Taylorism is that

management takes on a separate role with its own tasks to perform

- planning, organising, commanding, coordinating and controlling

(Taylor.F. 1981, p26). It would appear that managers within

teaching are following this trend, as they too follow directives.