Journal of Vocational Education & Training Vocational ...

This article was downloaded by: [Canning, Roy] On: 20 May 2011 Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 937828264] Publisher Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 3741 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Vocational Education & Training

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t716100716

Vocational education teacher training in Scotland and England: policy and practice James Avisa; Roy Canningb; Roy Fishera; Brenda Morgan-Kleinb; Robin Simmonsa a Centre for Research in Post-Compulsory Education, University of Huddersfield, Huddersfield, UK b School of Education, University of Stirling, Stirling, UK Online publication date: 20 May 2011

To cite this Article Avis, James , Canning, Roy , Fisher, Roy , Morgan-Klein, Brenda and Simmons, Robin(2011)

'Vocational education teacher training in Scotland and England: policy and practice', Journal of Vocational Education & Training, 63: 2, 115 — 127 To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/13636820.2011.566348 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13636820.2011.566348

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Journal of Vocational Education and Training Vol. 63, No. 2, June 2011, 115–127

Vocational education teacher training in Scotland and England: policy and practice James Avisa*, Roy Canningb, Roy Fishera, Brenda Morgan-Kleinb and Robin Simmonsa aCentre for Research in Post-Compulsory Education, University of Huddersfield, Huddersfield, UK; bSchool of Education, University of Stirling, Stirling, UK

(Received 6 November 2010; final version received 22 February 2011) Taylor and Francis RJVE_A_566348.sgm

Downloaded By: [Canning, Roy] At: 10:50 20 May 2011

Journal 10.1080/13636820.2011.566348 0729-4360 Taylor 2011 0Article 00 Professor [email protected] 000002011 &ofFrancis JamesAvis Vocational (print)/1469-8366 Education (online) and Training

This article compares and contrasts the policy context of Vocational Education Teacher Training (VETT) in Scotland and England by setting this within its wider socio-economic context, one emphasising lifelong learning and competitiveness. This facilitates a comparison of the two nations and enables an analysis of VETT responses to globalisation and lifelong learning. It allows an exploration of policy continuities and breaks across Scotland and England, leading to a consideration of the limits and possibilities of the different ‘solutions’ adopted. In these nations VETT is somewhat marginal having only recently become mandatory, unlike many other European responses. The article’s policy analysis is complemented by a small scale illuminative case study of VETT educators in Scotland and England, which explores the way policy is lived and mediated at the site of practice. The research suggests that whilst both systems are compromised, VETT educators seek to work on the ‘good’ side of the system in which they are placed. Keywords: vocational education and training; teacher training; policy analysis; comparative VET; teacher development

The article compares and contrasts the policy context of Vocational Education Teacher Training (VETT) in Scotland and England by setting VETT within its wider socio-economic context, one emphasising the importance of lifelong learning particularly as a response to international and individual competitiveness. This facilitates a comparison of the two nations and enables an analysis of VETT responses to aspects of globalisation, specifically the increasing significance of international markets, international competitiveness and lifelong learning policies. It allows an exploration of policy continuities and breaks across Scotland and England, leading to a consideration of the limits and possibilities of the ‘solutions’ adopted. Unlike many other European responses, in these nations VETT is somewhat marginal having only recently become mandatory. The paper’s policy analysis is complemented by a small scale illuminative case study of VETT educators in Scotland and England that explores the way policy is lived and mediated at the site of practice. In Scotland and England Vocational Education and Training (VET) is delivered in Colleges of Further Education (FE) in a sector referred to as the Learning and Skills sector or as post-compulsory education and training (PCET). Private training provid*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected] ISSN 1363-6820 print/ISSN 1747-5090 online © 2011 The Vocational Aspect of Education Ltd DOI: 10.1080/13636820.2011.566348 http://www.informaworld.com

116

J. Avis et al.


ers are more a feature of English VET than in Scotland. For simplicity we refer to Teacher Education for Vocational Education and Training as VETT (Vocational education teacher training). In addition it is important to acknowledge that in both nations, teacher education orientated towards the sector encompasses not only vocational practitioners but also those teaching ‘academic’ disciplines. This is indicative of the wide range of pedagogic activities that the sector addresses. In part the distinction between academic and vocational is reflected in differences between pre-service and in-service trainees. The former are more likely to hold a degree and may anticipate teaching ‘academic disciplines,’ with the latter having more work-based craft and or technical backgrounds. However and importantly, there are significant exceptions to this pattern with some craft teachers taking the pre-service route and teachers of traditional academic subjects following in-service awards. Context This section seeks to place VETT in its socio-economic and political context pointing towards important issues that it is to address in both nations. Policy directed towards England is often presented as applicable to all four home nations (England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales), for example BIS’ (2009) Skills for Growth uses the strap line ‘Building Britain’s Future.’ Notwithstanding this the ‘competitive settlement’ is a feature of the policy context of both Scotland and England (Avis 2009). Competitiveness is not only an aspect of the policy context of Scotland and England but also of Europe (Avis 2009; CEC 1993; Dale and Robertson 2009). Rustin commenting on the Blair project, but which also reflects other nations’ pursuit of competitiveness, writes: The fundamental assumption of the Blair project is that unless Britain can reach the standard of performance of its global competitors, in virtually every aspect of life, there is no hope of achieving lasting improvements in well-being. ‘Getting competitive is the name of the game.’ (Rustin 1998, 7)

Thus ‘getting competitive’ becomes ‘the name of the game’ that informs state policy. The presumption being that by developing human capital and the talents of all, economic and social well-being will be enhanced (Scottish Government 2007; BIS 2009). Paradoxically, at a time of capitalist crisis this theme has been re-emphasised (BIS 2009). Developing the skills of the workforce in a direction orientated towards emerging sectors of the economy is thought not only to provide the route out of the current recession but also towards a fairer society (Ministerial foreword, Cabinet Office Strategy Unit 2008, 3; Scottish Government 2007). VET in both nations is seen as pivotal to the skills agenda as well as to social cohesion and inclusion. Notably, there are significant differences in the scale and range of VET provision in these countries. In England, provision is more extensive and multi-layered, involving numerous agencies, including work-based and work-related learning (Avis 2009; Holloway 2009). In contrast, Scottish provision is predominantly focused on FE colleges, often excluding independent training providers and Government sponsored training schemes. Whilst there is comparative work analysing the VET sector in the home nations (the constituent nations comprising the United Kingdom) as well as a body of work that develops an analysis of teacher training in Scotland and England (Brisard,


Journal of Vocational Education and Training

117

Menter, and Smith 2007; Hodgson, Spours, and Waring et al. 2011); little work has specifically addressed a comparative analysis of VETT. Nevertheless across these two nations, as well as elsewhere, there are similar sets of issues concerned with pre- and in-service VETT, professionalism, skill development as well as the on-going professional development of VET teachers. We adopt a comparative analysis of these themes, addressing the immediate policy context and proceeding to a comparison of VETT in the two nations. Here questions of governance and regulation are raised. In England the use of occupational standards to underpin VETT has been criticised for operationalising a truncated and limited conceptualisation of teacher training, lodged within a more generalised critique of managerialism and performativity (Avis, Fisher, and Thompson 2010). In Scotland there is less emphasis upon the use of occupational standards which is reflected in a more deregulated approach and has resulted in particular forms of cross-institutional competition which have implications for the delivery of VETT. In this instance the standards provide a framework to be included within teacher education without specifying how this should be done, leaving institutional providers to design a curriculum ‘informed by the standards.’ Whereas in England standards may inform particular units of assessment and be mapped against provision thereby offering providers a degree of autonomy. The relationship between the standards and provision is much tighter and more technicised than in Scotland. In the case of the latter and in policy terms, pedagogical approaches are seen as strongly ‘developmental’ in contrast to those that are performative or assessment-driven (Menter, Brisard, and Smith 2006). For Arnott and Ozga (2009) this is explained by the ‘discursive strategies’ underpinning Scottish policy formulation which promote notions of a ‘“modernised” nationalism that combines economic viability and social democratic principles’ (np). At a more practical level a number of PCET policies are enacted through teachers’ involvement in implementation studies, with professional judgement in curriculum design being encouraged by the Scottish state (Scottish Government 2004). A comparative analysis enables an exploration of the limitations and possibilities for the development of progressive and radical practice across the two nations, which might be overlooked without this dimension. There is a paradox in that Scotland and England are part of the same polity and that VET in the two nations seeks to address globalisation and to develop competitiveness. At the same time however the solutions forwarded by the two nations are qualitatively different. In Scotland the provision of VETT had until 1999 been delivered by a single monopolistic provider. This provision was subject to two types of criticism. Firstly, for its costliness by those who employed VET teachers and paid for their training. Secondly, there were concerns about capacity and quality since high numbers of staff remained unqualified and college inspections raised questions about the capacity of staff to reflect upon and describe their pedagogic practice satisfactorily (Avis 2009). In England VETT was also subject to criticism for its uneven quality, and latterly for its failure to develop subject specialist pedagogy (Ofsted 2003). Criticisms of Scottish VETT led to an ambitious and rapid expansion of funded provision by new university providers but a relatively deregulated one in which sharp inter-institutional competition brought pressures towards low cost provision and an emphasis on the development of ‘generic’ teaching practices. These developments brought with them a concern about there being significant differences in trainees’ experiences depending upon where training was located (Avis et al. 2010). Contradictorily, in England the move is towards a competency and standards driven agenda that sits alongside a concern with developing subject specific pedagogies. The paradox is

118

J. Avis et al.


that the two systems are reverse images of one another, the one emphasising the market, competition and generic skills, and the other regulation derived from occupational standards and subject specialist pedagogy. Aspects of the two systems can appear attractive to practitioners located in the alternative system, for example the freedom to develop a curriculum unencumbered by standards, or alternatively the opportunity to deliver a meaningful curriculum. A comparative study enables an examination of the limits and possibilities of the two systems and may be used to point towards the development of a more appropriate VETT system. In neither country has there been a sustained attempt to engage with European policy discourse on teacher education (Lee, Thayer, and Madyun 2008). The UK has tended to distance itself from the European social democratic agenda, albeit that these processes are mediated by the specific histories of the home nation governments making up the UK. Grek et al. suggest: In fact, if the UK has been characterised as the EU’s ‘reluctant partner,’ Scotland is arguably building on an identity between two unions, one in the UK and one in Europe (2009, 10–11)

In much the same way VETT policy has not been directly influenced by global currents in teacher education policy. Importantly, whilst Scotland and England pursue a neo-liberal policy agenda committed to economic competitiveness, they do so in a manner that is marked by their own histories which often fails to look beyond national borders.

Case studies Illuminative case studies were conducted in two universities, one in Scotland and the other in England, where we explored the lived experiences of VET teacher educators, using focus groups, supported by a questionnaire. These research instruments enabled us to examine the orientations of VET teacher educators towards VETT. We sought to gather data on our teacher educators’ orientations towards and understandings of professionalism, the curriculum, constraints upon practice, what constituted good practice, as well as their perceptions of employer responses towards VETT. Our analysis draws upon the lived experience of these educators and for the purposes of this article we address four key themes concerned with time, pedagogy, autonomy and differentiation. Each of these themes bears upon teacher educators’ experiences of regulation and control, understandings of pedagogy and explicit, and more importantly implicit conceptions of what it is to be a VETT professional educator. Table 1.

Focus group membership.

Female Male College-based University teacher educator University teaching fellow

England

Scotland

4 4 4 4 -

4 2 2 4


119

Time In the introduction to this article we described the VETT policy context within the two nations. Paradoxically, given the English proclivity toward market solutions, the VETT system is regulated through the use of standards with the length of programmes, the number of observations required and so on, being determined by the state. In contrast Scotland, which since devolution has a greater affinity with social democracy, has a system of VETT set within quasi-market relations. Here competition occurs between providers with no specification of the length of VETT programmes, volume of credit, or number of observations, although the level of the qualification is set. For VETT educators in both nations there are attractions surrounding the alternate system. Scottish teacher educators commented:


Although we had a national qualifications framework, which is highly developed in Scotland and probably more so than in England, the volume of credit wasn’t specified though the level of credit was and that, of course, created a downward pressure…

The reason for this was that the majority of students were funded by their employers: It’s the college who will decide who the provider is. A lot of them do dress it up as an individual choice and claim that they give individual members of staff choice but I suspect that, in practice, the colleges do select the providers… In many cases it comes down to the basic principle that it’s cheaper.

For these educators the English system of VETT has some attractions in that it offers a more robust programme that seems to provide students and educators greater levels of engagement. The English model is probably where we were six or seven years ago with two year parttime programmes and we’re now a one year part time programme with three modules and all the other colleges in Scotland are the same. We do not have two year part-time courses… [We’ve] only got two or three members of staff working on it and one observation.

In the English focus group an educator described the context in which VETT is set. We have the LLUK [Lifelong Learning UK] standards which are dense; there are hundreds of statements and I’d describe them as a taxonomy of behaviour rather than a set of standards but our courses relate to them and they are verified by SVUK [Standards Verification UK]… but also we have particular assessment criteria that has to be met as well. The size of the qualification is also set really and so for the DTLLS [Diploma in Teaching in the Lifelong Learning Sector1] or DTLLS equivalent it has to be a hundred and twenty credits. The CTLLS [Certificate in Teaching in the Lifelong Learning Sector] courses and the PTLLS [Preparing to Teach in the Lifelong Learning Sector] are also of a certain amount of credits nationally so there is that element of comparability.

The mandatory nature of the course is seen to flow into the number of teaching observations.

120

J. Avis et al.

Yeah. Four per academic year… Eight over the course.

Yet despite the tighter regulation of English VETT programmes, educators commented:


What’s interesting is that different providers will approach the standards in different ways and we’ll have a student who is trying to transfer to another institution and we are trying to explain what he’s done with us.

Whilst the specification of standards, volume of credit, number of and manner of assessment of teaching observations can be framed by state regulation, these cannot tightly determine practice (see our discussion of autonomy and control). Yet, at the same time, regulatory systems provide the context in which practice is both developed and delivered, thereby serving to constrain practitioners as well as insidiously permeating conceptualisations of practice. In this context we only need to reflect on the way in which the language of standards, key performance indicators and so on has entered our consciousness. Genericism and subject specific pedagogy Debates that address VETT and its relation to a generic pedagogy and subject specific pedagogy are inhabited qualitatively differently by our Scottish and English teacher educators. In the case of Scottish educators there were concerns that a generic pedagogy may result in a narrow technicised and limited curriculum; whereas for the English a subject specific curriculum is mandated but which similarly leads to the same difficulties. Our Scottish educators commented: When I interviewed this person from HMI about that very issue he was very specific that they had tried to project a pedagogic identity that wasn’t about the subject specialism and so they wanted a generic identity. I think what is not the main thing – which is interesting here – is subject specialism. They are ready to ditch that. The employers and the colleges want to remove subject specialism from the programme.

These views can be contrasted with those of our English educators: if you’re asking how the sector is characterised there is a certain genericism underpinning it because we are encouraging them [trainees] to adopt this second pedagogical identity of the FE teacher but we’re also asking them, in some sense, to be able to embed functional skills, and I think genericism characterises this sector very strongly and there are so many professional identities and not just one. I think they’ve [Ofsted] ignored some of the research which actually says that it’s also the generic pedagogical skills and the appreciation of the concepts surrounding that which are the most effective way of teaching… I feel very strongly that in the traditional in-service groups, where there isn’t a specialism for some of the course, that that is where some of the most effective learning takes place because you are exposed to other people and how they work. People can then actually think that there is another way of doing things and I think that is very good. I think it certainly has impacted on classroom practice.


121


I got a generic PGCE and then went on to do quite high level ESOL teacher training and so, therefore, I have done subject specialist training. Years ago I’m not sure I would have been convinced that there was such a thing as subject specialist pedagogy and I was convinced that there was not: there was pedagogy and there are lots of different ways of teaching – and there are good and bad ways of teaching – but I think the idea that there is a pedagogy that is attached to subject specialism - a particular pedagogy with a coherent set of ideas about how to teach a particular thing is, I think, spurious. That’s where I stand.

Although, it may appear that our educators hold incommensurate positions. It is important to consider the way in which conceptualisations such as genericism and subject pedagogy are understood, as well as being attentive to the contradictory positions present amongst both constituencies. For our Scottish educators genericism (after Bernstein, 2000) becomes a gloss for an instrumentalist and overly technicised curriculum, one that is not only rid of its criticality but of the situatedness of pedagogic relations. For the English subject specific pedagogy is similarly characterised by instrumentalism and a lack of criticality. For these educators their model of generic pedagogy is able to overcome these limitations, as at its best, it introduces criticality and raises questions that serve to problematise pedagogic relations. However, both groups are in part resisting qualitatively different governmentally driven agendas which inform their particular stances. Another way to consider these questions is through an examination of the way in which knowledge is conceived as well as developing a tighter notion of genericism. For Beck and Young (2005) the problematisation of knowledge linked with a concern with what works, aligns with what they describe as genericism, a term derived from Bernstein (2000). In this case subject-based knowledge is no longer validated by disciplinary conventions but rather through its contribution to the economy. For Beck and Young genericism creates a new kind of knowledge structure: linked explicitly to the perceived demands of employers and to their assertion that future employees would need to become more ‘flexible’; and they [generic modes] assumed that becoming more ‘flexible’ was a demand that was common to a wide range of occupations, tasks and jobs. (2005, 190)

Paradoxically, this conceptualisation is echoed in the critiques of subject specific pedagogies and genericism found within the accounts of our Scottish and English educators. That is to say, for our Scottish educators the concern with what works as well as with addressing employer needs leads to an instrumentalist and technicised curriculum that is in danger of failing to acknowledge the specificity of practice and marginalises criticality. However in contradistinction, for our English educators subject specific pedagogy is marked by an instrumentalism, a concern with what works and thus a lack of criticality. There is however another element in the critique of a generic curriculum that addresses subject specialist pedagogy, or perhaps more appropriately expressed, craft knowledge and skill. Here we encounter an argument that places centre stage what Sennett (2010) would describe as material consciousness, one embedded in craft practices and that recognises its specificity. This is alluded to in the following comment from a Scottish educator in the concern about an over emphasis on abstract theory as against subject specificity and can similarly be seen in an allied interest in the development of subject specialists who have flexibility and resilience.

122

J. Avis et al.

I think what we’ve had is a lot of abstract theory which has created that theory/practice divide. I think what’s missing is that we’ve got to focus more on subject areas.


Richard Sennet (2010) discusses what he describes as material consciousness that draws on the tacit knowledge and skill that becomes embodied in craft practices. Whilst this may be unarticulated tacit knowledge (Polyani 1969) and links with notions of technique, importantly this conceptualisation of material consciousness moves beyond this and enables creative and innovative practices to develop. For at least one of our Scottish educators the question is how VETT engages with the material consciousness of craft workers and the pedagogic implications that flow from this. In part this reflects a particular understanding of subject pedagogy that refuses a narrow technicism. For a number of our educators in both nations the concern is: What I would say I want is a mixture of things: I think sometimes we kind of see the term training as inferior to education. What I want is for them to come out at the end of the course and have an effective teacher training and education. I do think the skills stuff is important and I think they should be able to use different resources and we should be able to manage classrooms and students effectively. I think there are skills that are useful and can be trained but I also want them to be educated in a broad way to be able to think about debates where these skills fit into broader educational questions really. So I want an education and training – I want them to have that balance. (English focus group) I think I’d go along with that. I suppose my concern is that there has been so much emphasis on learning through experience on these training courses and the trainees experience is so limited and they speak to so few people and there is so much pressure on them and if they only learn what they experience then they potentially learn very little. So I do think there is a need for a knowledge – a professional knowledge – and skills, as you say, so that the trainees will come out with some kind of idea about a wider world of education. (English focus group) I hope we are educators who are involved in teacher education and what we do is we produce teachers who are subject specialists but have transferable skills and they have flexibility and resilience built into their practice as an integral part. (Scottish focus group)

However, it is important to recognise that such aspirations are constrained by the conditions in which these educators labour and may stop someway short of a fully radicalised political practice. Autonomy and control For educators in both nations their VETT system provided them with some space for autonomy but this was seriously constrained and limited by the contextual setting. Paradoxically, these constraints and spaces were reverse images of one another across the two systems, with one being set within a tightly regulated framework and the other in a marketised and competitive system. What I would say is that obviously from the outside the attraction of the [English] model is that it’s got that consistency and it lends itself to a two year programme but the downside of that is the amount of performativity and meeting their standards which is very taxing. So although it seems attractive from the outside once you’re in it it doesn’t feel very nice. So it’s swings and roundabouts. (English focus group)


123

Another educator commented in the context of the standards as well as Ofsted inspections, ‘There is expedient compliance of all kinds.’ I think there is a curious mix between the standardisation and mapping towards it and yet what we do is quite diverse. Although there is a framework which is apparently very tight – and in some respects it is – nevertheless, within that providers have quite a lot of autonomy. (English focus group)

Whereas:


In Scotland there is no inspection regime… I think one of the positive features is that the relationship is not one of inspection and therefore, there is still enormous scope to design a curriculum and deliver that curriculum and… although there are standards they inform that teaching and it’s not prescriptive. And we don’t have a regular framework where external bodies will come in and look at that on a regular basis. That gives us the freedom, I think, to still operate with the provider. (Scottish focus group)

Noting our earlier argument these freedoms are nevertheless limited by competition amongst VETT providers with the consequent downward pressure on the amount of time, resources and finance attached to provision. This has meant that the ability to provide a ‘safe but challenging space’ that opens up ‘professional dialogue’ becomes increasing compromised.

Differentiation Here we consider two forms of differentiation that derive from the accounts of our teacher educators, firstly, that between in-service and pre-service ‘trainees.’ Preservice trainees follow a full-time VETT course and will by-and-large not have been employed in the sector, whereas in-service ‘trainees’ will already be employed as teachers in the sector. In both national systems it is now mandatory for those who work in the sector to acquire qualified teaching status within a given time scale. This has become a condition for their continuing employment. The second form of differentiation we comment upon is that found amongst teacher educators. In the Scottish system all VETT is located within the university sector whereas in England there are various arrangements whereby it can be delivered not only in universities but also in Colleges of Further Education (FEC) by HE in FEC teachers. This pattern is mirrored in Scotland through division between teaching fellows and academics, with the former having no formal research role. And then, from the staff’s perspective and, again, it’s interesting the difference between the in-service and the pre-service where with the pre-service we see people coming along and volunteering to do this and they are really committed and highly motivated to work in the sector and one of the biggest comments you get from them is the shock they have when they actually go into a college because they cannot believe the type of environment that they are working in. So we’ve got all that going on and then we’ve got the in-service who come along and say ‘I’ve been teaching for ten years so what can you tell me? I’m only here because I have to be here and I’m jumping through a hoop.’ So they are coming in with a closed mind and you’re having to try and break down that barrier before you can start to do anything with them. (Scottish focus group)

This form of differentiation partially mirrors that between the routes followed to enter the sector. Pre-service trainees tend to be graduates whereas in-service trainees will often have entered FE without a degree on the basis of a vocational specialism. It is

124

J. Avis et al.

this that has led some to describe FE lecturers as being marked by a dual professionalism, for example being a professional beautician or plumber whilst at the same time being a FE teacher (Robson 1998). It’s that element of dual professionalism and dual identity because not only do they have their own specific qualifications but in order to do teacher training they’ve got to show evidence that they are a Level 3 in their own subject specialism. So they’ve got to show that level of competence but then they’ve got not only to keep on with their personal development in their subject area but they’ve got to then engage with education and pedagogies and approaches. And, at the same time, because it’s an in-service training programme they are actually employed as a teacher – whether it’s part-time or full-time – and that encompasses everything that is involved with being a teacher, but they are also a student teacher and so there is that other element there, and that is the dual identity and I think there is quite a bit of conflict there.


Sometimes, with their vocation, they perhaps see teaching as an addendum to that. (English focus group)

Whilst issues surrounding dual professionalism apply to pre-service trainees these tensions may be lessened as a result of their academic experiences and the continuities between these, teacher education and subsequent employment in the sector. In addition these differentiations become unevenly mapped upon those found amongst VETT educators, particularly in England. University based educators were involved in preservice VETT whereas in-service VETT was generally based in colleges and more often than not predominantly delivered by HE in FEC teachers on FE contracts. Guile and Lucas’ (1999) notion of the learning professionalism aims to establish an FE professionalism orientated around pedagogy. However, throughout this article we have shown that these differentiations are inhabited unevenly and that orientations towards subject and generic pedagogies are inherently contradictory. The two English VETT focus groups, raised a number of questions about the orientations of university as opposed to college based educators. It seemed as if the pre-occupations of the two groups were qualitatively different, being reflective of their working contexts. This may also have had something to do with the gendered characteristics of the groups as well as their academic aspirations (Noel 2006). College based teacher educators commented: I think, with some of the learners that come onto these programmes, if you classed yourself as an academic that would actually frighten them. It could actually place a barrier between you, and we were talking about language earlier and I think you do actually need a language change so that you can engage your learners more and build on it to develop more higher order stuff. Sometimes they have to start at a fairly low level, don’t they? And that is what I meant when I was saying that there is a lot of emotional labour involved and if I say the word ‘academic’ – even though I am from an academic background – that emotional labour doesn’t seem to come into your vision of a university lecturer and I think the two can merge. I think the language is a bit too demarcatory and we have to put a lot of emotion into what we do otherwise we’d lose our students. We have students crying a lot and we have to be a number of things to a number of people. We can’t just be academics or trainers. One of my year two students said that they always remembered that first session when I went through what I was as a tutor and what I did. And we went through all the different descriptions: counsellor, social worker etc. and we were all of these things.


125

The preceding statements indicate the importance that these college-based educators placed upon the particular needs of their learners and can be compared to the comments of a university based VETT educator reflecting on the conditions of their labour. I think it’s partly the research assessments but we’ve got a relatively new senior management team who are trying to reposition the university, to a degree, to move away from the predominantly teaching to a mix of teaching and research and they want to put more focus on research. So, institutionally, that drive has been around for two or three years now and it’s working its way through and it’s more of an expectation that research has a higher priority than it used to a few years ago.


I think that if we’re not researchers then what’s the difference between ourselves and colleagues in a further education college? What are we doing that is different? (English focus group)

Such concerns were of limited interest to those educators working in colleges, who emphasised their emotional labour and the care involved in supporting trainees. This is not to say that such interests were absent in the university setting where the tensions between research, teaching and care work were also present. However, these differences do express qualitatively different stances towards what it is to be a professional VETT educator, with the university based educator commenting upon the significance of research. Conclusion Although the context and histories of the Scottish and English systems of VETT are qualitatively different the commitments of VETT educators are not so dissimilar. In both systems educators share an interest in the development of the critical capabilities of their students, although this may be accented through engagement with a generic pedagogy as opposed to a subject pedagogy and vice versa. In addition educators in both systems are concerned with winning spaces for the exercise of their professional autonomy. The two systems wrestle with the same questions and issues but have developed different solutions, both of which are in some respects impoverished. They both lean towards narrow conceptualisation of practice and in the case of England this derives from the limitation of a standards driven agenda for VETT. Whilst the Scottish VETT system is more open and subject to control by VETT providers, its neo-liberal underpinning and use of market competition means that as a result of employer pressure there is a tendency to truncate the time available for VETT, with the anti-educative consequences that flow from this. At the same time the strength of the Scottish system is that it offers VETT educators the autonomy to develop meaningful programmes. In England educators, because of the standards and regulatory framework, have more time allocated to their programmes which provides space in which to develop progressive practices. However, such practices are constrained by the demands of addressing the standards as well as the performative context in which they are located. Perhaps what is needed is an expansive understanding of VETT that seeks to develop not only pedagogic skills but also a broader understanding of societal and educational relations. Where this arises in these VETT systems this is rather more a consequence of the commitment of educators than an inherent feature of the teacher training systems.

126

J. Avis et al.

Note 1. The Skills commission commenting on the English system of VETT stated: ‘Since 2007

the new teaching qualification framework for teachers in FE and the post-compulsory sector includes: – a level 3 or 4 award in Preparing to Teach in the Lifelong Learning Sector (PTLLS). This is a threshold licence qualification for all new teachers in the sector, and must be achieved within the first year of teaching practice; – a level 3 or 4 award Certificate in Teaching in the Lifelong Learning Sector (CTLLS). This is the required qualification for all teachers who want to gain ATLS [Associate Teacher Learning and Skills] status. – a level 5 Diploma in Teaching in the Lifelong Learning Sector (DTLLS). This is the required qualification for all teachers who want to gain QTLS [Qualified Teacher Learning and Skills] status, and must be achieved within five years of entering the profession.’ (Skills Commission 2010, 21)


References Arnott, M., and J. Ozga. 2009. Education policy and the SNP government. Edinburgh: Centre for Educational Sociology. Avis, J. 2009. Education, policy and social justice. Rev. ed. London: Continuum. Avis, J., R. Canning, R. Fisher, B. Morgan-Klein, and R. Simmons. 2010. Teacher education for vocational education and training: A comparative study of the Scottish and English systems. Unpublished mimeo. Avis, J., R. Fisher, and R. Thompson, eds. 2010. Teaching in lifelong learning. Maidenhead: OUP. Beck, J., and M. Young. 2005. The assault on the professions and the restructuring of academic and professional identities: A Bernsteinian analysis. British Journal of Sociology of Education 26, no. 2: 183–97. Bernstein, B. 2000. Pedagogy, symbolic control and identity: Theory, research and critique. London: Routledge. BIS. 2009. Skills for growth. London: Crown. Brisard, E., I. Menter, and I. Smith. 2007. Researching trends in initial teacher education policy and practice in an era of globalisation and devolution: A rationale and a methodology for an anglo-Scottish ‘home international’ study. Comparative Education 43, no. 2: 207–29. Cabinet Office Strategy Unit. 2008. Getting on, getting ahead. London: Cabinet Office. CEC. 1993. Growth, competitiveness, employment: The challenges and ways forward into the 21st century. Brussels: OOPEC. Dale, R., and S. Robertson, eds. 2009. Globalisation and Europeanisation in education. Oxford: Symposium Books. Grek, S., M. Lawn, B. Lingard, J. Ozga, R. Rinne, C. Segerholm, and H. Simola. 2009. National policy brokering and the construction of a European Education Space in England, Sweden, Finland and Scotland. Comparative Education 45, no. 1: 5–21. Guile, D., and N. Lucas. 1999. Rethinking initial teacher education and professional development. In FE and lifelong learning: Realigning the sector for the twenty-first century, ed. A. Green and N. Lucas, 113–38. London: Institute of Education University of London. Hodgson, A., K. Spours, and M. Waring. 2011. The organisation of post-compulsory education and training in England, Scotland and Wales. London: Bedford Way. Holloway, D. 2009. Reforming further education teacher training. Journal of Education for Teaching 35, no. 2: 183–96. Lee, M., T. Thayer, and N. Madyun. 2008. The evolution of the European Union’s Lifelong Learning policies: An institutional learning perspective. Comparative Education 44, no. 4: 445–63. Menter, I., E. Brisard, and I. Smith. 2006. Convergence or divergence? Initial teacher education in Scotland and England. Edinburgh: Dunedin Academic Press. Menter, I., and M. Hulme. 2008. Is small beautiful? Policy-making in teacher education in Scotland. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice 14, no. 4: 319–30.


127


Morgan-Klein, B. 2009. Pedagogy, identity and control: Regulating the Scottish teaching qualification in FE. Paper presented at the Centre for Research in Lifelong Learning Conference, June 24–26, in University of Stirling, Scotland. Noel, P. 2006. The secret life of teacher educators: Becoming a teacher educator in the learning and skills sector. Journal of Vocational Education and Training 58, no. 2: 151–70. Ofsted. 2003. The initial training of further education teachers: A survey. London: Ofsted. Polyani, M. 1969. Knowing and being. Edited with an introduction by Marjorie Grene. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Robson, J. 1998. A profession in crisis: Status, culture and identity in the further education college. Journal of Vocational Education and Training 50, no. 4: 585–607. Rustin, M. 1998. Editorial. Soundings 8: 7–14. Scottish Government. 2004. Curriculum for excellence. Edinburgh: Crown. Scottish Government. 2007. Review of Scotland’s colleges: Delivering a smarter Scotland. Edinburgh: Crown. Sennett, R. 2010. The craftsman. London: Penguin. Skills Commission. 2010. Teacher training in vocational education. London: Skills Commission.