Learning to Be Competent: Contradictions in Government Youth Training Schemes

8911

Learning to be competent: contradictions in government youth training schemes

Paul F. Armstrong, Haringey Education Service

My life at any particular time may be seen as centring around a theme - a way of life, a set of ideas, an ideology - and I live this theme as my life for a while. But as I do this, inevitably and in time my actions draw attention to a contradictory counter-theme which was excluded yet implied by the theme. Theme and counter theme may co-exist, more or less uncomfortably for a period, as I try to suppress, avoid, or live with the conflict. But f I am to move on, the time will come when I have to radically restructure my life, to pull together the contradictory events into a new synthesis which includes the contradiction, and I have to do this time and again as new contradictions emerge to disturb me.[1]

Introduction

This paper is about a contradiction between theory and practice, which needs investigating. It is both a personal and a political issue. It is personal in the sense that the core problem is one that I have to confront, and decide on a strategy whilst at the same time remaining faithful to my own ideological perspective; and - if necessary - critically reflecting upon that perspective with a view to clarifying my own values and beliefs. But it is not merely a personal, biographical issue. It is a common experience in research and has been well discussed in the methodological literature, though the conventional solution of remaining scientifically detached and objective does not fit my own ideological position. Moreover, it is a challenging political dilemma.

This problem can be characterised as one of sponsorship. Ethical problems concerning the sponsorship of research have been debated for a long time. Sponsorship of educational and training initiatives have only recently been the subject of concern. Traditionally, the objectivity of British education in schools, colleges and universities has been unquestioned. The fact that most education, including adult education, is sponsored by the state has scarcely been recognised as a problem. Indeed, in the latter half of the nineteenth and throughout most of the present century, the demand has been for more state-sponsored education, rather than the value-laden education provided by, say, church schools. Only more recent re-examinations of Marxist and critical theories have opened our eyes to the possibility that state-sponsored schooling may be as indoctrinating as that found in so-called communist societies, although perhaps more subtle. The recognition of the ideology of education and the increased currency of concepts such as hegemony have opened our eyes to the pervasiveness of the effects of sponsorship.

The critique is more easily seen in relation to government sponsorship of education and training initiatives that have come through the Training Agency, previously the Manpower Services Commission. The change in resources was made transparent by the shifting in funding arrangements, and therefore control which was no longer the sole prerogative of the Department of Education and Science, as the Department of Employment introduced schemes firstly into further education, and then subsequently into the compulsory sector. This shift in resources and control was seen as sinister, and the Manpower Services Commission an agent of state control. From the mid-seventies, the critique of the MSC and state initiatives in education and training, increased rapidly. I contributed to that critique. In this paper, I wish to re-examine the critique, and focus on the contradictory nature of the intervention, and argue that the paradox of the role of the Training Agency in post-14 education is that it is facilitating curriculum development, the introduction of new teaching styles, a concern for quality in provision, and equity in terms of access and achievement. It is conceivable, and historically justifiable, that the initiatives undertaken by the Training Agency would have been encouraged under a Labour administration, and the fact that such schemes have been associated with a decade of Tory government might be misleading.

Critique from the left

There has been a substantial critique of the MSC (now the Training Agency) and its education and training initiatives from the mid-1970s onwards. Drawing on a Marxist theoretical framework, and the work of Dan Finn, the Birmingham Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies, and other left-wing critiques[2], I argued that the MSC, the New Training Initiative and the Youth Training Scheme, were all part of the educational policy of the ‘new right’, which could be understood as a strategy for assisting in the re-structuring of capitalism in a post-industrial society[3]. I remember being most anxious not to present the critique in terms of a conspiracy theory. Nevertheless I argued that those aspects identified as crude social control were largely incidental by-products of increased state intervention, which succeeded in incorporating potential criticism, such as that emanating from the trade union movement by bringing them into the decision-making process. The effect, I argued, was the creation of a supply of flexible, de-skilled cheap labour, with increased benefits for employers, increased marginalisation of the trade union movement, the maintenance and reinforcements of existing class, racial and gender inequalities, together with an attack on the financial autonomy of local government, the privatisation of education and the creation of free enterprise training agencies, as well as the colonisation of education by non-educationalists, and the use of individual - pathology models rather than economic structural analyses to explain youth unemployment. The consequences of all this was to de-politicise, de-unionise and de-motivate young people, reducing the potential for the development of class consciousness.

Since my critique and those that my article drew on, there have been further developments within the government sponsored initiatives, extending beyond the further education sector into both adult education (initially Job Training Schemes, and then Employment Training), and into the 14-19 sector (through the Technical and Vocational Education Initiative, or TVEI). The critiques of the so-called ‘new vocationalism’ have continued unabated[4]. Some of the criticism is purely ideological. For example, in their critique of the Manpower Services Commission, the contributors to Benn and Fairley’s edited collection agree that its activities

are now so potentially disastrous that Britain’s well-being and economic recovery require a complete break with its present policy. Most believe as well that the crisis in training and education - but particularly in jobs - is so great that we also need a policy of social transformation far more radical than any yet devised. [5]

The perceived failures of the MSC were that:

• it didn’t plan new jobs (indeed, it changed its brief and became an agent of job destruction, not job creation);
• it didn’t launch new skill training (indeed, it destroyed what little had been going on - Industrial Training Boards, closure of skill centres, elimination of apprenticeships);
• there is no evidence that young people or adults going through MSC training schemes were getting jobs at the end of their training; nor were they being trained in ‘real’ skills;
• large areas of the curriculum of schools and further education were being redirected to limited commercial ends (with consequent loss of academic freedom for both staff and students);
• its training programmes are being used as a means of enforcing lower wages and poorer working conditions on teachers and lecturers, and the trainees themselves;
• employers participate because they benefit from cheap labour;
• work is not only low-paid, but is menial and temporary;
• the schemes deny genuine educational choice, and are divisive;
• they continue to be part of the process of privatisation of public services;
• they have been used to ‘bash’ the trade union movement;
• they continue to place the ‘blame’ for unemployment on the individual.

Others have agreed with at least some of these criticisms. For example, Maurice Holt sees the ‘new vocationalism’ as a way of using the British education system as scapegoats for economic problems. It was believed - with no historical evidence to support the case - that if schools were made more vocational in orientation, then the British economy would become more competitive. For Holt, ‘the vocational solution to a complex and many-sided problem is not only wrong-headed, it is deeply dangerous’ - there has been a failure to grapple with the real issues, and the ‘easy answer’ has mistakenly diverted attention from genuine defects in our education system, and allowed central government to intervene in education in a hitherto unprecedented way. In short,

the lure of vocationalism - and its attendant jargon of systems, modules and skills - is seductive but unsound. It has led to the extravagant funding of ill-conceived schemes, lowered school morale through rampant centralisation, and deflected teachers from a consideration of the real issues.[6]

A critical re-examination of schemes

A more thorough review of the Left’s critique is beyond the scope of this short paper. But is it is a vital task to be undertaken. Even in the brief glimpse of the critiques that I have outlined, it is obvious that there are contradictions both within and between the critiques. This is fertile ground for analysis, and it is already being undertaken. One of the major contributors to the Left critique, Denis Gleeson, has recently written a book on The Paradox of Training[7]. His involvement in the evaluation of TVEI has led him to re-examine his critique of such schemes, and to identify a number of paradoxes. He begins with the commonplace observation that most vocational training has been preparation for unemployment - ‘training without work ... is a contradiction in terms’. But other contradictions can be identified. The increasing centralisation of the further and compulsory education sectors, especially in the area of curriculum and the idea of a National Curriculum framework, has to be seen against notions of devolution of control to local levels (through the Education Reform Act). In a way this is not too hard to explain. Control is either in the hands of the central government or in local communities, reducing or even eliminating the power and influence of local authorities in between. Then, there is the general reduction of resources available for curriculum development and in-service staff development, so that the major impetus for this is coming from outside the education system. Whilst this is supported by an ideology of market forces, its effect has been to draw attention to the inadequacies of market forces to regulate the transition from school to work, and the need for widespread curricular innovation and reforms. Whether or not youth unemployment is the product or the producer of a crisis in education, the crisis has drawn attention to the contradictory relations between school, college and work. The reaction has been both to increase functional control of schools, but at the same time opened up possibilities for critical intervention and reconstruction. Although Gleeson is aware of the danger of exaggerating the notion of

‘room for manoeuvre’ allowed by recent government inspired initiatives in education, it is important to recognise that central control is neither clear cut nor determined.[8]

I find this notion of ‘room for manoeuvre’ a source of much optimism for the construction of a counter-hegemonic socialist transformation, though inevitably fraught with dangers. of incorporation and contradiction. I concluded a recent AERC paper by suggesting that by treading carefully through the possibilities of incorporation, it is possible to open space for ideological manoeuvres[9], and this concurred with an earlier discussion during the Critical Theory Pre-Conference following a paper delivered by Thomas Popkewitz, where it was agreed that the way forward was to create and work in ideological space.

To illustrate how this might operate, I would like to draw on my own experience of carrying out evaluations of government initiatives. Like other colleagues, I have experienced the contradictions of doing research sponsored by and being accountable to government agencies[10]. Due to shortage of space, I shall focus briefly on three issues:

• competence
• pedagogy
• equity.

Learning to be competent

The YTS is intended to be competency-based training and education. Two of the four outcomes stress competence - in a job and/or a range of occupational skills, and in a range of transferable core skills. This stress on a competency-based approach to education has been imported from North America, where it has been widely used in the past decade or more. But it has not been without its critics. In a very thorough critical analysis of the theory and practice of competency-based education and training, Michael Collins points out that competence ‘has a nice authoritative ring about it and holds so much promise to the faithful’, but is concerned that it is part of the cult of efficiency, is rooted in behaviourism and is mechanistic:

In wrapping the cloak of ‘competence’ around an essentially behaviouristic and stipulatory approach to education. its initiators have, inadvertently, identified the very theme for undermining the illusion that their technique-ridden obsession guarantees concomitant performance.[11]

The paradox, however, has also a contradiction, for Collins believes that the notion of competency in learning can be rescued, and

an alternative, more enduring approach to the problem of competent performance from a perspective of relevance that does justice to the nature of adult education

can be constructed. This, he argues, can be achieved through rejecting its behaviouristic usage, and rooting it in a more humanistic, phenomenologically-based theory of relevance. Whilst we may not agree with his conclusion, Collins does at least problematise the notion of competence. We may agree that the typical usage is excessively reductionist, but it can be embedded in notions of relevance, accountability, flexibility and student-centredness. We might also agree that competence statements used for assessing competence may distract attention from the real issue of improving competence in practice. Perhaps they do presuppose an external reality, rather than reflect the state of flux in which we have a conscious influence. It also raises questions about the difference between competence and proficiency. Nevertheless, for many people competency-based curricula and assessment offer an alternative means of education and training to those traditional ones that are designed to ensure their failure. But if this alternative means is to be successful, it must be part of a delivery system that has inbuilt opportunities for rigorous questioning. According to Collins, experience only becomes meaningful in the act of reflection.

Similarly, the Further Education Unit have argued that any competence-based system must have opportunities for students or trainees to reflect on learning experiences[12]. They take a broader definition of competence than, for example, the National Council for Vocation Qualifications, which sees competence as the ability to perform a particular activity to a prescribed standard. For the FEU, competence is unlikely to be adequate unless it relates to - at minimum - knowledge, understanding, skills and performance[13]. Thus, their definition is

the possession and development of sufficient skills, knowledge, appropriate attitudes and experience for successful performance in life roles.[14]

They then would wish to include experience and reflection in any competence based system. Yet, the emphasis on experience could itself be paradoxical:

Overvalued, it can restrict opportunities for the young and otherwise inexperienced - undervalued, it can restrict access for the apparently less qualified.[15]

In order to get the appropriate balance, it is useful to recognise that there are two basic modes of progression - one (the traditional mode) based on formal learning and certification; and the second, progression based on ‘value-added’ experience, usually the result of informal learning. Both modes are complementary, but each requires the translation of formal or informal learning experiences into competence. This is a continuous process that takes account of learners’ prior experience on entry, which may even be accredited, so that further education is no longer perceived as wasteful and demotivating.

Pedagogy

A key feature of these government initiatives is the stress placed on pedagogical styles. Roger Dale characterises this as ‘new FEU pedagogy’, seeing it rooted in the work of the Further Education Unit, involving such things as

a move towards teaching courses rather than subjects, ‘experiential’ and ‘problem-solving’ rather than ‘academic’ learning, criterion rather than norm referenced assessment, competence rather than age-related courses ...[16]

Whilst these may be alien ideas to some teachers in secondary schools, further and higher education, they are commonplace in adult and continuing education. Student-centred, co-operative, participatory or action learning are all supported in YTS and TVEI, cutting across traditional subject or discipline boundaries. Although there are apparent discrepancies between theory and practice, the notion of ‘pedagogic liberation’ can be applied convincingly, as Jamieson argues[17]. Drawing on Illich, he proposes that learning can and does take place out of school, and that the barriers between schools and the workplace, industrialists and trade unions can be removed, to ‘crack the edifice of didacticism in some schools’. Further, the idea of involving students in self-assessment, recording achievements both inside and outside school, is to be welcomed. The paradox is made more apparent by the demands of the National Curriculum, for this ‘new learning’ will inevitably conflict with the pressures of central curriculum reform being introduced by the 1988 Education Act.[18]

Equity and equality of opportunities

Both TVEI and YTS have an avowed commitment towards the development of equal opportunities. Whilst the progress that either has made might not stand up to evaluation, it has to be recognised that there is this commitment, and whilst sceptics might believe the policy makers are engaged in pure rhetoric, at the grassroots those policies and the resources committed has enabled exploratory work to be done on ways of enhancing equal opportunities. One immediately recognisable outcome of this has been the broadening of the notion of equal opportunities. Initially, it appeared to be reserved for looking at gender differences in participation in YTS, and then - though less confidently - ethnic differences. Socio-economic differences have yet to be systematically analysed, though some work has been done[19]. In the process of critically re-thinking equal opportunities, the notion has been transformed in a way that moves it beyond its underlying liberal ideology, through the idea of equity. The notion of equity has been in social and education research for only a short time. An examination of the recent literature confirms that it came into prominence in the early 1980s, and was introduced into American education in order to counteract the conservative emphasis on excellence and efficiency. It may be that the concept is a reissue of an old idea itself transformed by the rhetoric of excellence[20]. Apple suggests that the concept of equity is visible in the struggle for person rights (as opposed to property rights[21]). As such,