Richardson, William, Ed. Qualifications For
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
DOCUMENT RESUME ED 416 373 CE 075 843 AUTHOR Stanton, Geoff, Ed.; Richardson, William, Ed. TITLE Qualifications for the Future: A Study of Tripartite and Other Divisions in Post-16 Education and Training. INSTITUTION Further Education Development Agency, London (England). ISSN ISSN-1460-7034 PUB DATE 1997-00-00 NOTE 224p. AVAILABLE FROM Further Education Development Agency, Publications Dept., Mendip Centre, Blagdon, Bristol BS18 6RG, United Kingdom (12 British pounds). PUB TYPE Collected Works Serials (022) Reports Research (143) JOURNAL CIT FEDA Report; v2 n5 1997 EDRS PRICE MF01/PC09 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS Curriculum; Delivery Systems; *Education Work Relationship; Educational Needs; *Educational Policy; Educational Practices; Educational Trends; *Employment Qualifications; Foreign Countries; Government School Relationship; Labor Market; Postsecondary Education; Prevocational Education; Program Design; School Business Relationship; *School Choice; Technical Institutes; Vocational Education IDENTIFIERS General National Vocational Qualif (England); *National Vocational Qualifications (England); *United Kingdom ABSTRACT This document contains eight papers examining different aspects of categorization, divisions, and choice in further education (FE) that were commissioned during a study of tripartite pathways (for example, academic, vocational and applied) in education and training for 16-19 year olds in the United Kingdom. The following papers are included: "The Historical Perspective: Myths and Realities behind Tripartite Divisions in FE" (Bill Bailey); "The Consumer Perspective: Tripartism as a Response to Market Pressures" (Alison Wolf); "The Psychological Perspective: Tripartite and Other Divisions in Post-16" (Bryan Dockrell); "The Sociological Perspective: Post-compulsory Education Policy in Transition: From Crowther to Dearing and Beyond" (Denis Gleeson); "The Curriculum Perspective: Education and Training: The Prevocational Tradition" (Richard Pring); "The Employment Perspective: Stakeholders, Skills and Star Gazing: The Problematic Relationship between Education, Training, and the Labour Market" (Prue Huddleston, Lorna Unwin); "The International Perspective: Learning from International Comparisons" (David Parkes); and "Overview: Developing Qualifications for the Future" (Geoff Stanton). (Chapters contain references.) (MN) ******************************************************************************** Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document. ******************************************************************************** FEDA Further Education Development Agency 'Qualifications for the future: a studyof tripartite and other divisions in post-16 education and training Geoff Stanton and William Richardson (eds.) U EPARTMENT OF EDUCATION OM of Educational Research and Improvement ED ATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) 1.7. This document has been reproduced as received from the person or organization originating it PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE AND 0 Minor changes have been made to DISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL improve reproduction quality HAS BEEN GRANTED BY Points of view or opinions stated in this document do not necessarily represent official OERI position or policy TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCEE INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) 4, The New Qualifications stratesea 'BEST COPY AVAILABLE FEDA Further Education Development Agency Qualifications for the future: a study of tripartite and other divisions in post-16 education and training Geoff Stanton and William Richardson (eds.) feda r Published by the Further Education Development Agency (FEDA), Dumbarton House, 68 Oxford Street, London W1N ODA Tel: [0171] 436 0020 Fax: [0171] 436 0349 Feedback and orders should be directed to: Publications Department, FEDA, Coombe Lodge, Blagdon, Bristol BS40 6RG Tel: [01761] 462 503 Fax: [01761] 463 140 Registered with the Charity Commissioners Editor: Lorraine Mullaney Designer: Mike Pope Printed by: Henry Ling Limited, Dorchester Cover photograph: Telegraph Colour Library Project Manager: Geoff Stanton Project Editors: Geoff Stanton, William Richardson Project Team: Bill Bailey, Caroline Mager, Geoff Stanton, Alison Wolf Project Consultant: Valerie Bayliss FEDA Project Director: Caroline Mager ISSN 1460-7034 1997 FEDA All rights are reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, electrical, chemical, optical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright holder. 4 2 feda report VOI 2 Contents Foreword 5 1 Introduction 7 2 The historical perspective by Bill Bailey 19 3 The consumer perspective by Alison Wolf 39 4 The psychological perspective by Bryan Dockrell 67 5 The sociological perspective by Denis Gleeson 83 6 The curriculum perspective by Richard Pring 117 7 The employment perspective by Prue Huddleston and Lorna Unwin 143 8 The international perspective by David Parkes 171 9 Overview: developing qualifications for the future by Geoff Stanton 189 About the authors 222 Vol 2 feda report 3 About the project editors Project Manager and Project Editor: Geoff Stanton Geoff Stanton is a Senior Research Fellow at the University of Greenwich School of Post-compulsory Education and Training and also works as a freelance consultant. He was one of the first two Development Officers of the Further Education Unit (FEU) when it was first created and he went on to become the director of the unit, a post he held for eight years. Before this he was Head of Department in an FE college and Vice Principal at a Tertiary College. He has taught in schools and colleges, and in FE Teacher Training. He has published extensively on the development and man- agement of FE curriculum and policy. He has served on policy committees at NCVQ, the National Curriculum Council, the RSA Examinations Board and City and Guilds. He is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts, and a Charter Fellow of the College of Preceptors. Project Editor: William Richardson William Richardson directs the Doctor of Education programme at the Division of Education, University of Sheffield where his teaching responsi- bilities include education policy and history. He has written widely on post-16 education and training and has,inassociationwith the Universities of Warwick and London, recently completed a four -year study of options for modernising the post-compulsory system in England and Wales. He is currently publishing studies on the historiography of edu- cation prior to embarking on a history of education in England since 1750. 6 4 feda report Vol 2 Foreword FEDA's research project from which this book derives explored the rationale for the ways in which post-16 education and training is organised and categorised. It investigated the origins, meanings and effectiveness of attempts in British education to divide learning and qualificationsand learnersinto distinct types, the most recent of which is Sir Ron Dearing's proposal that there should be three 'pathways' for 16-19 year olds: aca- demic, applied and vocational. The unequal status of such pathways has been the subject of continuing debate. Notions such as 'parity of esteem' have grown up which seek to neutralise unequal status. But they can only become reality as a result of questioning deep-seated attitudes and cultures, and reshaping values and structures for the challenges of the future. Further education suffers because of prevailing British attitudes. Not only does there remain a very carefully calibrated hierarchy of worth- while achievement, which has clearly established routes and which privileges academic success well above any other accomplishment, but there is also an appalling ignorance amongst decision makers and opinion-formers about what goes on in further education. (Learning Works the Kennedy Report FEFC 1997, p 1) 7 VO1 2 feda report 5 The Dearing Review of 16-19 qualifications reported early in the life of the research, bringing to the fore the issue of 'tripartite' division. As we publish these findings, Dearing's recommendations are subject to review by the Government and a consultation has been launched to look again at the shape and further development of the qualifications framework. On the face of it, Dearing's three pathways are inimical to the degree of flexibility advocated by Tomlinson. There is a world of difference between, on the one hand, offering courses of education and training and giving some students ...[help] to gain access to those courses, and, on the other hand, redesigning the very processes of learning, assessment and organisation so as to fit the objectives and learning styles of the students. But only the second philosophy can claim to be inclusive. (Inclusive Learning. the Tomlinson Report, FEFC 1996, 1997, p 4) Dearing is also vulnerable to the kind of accusation levelled by Kennedy, because of the amount of FE provision which cannot fit comfortably within the pathways. On the other hand, he is clearly right to argue that the present system of qualifications is confusing. The Government, for its part, has had to place severe limits on the resources which can be used to widen participation post-16 at all levels and also to make learning more inclusive. At the same time it is looking at lifelong learning as well as at ways of helping excluded groups of people move through learning to sustainable work, and at how technology can transform learning throughout life. In this context the theoretical analyses