Programme manager:

School of Accountancy, Economics and Management FE 1 Manager/teacher Business Studies 6th Form College Links with E 1 for students

E 1

Head of Training and Development,

Small unitary local authority

HE 2

Senior Lecturer:

School of Environment and Life Sciences

FE 2 Teacher

Business Studies/CPD 6th Form College Links with E 3 for students E 3 Trainer Local Authority HE 3 Education Development Co-ordinator: Education Development Unit FE 3

Foundation Degree Co­ ordinator/Teacher Business Studies FE College

No employer contact, but students provided by the Local Authority

No employer participation

City Local Authority in large conurbation

FE 4 Teacher

Business/Marketing FE College

Links with E 2 for students

E 2

Member of Borough Corporate Management Team

Large urban borough

FE 5

Curriculum Manager Business Studies Large ‘Mixed-Economy’ College

Links with E 4 for students

E 4

Department Training Manager in a medium sized unitary Local Authority

Employers

Four of the five employers agreed to be interviewed and participate in the research. However, only two of the four were able to be interviewed in the second phase (E1 and E2). One had moved to work for a charity (E3), and the other declined to participate (E4), claiming there was nothing to add to what she had told me in the first interview. Only one (E1) participated in the Workshops. Of the four interviewed, two (E2, and particularly E4) saw their function as primarily purchasing a training service. This is in keeping with conventional links between employers and educational providers rooted in technical-rational perspectives, rather than contributing to an emerging professional and personal staff development strategy on a partnership basis. Smith and Betts’ (2003) critique of employer involvement in educational and training policy development, particularly with regard to Foundation Degrees, mirrors this.

Yet the bid document reflects back to policy makers their discursive priorities. It stresses ‘the view of the employer members of the Consortium’, that

...the time is right for the introduction of a new qualification which offers a fresh approach to the issues relating to Local Government. The strategy for regionalisation and more community involvement in governance has put pressure on local authorities to change their existing culture and way of working, it is their view that the role of the Foundation Degree would be to support the internal staff development required to facilitate the changes needed within Local Authorities (University, 2000:3)

For the employers the bid therefore discursively conceptualises that the course provides an instrument to deliver changes in processes of governance (Ozga, 2000: 100-102), closely tied to prevailing Blairite themes of ‘modernisation’ (Clarke and Newman: 1997), to give employees ‘the ability to manage uncertainty, take risks, cross boundaries and develop different decision-making approaches in conjunction with elected members’ (University, 2000: 3)

The employer representatives broadly reflect these approaches in espousing positions on the policy and the rationale for the programme. It has to be remembered that local government managers, as civil servants, are used to responding to, at least formally, policy agendas of central government. Responses to questioning in the interviews (all carried out on employers’ work premises) about their understandings of Foundation Degree policy and the rationale for the programme were largely framed by centrally driven imperatives of the need to modernise within a global economy, and interwoven corporate priorities of the need to provide ‘best value’. There were consistent references across the four interviews to ‘responsiveness’, ‘skills gaps’, ‘corporate planning’,

‘performance management’ and ‘employee development’ to ensure services become ‘customer focused’. Effectively the programme is seen as an instrument of corporate development, with ‘human resource’ perspectives prioritised. There was only occasional reference by any of the employers to social inclusion agendas.

Rather, for E1, Head of Training for her local authority the whole process is seen in terms of cost-benefit, in terms of her time and the development of staff. At this early stage she is satisfied that the employers’ voice is recognised and represented in the

way the learning is conceptualised because she sees the development in terms of her corporate human resource strategies, identifying

...the key issues about managing performance and linking it in to the best value regime, because it’s so crucial to all of us.

From a pedagogical and curricular perspective the overriding issue for all employers is the relevance of the propositional knowledge which they are ‘purchasing’ from a service provider, and the transfer and impact of that knowledge in the workplace by the

employees. This emphasis is exemplified in E2’s comment:

We trust the University and the College to develop a curriculum that is going to meet the needs of a local authority in today’s changing climate.

Their expectations of the programme and of its role in the development of staff is highly conventional - didactic, decontextualised knowledge provided to employees by a third party, to be evaluated by the employers on the basis of returns in terms of

improvements in working practices and relevance to immediate workplace priorities. This is in spite of the aims of Foundation Degrees, the expected role of employers in the shaping and contextualising of learning, and their actual involvement in the initial

articulation of learning priorities in this case. Other common strands across the employer interviews include the relevance and adaptability of the knowledge to the wider ‘modernisation ‘ agenda, alignment with human resource and corporate

employee development strategies, and issues of sustainability after the funding for the pilot finishes.

Issues of relevance of knowledge to the workplace and immediacy of impact through enhanced ‘human capital’ varied across the local authorities, depending on stages of internal strategic and organisational development reached, and support from

management at both organisational and departmental levels. This point is important in evaluating the issue of affordance in Chapter 7.

E1 had very clear priorities for her employees from the course. Her focus was ‘performance improvement’, and knowledge from the programme was evaluated in these terms. For example, she has implemented a system across the local authority, and all staff, including managers, have regular interviews on this issue. On this basis she was happier with the semester 2 modules, one of which was ‘Performance Management’, in contrast to the generic, Independent Learning (ILM) module of semester 1.

In contrast E4’s marginal position limited affordances for her to influence the curriculum and use it to shape what she needed to do - she has no role outside her department and little opportunity for a wider strategic impact for the curriculum.

The employers’ view of knowledge is utilitarian. They see their role as not central in development, and are therefore happy to be ‘semi-detached’ purchasers, using modules that have most currency, aligning with immediate, local, corporate and wider policy agendas. They are not positioning themselves to have a central say in the constitution of knowledge and learning, and are deferential to, or even uninterested in, issues of pedagogy and assessment.

College Tutors

The Further Education (FE) sector has a history of working with employers in training staff, and this is broadly reflected in their conceptualisations of the rationale for the programme. There is acknowledgement from the respondents that the Foundation Degree is filling a void in work-related learning provision created by an academic drift within FINCs and HNDs. Yet there is a spectrum of opinion on this, with tutors used to responding to employers up to FE level 3 (A-Level equivalent) more acquiescent in the discourse than those with experience of teaching degree level work, particularly FE 5. FE1, for example, with a background in Business Studies, was excited about ‘a qualification based on the workplace’. Although operating in a sixth form college, FE1 was used to servicing the needs of industry and business on a market driven basis, and

his understandings combined the human resource agendas of the local authorities with Blunkett’s priorities in the Greenwich speech (DFEE: 2000a: 7), of meeting the

intermediate skills gap of the UK in a global economy.

At this initial level of analysis, FE 2, a Business Studies tutor also based at a sixth form college, but previously experienced in a more traditional further education college, conceptualised his sector’s role as meeting and supporting the employers’ and the Government agendas of modernisation. For FE 2 the rationale is for the students in local authorities to have an understanding of

...the new issues which would be put to them by Government on an issue of ‘best value’, the change in working practices that would be thrust upon local authorities. This

sort of answerability to different agencies and the public... and how they would cope with it.

This is a form of embodied discursive capture, in keeping with Ozga’s (2000)

conceptualisation of governance. The result for him would be the implementation of policy reflexively by the employees, enabling him as tutor to facilitate processes of active governance. Students would therefore evaluate:

How did they apply it? How did other people apply it? How did they evaluate it? How did they share knowledge? Did they share best practice - or did they do things in their own little annexe somewhere?

FE 4, in mid-career and having only taught for one year, refers to contrasting

dimensions of ‘the economic’, but at the student level, articulates the importance of ‘self- actualization’. With a marketing background he identifies this aspect as a ‘niche market’ for selling a new product. FE 4’s students were employed by E 2, and the local authority was undergoing a significant transformation in terms of strategy and staffing. The

programme for FE 4 was also about dealing with such risk and uncertainty by the students at personal and individual levels:

It’s not just ‘best value’, it is just basic nuts and bolts. It’s basically what is my role? Will I have a job next week? Am I going to be phased out? How will I cope with the changes? Does the organization care a damn about me?

FE 5, also with a Business Studies background, is experienced in teaching HNDs and franchised part-time undergraduate programmes at a large mixed economy college, and sees Foundation Degrees as a narrowing of a ‘training’ rather than an ‘educational’ focus ‘to have people more specifically geared up and have the skills for that particular area of employment that they are in’. She feels traditional HNCs are slightly broader, and expresses concerns about ‘Taylorist control mechanisms’. Universities and colleges have a responsibility to counterbalance rationalist and utilitarian agendas in favour of ‘the critical and progressive’ in the interests of the students, in her view. FE 5 sets out a marker from the outset for the educationalists within the partnership in interpreting the curriculum priorities:

...let’s not be narrowing peoples’ choices...let’s give them what they need for that, but give them other things, so that they can take them on, take them further.

The college tutors’ position on knowledge acquisition is fundamentally constructivist, with starting points not being driven by module content and learning outcomes, nor assessment regimes, but individualised student learning diagnoses and subsequent journeys. The pedagogical priority for the tutors was supporting processes of ‘coming to know’ (Trowler and Knight: 2000), and these processes were centred on the person rather than the corporation, on development rather than knowledge transfer.

Thus although there was some concern about responsiveness to ‘external’ agendas (for example FE 1, working very closely with E 1, expressed similar concerns over

‘currency’, ‘value’ and ‘national recognition’ of locally determined schemes) there was a strong emphasis on students ‘becoming’ reflective practitioners generally, and not just in

the workplace, but in an empowering and emancipatory way, developing analytical and critical thinking skills. Such a holistic perspective based on personal development is in contrast to the selective instrumentalism towards knowledge of the employers, with tutors stressing the learner rather than components of the programme.

The tutors were used to such approaches. The practices and pedagogic expertise in supporting processes of coming to know, such as diagnosis, guidance, reflective skills development and formative assessment, were asymmetrical with the University’s

hierarchical and hegemonic discursive structures and pedagogic practices, premised on knowledge transfer in a segmented and didactic way, and therefore based on modular rather than programme structures. These differences were to provide the bases for the ‘double binds’ (Engestrom: 2001) in the subsequent Workshops.

The dominant pedagogic emphasis on knowledge transfer did not sit easy with the college tutors in the first interviews. In particular, issues of ‘volume’ of knowledge to be transferred in both the limited class time and students’ own limited private study time, and the weekly schedule (effectively topics within modules) caused problems to tutors, although used to working to external syllabi. In Lave and Wenger’s (1991) terms they were deferential apprentices working with perceived masters, unaware of a degree of potential agency and selectivity within their teaching at this stage. FE 1 had questioned the Programme Leader (HE 1) about the volume of reading expected to be covered by the students (as he perceived it). HE 1’s response stressed that volume would be expected on an undergraduate (full time) course, with no allowance for the type of student, mode of learning or type of knowledge. In desperation FE 1 had turned to HE 3

who was actually delivering some of the teaching in one of the colleges (covering FE 4’s absence):

There was a turning point...I asked what do I need to do?

HE 3, as master with an apprentice, had provided insight about how apparently hegemonic module specifications might be interpreted and prioritized. FE1’s position was also reflected in FE 4’s assertion:

We are student driven. We have to meet the student where they are at and try to bring them along, because they are all at different levels.

Although the most sceptical of the college tutors regarding processes of learning thorough work, FE 4 expressed a frustration at his sector’s expertise being

unrecognised and unvalued: where ‘knowledge’ is produced by the ‘masters’ and delivered through apprentice teacher ‘labourers’. In meeting a Module Leader (at the University) he talked of ‘being shunted in and out of there’:

What it came down to was a forty five minute rushed session on ‘here’s the

materials...blah, blah... this is what you need to do. ’ We need more time to reflect on that process.. .they are not giving us much time to give them some input into that.

Perceptions of volume of content were reinforced by modular structures which seem to impose a rigid structuring and social division of labour within the activity system, as perceived by the college staff, limiting more agential and interactional opportunities for

pedagogic practice, at least at a formal level. These issues provide parallels with notions of contested and hegemonic discursive structures and practices that I will use later to analyse issues of power and development within the emerging activity system and ‘unit of analysis’ - hence my need to look at subjects’ perspectives in uncoupling object from motive, and ‘discourse’ from ‘text’.

The modular focus on fragmented propositional knowledge and the perceived need by the college tutors for a whole programme emphasis on learner development, with the Applications Modules of Independent Learning and Work-based Learning as the core (see Fig 2.1, page 37), was particularly stressed by FE 2:

Make that (his emphasis,) the focus of the course, rather than learning bits of knowledge.

The college tutors after the first semester, although having no formal direct contact with each other outside the events organised by the University, had formed a clear view of the instrumental approach of the employers to programme content, and the fragmented knowledge transfer emphasis of the University, reinforced by discursive structures and practices. Their expertise and ways of working were at this stage of the research and development cycles, marginal and unacknowledged.

University Tutors

The host School at the University did not initiate this curriculum partnership. The Programme Leader (HE 1) had to be from the host School, however, and he joined the process at an advanced stage of the development of the bid. He had been a

programme leader for an HND in Business Studies within the Faculty, in which there was an existing structural tension in that students ‘topping up’ the HND to honours degree (a ‘2+2’ arrangement) experienced this in a different School in the Faculty. This School, according to HE 1 in the first interview, saw the Foundation Degree initiative as a threat to the existing arrangements, and a risk to the student numbers entering their degree programme at level 2. HE 1 welcomed the Foundation Degree, and echoed the discourses of Blunkett’s Greenwich speech (DFEE: 2000a), about ‘competitiveness’. He has a utilitarian and functionalist conceptualisation of higher education in that it is

essentially a preparation for meeting the needs of the economy.

HE 2 has a professional background in Housing, and runs part-time programmes leading to the Institute of Housing professional qualifications. She is used to dealing with local government employees in this capacity. Like HE 1 she recognised that ‘students are being pushed towards honours degrees’ that ‘weren’t actually the best answer for them’. Nor, she claimed, were these degrees providing the ‘kind of increase in skills that employers said they wanted to see.’ While welcoming the Foundation Degree for these reasons, it also posed a dilemma for her in positioning herself, as a critical voice, between democratic and economic agendas within Foundation Degrees (Doyle: 2003), championing student over employer interests:

...employers want a lot of different things. They want them in short term ways. I don’t think it’s our role to., .just accept we are just delivering things which are actually not best for the students. ..I don’t think we should be at the behest of the employers.

She is unsure of what she is likely to be able to achieve, however, as organisationally she is outside the host School, and even the Faculty.

HE 3 is in a similar position, but this is nothing new for him, as staff in the Education Development Unit (EDU) are used to working with different ‘academic tribes’ (Becher and Trowler: 2001) across the institution, with academic staff within the Schools interpreting and prioritising issues on their terms. HE 3 has a background in Further Education, and a broad professional experience in and commitment to supporting learners, through things such as mentoring and widening access.

Essentially the tutors’ position on knowledge and pedagogy is didactic. The emphases are on knowledge transfer, differentiating knowledge from skills development, and operating within discursive structures and practices that reinforce the segmentation and