Teaching and learning in further education, 2nd edition

Teaching and Learning in Further Education

2nd Edition
Further education colleges deliver education and training to more students
than any other institution in the post-compulsory sector. This book provides a
practical guide to teaching and learning within the context of the changing FE
environment and addresses the diverse nature of the curriculum and of the student
body for which it is designed.
This new edition contains fully revised material on FE funding, curriculum,
assessment and teacher training to present the most up-to-date picture of further
education in the UK. Drawing on a considerable research base, this book places
FE teaching and learning in its social, economic and political context.
Topics covered include:
•
•
•
•
•
•

the changing context, structure and funding of the FE sector
the nature and range of FE students and staff
teaching and learning strategies
the assessment and recording of achievement
continued professional development
support available to FE teachers

Throughout, case study examples help you to consider differing student needs
and how these might best be served. They also provide an opportunity to reflect
upon how the changing policy context of FE impacts upon students, programmes

and institutions. Practical activities are also included, which can be used as
catalysts for questioning your attitude and approaches to work in FE.
Whether you are embarking on a career or already teaching, this book will
help you review your approach and understanding of the process of teaching and
learning in further education.
Prue Huddleston is Director of the Centre for Education and Industry at the
University of Warwick.
Lorna Unwin is Professor of Vocational Education at the Centre for Labour
Market Studies, University of Leicester.


Teaching and Learning in
Further Education
2nd Edition

Diversity and change

Prue Huddleston and Lorna Unwin

LONDON AND NEW YORK


First published 1997
by Routledge
11 New Fetter Lane, London EC4P 4EE
Simultaneously published in the USA and Canada
by RoutledgeFalmer
29 West 35th Street, New York, NY 10001
Second edition first published 2002
This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2005.

“To purchase your own copy of this or any of Taylor & Francis or Routledge’s collection
of thousands of eBooks please go to www.eBookstore.tandf.co.uk.”
RoutledgeFalmer is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group
© 1997, 2002 Prue Huddleston and Lorna Unwin
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or
reproduced or utilized in any form or by any electronic,
mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter
invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any
information storage or retrieval system, without permission in
writing from the publishers.
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
Library of Congress Cataloguing in Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book has been requested
ISBN 0-203-46370-6 Master e-book ISBN

ISBN 0-203-47193-8 (Adobe eReader Format)
ISBN 0-415-27146-0 (Print Edition)


Contents

Part I

List of figures

v

List of abbreviations

vi

Preface

ix

Further education in context
1

Where will I teach?

2

The student body: Who will I teach?

26

3

Diverse curricula: What will I teach?

38

Part II

2

Teaching and learning
4

Approaches to learning

5

Teaching strategies

114

6

Assessment and recording achievement

138

Part III

76

Professional development
7

Evaluation, reflection and research

160

8

Professional development

172

9

Networks and support agencies

185

References

194

Further reading

206

Index

20 9


Figures

1.1 National learning targets to 2004
1.2 South-east Derbyshire College
1.3 FEFC-funded full-time equivalent (FTE) students in sector colleges by
mode of attendance, age-band and programme area, 1998–99
3.1 Fourteen areas of learning
3.2 National qualifications framework
3.3 Influences on curriculum design
4.1 Maslow’s hierarchy of needs

4.2 Teacher−learner relationship
4.3 Types of aims and purposes in group teaching
4.4 College guidance map
4.5 Guidance team influence on learner’s pathway through college
5.1 Teaching strategies continuum
5.2 Reflection exercise
5.3 Model for effective learning
8.1 FENTO Standards for Category A: Assessing Learners’ Needs

10
13
16
39
44
45
93
102
104
106
109
118
120
131
179


List of abbreviations

ACAC
ACM

ALBSU
ALF
ALI
AOC
APC
APL
ATL
BTEC

CAD/CAM
CBI
CCEA
(CCEA)
CEF
CGLI
CPD
CPE
CPVE
CRAC
CVE
Delni
DfEE
DfES
DTI

Curriculum and Assessment Authority for Wales
Association for College Management
Adult Literacy and Basic Skills Unit (now Basic Skills Agency)
Average Level of Funding
Adult Learning Inspectorate

Association of Colleges
Association of Principals of Colleges
Accreditation of Prior Learning
Association of Teachers and Lecturers
Business and Technology Education Council (from April 1996
BTEC merged with the London Examinations Board to
become EDXCEL)
Computer-Aided Design and Manufacture
Confederation of British Industry
Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment
in Northern Ireland
Colleges’ Employers’ Forum
City and Guilds of London Institute
Continuing Professional Development
Continuing Professional Education
Certificate for Pre-Vocational Education
Careers Research and Advisory Centre
Centre of Vocational Excellence
Department for Employment and Learning Northern Ireland
Department for Education and Employment
Department for Education and Skills
Department of Trade and Industry


vii

EBP
EBPNN
ELLD
ELWa

EMA
ERDF
ESF
ESTYN
FE
FEDA
FEFC
FENTO
FESC
FEU
GCSE
GEST
GNVQ
HE
HEFC
HMI
HNC
HND
HRD
ISR
ITE
ITO
LEA
LEC
LSC
LLSC
LSDA
MSC
NATFHE
NCET

NCITO
NCVQ

Education-Business Partnership
Education-Business Partnership National Network
Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Department
Education and Learning Wales
Education Maintenance Allowance
European Regional Development Fund
European Social Fund
Her Majesty’s Inspectorate for Wales
Further Education
Further Education Development Agency
Further Education Funding Council
Further Education National Training Organisation
Further Education Staff College
Further Education Unit
General Certificate of Secondary Education
Grant for Educational Support and Training
General National Vocational Qualification
Higher Education
Higher Education Funding Council
Her Majesty’s Inspectorate
Higher National Certificate
Higher National Diploma
Human Resource Development
Individual Student Record
Initial Teacher Education
Industrial Training Organisation
Local Education Authority

Local Enterprise Company (Scottish version of TEC)
Learning and Skills Council
Local Learning and Skills Council
Learning and Skills Development Agency
Manpower Services Commission
National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher
Education
National Council for Education Technology
National Council for Industrial Training Organisations
National Council for Vocational Qualifications


viii

NIACE
NISVQ
NVQ
Ofsted
PGCE
PIU
QCA
QTS
RAC
RDA
RSA
SCAA
SFEFC
SHA
SRB
SSC

TDLB
TEC
TFW
TSC
TTA
TUC
TVEI
WEA
YT

National Institute for Adult Continuing Education
National Information System for Vocational Qualifications
National Vocational Qualification
Office for Standards in Education
Postgraduate Certificate of Education
Performance and Innovation Unit
Qualifications and Curriculum Authority
Qualified Teacher Status
Regional Advisory Council
Regional Development Agency
Royal Society for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufacturing
and Commerce
School Curriculum and Assessment Authority
Scottish Further Education Funding Council
Secondary Heads Association
Single Regeneration Budget
Sector Skills Council
Training and Development Lead Body
Training and Enterprise Council
Training for Work

Training Standards Council
Teacher Training Agency
Trades Union Congress
Technical and Vocational Education Initiative
Workers’ Educational Association
Youth Training


Preface

This book has been written primarily for people who are embarking on a
teaching career in colleges of further education (FE) and for those already
teaching who may wish to review their approaches to and understanding of the
process of teaching and learning. It may also be of use to managers in FE and to
people working in organisations which have a relationship with FE colleges.
The book attempts to encapsulate the dynamic and volatile world as
experienced day in and day out by students and staff in the hundreds of FE
colleges throughout the United Kingdom. For unless one is able to have some
picture of these powerhouses of education and training, it is difficult to begin to
envisage the nature of the teaching and learning that goes on within the FE
sector.
To teach in an FE college at the start of the twenty first century is a very
demanding job. At first glance, it would seem that the FE teacher shares little of
the advantages enjoyed by colleagues in schools and universities. Unlike
schools, colleges are open to their students from early in the morning to late at
night, often at weekends, and, increasingly, throughout the traditional summer
holiday period from mid-July to early September. Unlike universities, colleges
are open to people of all abilities, from those adults who may be learning to read
and write to those who are technically highly skilled and, again increasingly, to
those who are following undergraduate and postgraduate courses. There is a

heterogeneity about the student body, structures and curricular offerings in FE
colleges which would send some school and university teachers running for cover.
That very diversity, however, helps make FE colleges such stimulating and
exciting environments in which to work as a teacher.
Since the first edition of this book was published in 1997, there have been
major changes in post-compulsory education and training policy in the UK, all of
which have and will continue to affect FE colleges. As authors of a book that
seeks to present a comprehensive analysis of the FE sector, we face the challenge
of trying to be as up-to-date as possible. We acknowledge, however, that given
the way in which successive UK governments seem intent on re-organising some
aspect of the architecture of education and training every few months, some of
the initiatives covered in this book may have been further amended or even
withdrawn in the time it takes for a manuscript to be published. All colleges


x

struggle to incorporate externally imposed change in such a way as to cause as
little disruption as possible to their students and staff. As we write, however,
there are regular reports in the media of conflicts between staff and managers
about contracts of employment, and battles between the organisations which
represent colleges and government agencies.
Sometimes change affects the viability of a college and it is worth noting that
since 1993, when colleges became independent from local authority control, 37
have been involved in mergers, either with other colleges or with higher
education institutions. In addition, the status of colleges can change. In July 2001,
sixteen colleges in England were declared Centres of Vocational Excellence, as
part of a government plan to ensure colleges meet the needs of the economy (at
local, regional and national levels) more effectively.
Working in any sector of education, however, means that one must be

prepared for change and periods of upheaval, much of which may be imposed
from outside one’s sector or organisation. Despite the catalogue of concerns
given here, the majority of FE teachers still spend much of their working day
helping their students to learn, to progress and to achieve. Throughout this book,
we have tried to portray the realities of college life in order to emphasise that FE
teachers must be capable of adapting to many different situations and
circumstances. In any one day, an FE teacher will employ a range of strategies,
moving from a traditional didactic style in one lesson to being a facilitator of
group work in another, from the company of mature adult students to a group of
disaffected 14-year-olds, and from teaching and assessing in the college
classroom to the variable conditions of the industrial or commercial workplace.
The book is divided into three parts: Part I: Further education in context;
Part II: Teaching and learning; and Part III: Professional development.
In Part I, we describe in Chapter 1 the FE world, how it is funded and the
external constraints which govern the ways in which colleges can go about their
business. Chapter 2 examines the nature and scope of the FE student population
and introduces the reader to some real students whose needs and expectations
pose challenges for teachers and support staff. It also describes the different
types of staff found in colleges and the multi-skilled nature of teachers. In
Chapter 3, we discuss the rich diet that comprises the curricular offerings found
in FE colleges from basic skills workshops through to higher education courses.
In Part II, we explore in Chapter 4 the relationship between teaching and
learning, drawing on a number of theoretical approaches that can help teachers
reflect on their work and be used as a basis for examining the problems they
encounter. This underpinning theory is continued in Chapter 5 where we present
a number of strategies for use in the different teaching situations found in a
college. In Chapter 6, we focus on assessment and recording achievement.
In Part III, we see that, as in all teaching, regardless of the sector, professional
educators never stop learning about their work and spend a great deal of time
reflecting on how to improve and develop their competence and levels of

creativity. In Chapter 7, we discuss the concept of the reflective practitioner as it


xi

relates to both teachers and students, and the extent to which teachers can also
function as researchers. The possibilities for continued professional development
are examined in Chapter 8, and Chapter 9 provides information about the
organisations and resources upon which FE teachers can draw for support in
their work. At the end of the book we indicate further reading material for each
chapter that will help you extend your understanding of some of the complex
learning and teaching concepts covered in the book.
In each of the chapters, we have included sets of questions and activities for
you to consider. We have boxed these under the heading ‘Reflections’ and hope
that you will find time to use them as catalysts for questioning your attitudes and
approaches to your work in FE and for discussion with colleagues.
This book has been written in the spirit of sharing rather than preaching and,
as such, reflects the philosophical basis of much of the teaching and learning that
occurs in FE colleges. Our ideas come from our own experiences of teaching in
colleges and, more recently, of working with FE professionals in a staff
development and research capacity. We hope the book provides you with some
useful and relevant information and ideas but equally we hope it provides enough
challenging material to make you say, ‘I think I would tackle that situation
differently’ or ‘I can come up with a better way’.


Part I
Further education in context

Chapter 1
Where will I teach?

NATURE AND SCOPE OF FURTHER EDUCATION
This chapter describes the shape and scope of further education (FE) colleges
and gives particular emphasis to their diversity. At the time of writing, there
were some 440 FE colleges in England, 47 in Scotland, 27 in Wales and 17 in
Northern Ireland. These figures are subject to change because, much more so
than in the case of schools and universities, colleges are subject to merger and even
closure. In 1999/2000, there were 3.8 million students enrolled in colleges in
England, 434, 435 in Scotland, 224, 100 in Wales, and 150,000 in Northern
Ireland. The vast majority of these students are over the age of 19 and studying
part-time. In England, 80 per cent of FE students are over the age of 19 and the
number of part-time students is increasing (LSC, 2001a). The FE sector
comprises colleges which can be classified under five headings:
•
•
•
•
•

general FE and tertiary colleges;
sixth form colleges;
specialist designated colleges;
colleges of Art and Design and the Performing Arts;
agriculture and horticulture.

The oldest of these colleges have their roots in the Mechanics Institutes of the
mid-nineteenth century. Originally intended to provide technical education on a
part-time basis for the growing numbers of technicians and craftspeople required

by the industrialisation process, they grew and developed during the twentieth
century to provide vocational education and training mainly on a day-release
basis. For example, Huddersfield Technical College began as the Huddersfield
Mechanics Institution in the 1840s, and became a technical college in 1896,
whereas Lowestoft College, the most easterly college in Britain, traces its origins
to evening art classes held in 1874 and courses in navigation for fishermen began
in 1923. As Green and Lucas (1999, p. 11) note, the growth of the FE sector was
‘part of the formation of the modern state in the late nineteenth century,


WHERE WILL I TEACH?

3

reflecting one of the many aspects of a voluntarist relationship between
education, training and the state’.
The 1960s and 1970s saw a considerable expansion in the FE sector, not just
within the area of vocational education but also in the development of
professional and academic courses. Some of these were on a full-time basis,
often for those students who were looking for an alternative to education
provided in the school sixth form. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, worldwide
economic recession led to a sharp rise in the number of young people in the UK
who could not find jobs. The Labour and Conservative governments of the day
sought to alleviate youth unemployment by introducing a series of youth training
and work experience schemes (see Unwin, 1997). Parallel programmes were also
introduced for unemployed adults. Many colleges became Involved in these
schemes by providing off-the-job training and/or by acting as ‘managing agents’.
The FE sector has always had a policy of ‘inclusiveness’ in its provision. That
is, it has provided non-selective education for everyone over 16 who wished to
benefit from extended education or vocational training. In many colleges this

provision now includes everything from basic education to undergraduate and
professional programmes. Colleges are multi-faceted organisations, on the one
hand providing for the needs of their local community, as well as on the other
hand, for a growing regional, national and, in some cases, international student
clientele. At the start of their third century of existence, colleges are now opening
their doors to young people between the ages of 14 and 16 who have been
excluded from school and/or those who schools and colleges believe might
progress more effectively in a college environment. In her 1997 seminal report
on FE, Helena Kennedy declared that ‘Defining further education exhaustively
would be God’s own challenge because it is such a large and fertile section of the
education world’ (Kennedy, 1997, p. 1). Felstead and Unwin (2001, p. 107) in an
analysis of further education funding argued that colleges were trying to fulfil
four key aims:
• Respond to the government’s economic agenda to improve basic and
intermediate skill levels of young people and adults and increase their
participation in education and training;
• Fulfill their role as the main provider of sub-degree post-compulsory
education and training at local level;
• Continue to provide a wide-ranging curriculum which bridges the vocational/
non-vocational divide;
• Continue being a ‘second-chance saloon’ for young people and adults who
want to return to learning.
In addition, many colleges are engaged in higher education (HE) provision,
usually in partnership with local universities. How a college decides to tackle these
aims will have profound consequences for its teachers, students and local
community, as well as for rival education and training providers. The expansion


4 FURTHER EDUCATION IN CONTEXT

of HE provision in FE colleges is particularly significant in this regard. In
Scotland, 30 per cent of all HE students are actually based in FE colleges
(Gallacher, Leahy and MacFarlane, 1997), and the majority of parttime HE
provision in Scotland takes place in FE colleges (Osborne et al., 2000). In
England, it is estimated that 10 per cent of all HE enrollments are in FE colleges
(LSDA, 2002). In recent years, and as a result of the government ‘s widening
participation agenda, some colleges in England have merged with universities:
for example, High Peak College in Buxton has merged with the University of
Derby which is located 40 miles on the other side of Derbyshire. Prime Minister
Tony Blair declared in 2001 that he wanted 50 per cent of 18−30 year olds to
gain a university degree, and it is envisaged that FE will play a key part in
helping the government reach this target. These developments pose interesting
questions about the nature of student and staff identity, about the place of
research in an FE teacher’s portfolio, and, ultimately, about the extent to which
the traditional status boundaries between FE and HE will dissolve. In its
response to a recent HEFCE consultation on supply and demand in HE in
England, the Learning and Skills Development Agency (LSDA) argued that
‘There is a need for Government to articulate a clear role for FE colleges in
relation to the delivery of HE as the basis for the strategic development of its
capacity’ (LSDA, 2002, p. 2). LSDA also stressed that more research was
required to gain a better understanding of learners’ experience of HE in an FE
setting and of the significance of critical mass in relation to the quality of HE
delivered in FE.
Until April 1993, FE colleges were under the control of their local education
authority (LEA) from whom they received the bulk of their funding, the rest
coming from central government and other agencies. The 1988 Education
Reform Act gave colleges and schools the power to manage their own budgets
and thus began to loosen the control of the LEAs. In 1991, the White Paper,
Education and Training for the Twenty-first Century, announced that colleges
were to be given the ‘freedom’ they needed to play a ‘central part in providing more

high-quality opportunities’ and to enable them to ‘respond to the demand from
students and employers for high-quality further education’ (DES/ED/WO, 1991,
p. 58). In his foreword to the White Paper, the then Prime Minister, John Major,
outlined his government’s desire to ‘knock down the barriers to opportunity’, and
for ‘more choice’ in order to ‘give every one of Britain’s young people the
chance to make the most of his or her particular talents and to have the best
possible start in life’ (ibid., Foreword). Under the terms of the 1992 Further and
Higher Education Act, which followed the White Paper, all colleges, including
sixth form colleges, were removed from LEA control, just as polytechnics and
higher education colleges had been in 1989. Colleges became independent selfgoverning corporations with responsibility for their own budgets, staffing,
marketing, course planning and provision. Two new national funding bodies
were established for England and Wales: the Further Education Funding Council
(FEFC) in England; and the Welsh Funding Council. In Northern Ireland and


WHERE WILL I TEACH?

5

Scotland, colleges were funded via the Northern Ireland Office and the Scottish
Office. In 1999, the Scottish Further Education Funding Council (SFEFC) was
established.
The removal of colleges from LEA control was part of the Conservative
government’s attempts to reduce the power of local authorities following the Poll
Tax debacle. Gleeson (1996, p. 87) has argued that the 1988 and 1992 Acts and a
further Education Act in 1994 led to post-16 policy being ‘driven by market
principles and deregulation’ and a break with the ‘municipal or public service
view of school and further education which linked schools and colleges with
LEAs within the spirit of the settlement which followed the 1944 Act’.
Reference to the 1944 Education Act is important for it stated, for the first time,

that it was a legal duty of LEAs to support FE provision and maintain colleges.
The local political constraints on LEAs meant, however, that the funding
available to colleges varied considerably from one part of the country to another.
Though free from LEA control, colleges in England soon found that the FEFC
was to impose a strict funding methodology which would determine the nature of
the courses and qualifications they could offer. Lucas (1999, p. 54) has argued
that ‘few supporters of incorporation realised that a move away from the benign
control of LEAs would mean so much FEFC regulation and downward
pressure’. The creation of a national funding methodology was a central pillar of
the FEFC’s goal to forge FE into a coherent and more homogenised sector on a
par with schools and higher education. What had often been referred to as the
‘Cinderella’ of the education sector was now expected, virtually overnight, to
emerge from the shadows. The months and years following incorporation proved
to be both an exhilarating and painful period for FE colleges. Taubman (2000, pp.
82−3) records that following incorporation, ‘further education had proportionally
more days lost to strike action than any other sector of the British economy’. In
their attempts to provide the ‘choice’ for students and employers laid out in the
1991 White Paper, and to maximise the funding on offer from the FEFC and
other bodies, some colleges hit the media headlines for falsifying student
numbers and other fraudulent practices (see Shattock, 2000, for a discussion of
how this arose). Although it is fair to say that the vast majority of colleges
managed incorporation without recourse to bad practice, the imposition by
government of a market-driven approach across the public services in the
mid-1990s encouraged educational institutions to compete in ways that did little
to enhance the quality of education and training, nor to ensure that learners
gained access to the most appropriate provision.
Just prior to the incorporation of colleges, the government had created a network
of 100 Training and Enterprise Councils (TECs) in 1990 in England, Wales and
Scotland (where they were called Local Enterprise Companies). The TECs (and
LECs in Scotland) were established as employer-led companies whose objectives

were to fund, organise and manage work-based training programmes for young
people and adults, but also to stimulate enterprise in their local areas. As many
colleges acted as managing agents for governmentsupported training schemes


6 FURTHER EDUCATION IN CONTEXT

and also as off-the-job training providers for employers and other managing
agents, they found themselves in a paradoxical relationship with the TECs and
LECs. On the one hand, they depended on the TECs and LECs for some of their
funding, whereas on the other hand they competed with them for customers.
Every young person who accepted a place on a youth training scheme was also a
potential full-time FE student (see Unwin, 1999).
In 1997, the new Labour government announced that one of its first priorities
would be to carry out a major review of post-compulsory education and training
structures in England. This led to a White Paper in 1999, Learning to Succeed, in
which the government spelt out its dissatisfaction with the current arrangements
for the funding and planning of post-16 education and training:
There is too much duplication, confusion and bureaucracy in the current
system. Too little money actually reaches learners and employers, too
much is tied up in bureaucracy. There is an absence of effective coordination or strategic planning. The system has insufficient focus on skill
and employer needs at national, regional and local levels. The system lacks
innovation and flexibility, and there needs to be more collaboration and cooperation to ensure higher standards and the right range of choices…the
current system falls short.
(DfEE, 1999, p. 21)
The White Paper proposed a massive restructuring of the landscape in England.
Using very similar language to the 1991 Conservative White Paper discussed
above, Learning to Succeed bases its reforms on the need for people to reach
their potential by having access to as many learning opportunities as possible.
Just as in a host of other policy documents dating back to 1976 when the then

Prime Minister, James Callaghan, declared that the education system was failing
the nation’s economy, this new White Paper stressed the economic imperatives
that should drive education and training provision. The FEFC would be
abolished and replaced by a Learning and Skills Council (LSC) for England to
oversee what is now called the ‘learning and skills sector’. The TECs (though
not LECs) would be abolished and replaced by 47 local LSCs. The abolition of
the FEFC, which had inspected colleges as well as funding them, meant that new
inspection procedures were required. The White Paper proposed, therefore, that
Ofsted (Office for Standards in Education) would extend its remit from just
inspecting schools to inspecting college-based provision for 16–19 year olds, and
that a new Adult Learning Inspectorate (ALI) would be created for work-based
provision for 16–19 year olds as well as all college-based post-19 provision. ALI
replaced the Training Standards Council (TSC) which had been inspecting
government-funded work-based training in colleges and other training providers.
Finally, a new approach to careers advice and guidance was to be introduced.
The White Paper announced that the existing Careers Services and organisations
responsible for supporting young people more generally (e.g. Youth Service and


WHERE WILL I TEACH?

7

Probation Service) would work together under the umbrella of local agencies to
be called, Connexions. This latter reform had been recommended in a parallel
report from the government’s Social Exclusion Unit (see SEU, 1999).
THE NEW LANDSCAPE
In April 2001 the changes proposed in Learning to Succeed came into operation.
In June 2001, the Labour government was re-elected and some further reforms,
all of which will have some effect on FE colleges, were added. The DfEE was

renamed the Department for Education and Skills (DfES). The significance of
this is that responsibility for the Employment Service, which managed the New
Deal programmes for unemployed people over the age of 18, passed to another
new department, the Department for Work and Pensions (see Chapter 3 for
details of New Deal in colleges). The Regional Development Agencies (RDAs),
which have a central role in analysing labour market and skills-related
information and fund some research and development in colleges, remained
under the remit of the Department for Trade and Industry (DTI). The Cabinet
Office established the Performance and Innovation Unit (PIU) responsible for
researching and policymaking in the area of workforce development and skills.
The Cabinet Office also appointed an E-Envoy with responsibility for pushing
forward Labour’s policy to promote e-commerce and the use of new
technologies, while the DTI appointed a new Minister for e-Commerce and
Competitiveness. The important point here is that colleges in England, with their
wide-ranging interests, have to relate to all the government departments that have
influence over some aspect of PCET provision. As we can see, that influence is
not confined to the DfES.
The TECs and the FEFC have been replaced in Wales by the National Council
for Education and Training in Wales (known as ELWa which stands for
Education and Learning Wales). ELWa is responsible for all post-16 education
and training for that country and incorporates both the Further and Higher
Education Funding Councils for Wales. Unlike in England, ELWa will not be
supported by local councils but will act as a national body with some local
offices. ELWa is a public body sponsored by the National Assembly for Wales.
The Scottish Executive, which was established as the devolved government for
Scotland in 1999, has given responsibility for FE to its Enterprise and Lifelong
Learning Department (ELLD). ELLD also looks after higher education, skills
and lifelong learning, economic and industrial development, and tourism. ELLD
funds FE through the SFEFC. The LECs remain in Scotland as does Scottish
Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise, the two agencies which manage

work-based programmes such as the Modern Apprenticeship. Scotland has
retained its 17 Careers Service companies and 17 Adult Guidance Networks. In
Northern Ireland, the Department for Employment and Learning (Delni) is
responsible for FE, whereas the Training and Employment Agency looks after


8 FURTHER EDUCATION IN CONTEXT

government funded work-based provision. The Northern Ireland Assembly has a
Minister of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment.
Following the move to devolved government for Scotland, Wales and
Northern Ireland, these countries are developing their own distinctive strategies
for FE and lifelong learning policies more generally. For example, Wales and
Scotland have rejected the Connexions model for careers education and guidance
and are developing provision aimed at adults as well as young people. A radical
difference between England and Wales concerns the latter country’s planned
development of a post-16 framework for credit accumulation and transfer
encompassing all qualifications up to and including postgraduate and
professional. For the moment, however, the similarities in the practice of
teaching and learning in FE colleges in these three countries and those in
England far outweigh their differences.
FE FUNDING
The way in which educational institutions are funded has a major impact on their
character. As we saw above, the establishment of the funding councils in 1992
was designed to rationalise a system of funding that was highly localised. In
1993, the Audit Commission and Ofsted produced a highly critical report on
drop-out rates for 16−19-year-olds on full-time courses in English colleges.
Titled, Unfinished Business, the report highlighted, for the first time, the large
numbers of students who were leaving courses before completing (30–40 per cent)
and condemned this as a huge waste of public money as well as a waste of

students’ time and effort (Audit Commission/Ofsted, 1993). The new funding
councils were, therefore, charged with designing a more efficient funding regime
which would improve retention and achievement rates.
Under this new funding methodology, every student enrolled at a college
attracted funding units, the precise number of which depended on the course they
were following, the progress they made and whether they achieved the intended
outcome. This introduced the principle that funding should follow the learner.
Each unit was worth an amount of money, known as the average level of funding
(ALF). In 2000–01, the minimum ALF in England stood at £17.20. A college
could earn additional units for pre-course guidance, for negotiating learning
plans for each student, for providing extra support for students with learning
difficulties or disabilities, and for waiving fees for younger students or adults on
low incomes. In 1996, the average college received some 400,000 units
compared to the smallest with 20,000 units, whereas the largest received 1.6
million units (FEFC, 1996a, p. 15).
The FEFC also drew up a list of those qualifications it would fund (known as
Schedule 2) and those it would not. Colleges could, of course, provide courses
leading to non-Schedule 2 qualifications but it would have to charge students
fees for these or get them funded from somewhere else. A further ploy was to
repackage existing non-Schedule 2 provision to bring it within the Schedule 2


WHERE WILL I TEACH?

9

framework. As Unwin (1999a) discovered, this relied on the creativity of college
lecturers and curriculum managers. For example, one college lecturer explained
that ‘flower arranging is off, but floristry is on because we can get that
accredited’, whereas another described how popular classes in interior design

techniques such as stenciling were reclassified under the heading ‘Decorative
Paint Techniques’ (ibid., p. 79). For a qualification to be funded, it must be
delivered for a minimum of 9 ‘guided learning hours’. A full-time student was
defined in FEFC’s terms as someone enrolled on a programme of at least 450
guided learning hours. Qualifications were divided into 7 bands according to the
number of guided learning hours they took and each band was assigned a
number of basic on-programme units. Qualifications in each band were also
assessed against five cost-weighting factors (e.g. capital equipment costs) which
further increased the number of funding units they would attract.
Colleges were awarded their funding allocation annually after submitting a
strategic plan in which they set out a target number of units for that year (see
Felstead and Unwin, 2001). To assist colleges with their funding plans, the
funding councils introduced the Individualised Student Record (ISR).
Opinions differ as to the effectiveness of the FEFC funding methodology.
McClure (2000) cites performance figures for 1993−8 in England, such as the
rise in student numbers, improvements in quality of provision, and increased
value for money for the public purse, to conclude that the new regime worked.
On the other hand, Lucas (1999), while acknowledging some positive outcomes,
argues that the FEFC model led colleges to put financial considerations above
the quality of learning. Felstead and Unwin (2001) highlighted the way in which
the need to amass funding units encouraged colleges to recruit full-time students
to courses that were inexpensive to run. This, in turn, meant colleges were less
concerned about local labour market needs.
We now turn to consider the remit of the new LSC in England. The LSC,
which is based in the FEFC’s ‘s old offices in Coventry, began life with a budget
of £5.5 billion, and a mission ‘to raise participation and attainment through highquality education and training which puts learning first’ so that, by 2010, ‘young
people and adults in England will have the knowledge and productive skills
matching the best in the world’ (see LSC website). The LSC’s remit covers:
•
•

•
•
•
•
•
•

funding FE and sixth form colleges;
funding school sixth forms;
funding government-supported training;
developing arrangements for adult and community learning (with LEAs);
workforce development;
providing information, advice and guidance to adults;
advising government on the National Learning Targets;
education–business links.


10 FURTHER EDUCATION IN CONTEXT

Figure 1.1 National learning targets to 2004

The establishment of the LSC means that FE colleges are now part of what the
government calls the ‘learning and skills sector’. They will be expected to play
their part in helping the government achieve its newly revised national learning
targets (see Figure 1.1).
David Blunkett, then Secretary of State for Education and Employment,
announced on October 16th, 2001, the names of the 15 people who will comprise
the national council of the LSC and claimed:
As we promised…leading figures from the business community will play a
key role in the Council. They will ensure that Post-16 learning is consumer

driven and that the LSC will find solutions to the education and learning
problems business faces today and in the future. The LSC’s National
Council will play a crucial role in setting the vision and agenda for learning
and skills and in bringing together the current range of Post-16 learning
opportunities for individual learning and workforce development into a
single coherent system…
(DfEE, 2000a, Press Release 442/00, 16th October)


WHERE WILL I TEACH?

11

Here we see the same faith placed in people from the ‘business community’ and
in the merits of consumerism that has characterised education and training policy
since the late 1970s. Yet, ironically, the LSC and its local network are to replace
the business-led TECs which were judged to have failed. Ainley (2000) has
pointed out that although it is not inevitable that local LSCs will take over local
education authorities (LEAs), it is ‘structurally feasible’ for them to do so. The
responsibility and leadership of PCET have been overwhelmingly centralised,
and delivery of programmes and services will be through agencies which are
contracted to the State (see Ainley and Vickerstaff, 1993, for an earlier
discussion on the ‘Contract State’).
The LSC’s aim is that, by 2004/5, it will preside over a common funding
approach for what it calls the ‘four learning sectors’: work-based learning; further
education; school sixth forms; and adult and community learning. For 2002/3,
the LSC will introduce a national funding formula with the following five
elements:
1 National base rate—reflecting the length of the programme of study and the
basic cost of providing the programme;

2 Programme weighting—reflecting that some programmes of a similar length
or leading to an equivalent qualification are more costly to deliver than
others;
3 Achievement—a part (10 per cent for FE and 20 per cent for work-based
learning) of the weighted national base rate, uplifted where appropriate,
which is paid if the learner achieves in accordance with the Council’s
funding guidance;
4 Disadvantage—an uplift applied to the above elements that supports the
policy intention of widening participation, reflects the costs of this and
recognises that some learners come from backgrounds which have
disadvantaged them;
5 Area costs—an uplift applied to the total rate payable which reflects the
significantly higher costs of delivering provision in London and related
areas. (LSC, 2001b, p. 5)
The key change, according to the LSC, between the FEFC and the LSC model is
that the funding unit has been replaced by a ‘learning aim’ which will attract a
‘cash rate’. The LSC explains that, ‘Each learning aim will have a national rate,
quoted in cash terms, which will either be a specific listed value or reflect the
number of guided learning hours involved in delivering the learning aim’ (ibid, p.
32). Programmes will continue to be weighted according to how much they cost
to deliver, but there will be no on-entry payment. The percentage of the funding
allocated to achievement has been raised from the FEFC’s 7 per cent to 10 per
cent. It is too early to say whether these changes in terminology mean that the
funding of colleges will be significantly different and how they will impact on
college managers, teachers and learners. Colleges would do well, however, to


12 FURTHER EDUCATION IN CONTEXT

reflect on the words of the LSC’s first Chairman, Bryan Sanderson, who, in a

controversial lecture to the Royal Society of Arts in April 2001, said:
Customers can be disaffected, there can be a high drop-out rate, there may
be a mis-match between what the customer wants and what they get, there
may be continuous rethinks on policy but none of those things seems ever
to really matter because there’s probably a belief that the money will come
anyway. To be brutal, we in the Learning and Skills Council need to inject
a little discomfort into this scenario—fear of the revenue streams suddenly
drying up.
(Sanderson, 2001, p. 23)
Colleges will be required to submit an annual strategic plan with projected
student numbers and general funding requirements to the national LSC, having
consulted their local LSCs and other ‘partners’ such as regional development
agencies (RDAs). Although this is desirable in order to plan and deliver a
coherent system of education and training, there is always an uncertainty for
colleges about ‘who will turn up on the day’. This tends to make the so-called
‘FE market’ volatile and it is not simply a matter of predicting demand and
matching supply to it. The sector was previously criticised for being too much
dominated by the supply side (Audit Commission, 1985) and much has been
done to adjust the balance but the problems are not easily resolved. Since
funding is dependent on enrolments and outputs there are serious resource
implications if demand and supply are not reasonably well aligned.
Colleges also draw funding from a number of other sources, for example, the
European Union and ‘full-cost’ paying customers. Where there are
undergraduate and postgraduate students following programmes in FE colleges,
these will be funded through the Higher Education Funding Councils. From
April, 1999, colleges in England have been able to bid for monies from the
Standards Fund to help them target weaknesses identified during FEFC
inspections. Another source of funding is available to colleges who provide
services to LearnDirect (the trading name of the University for Industry). The
following vignette presents details of how a typical college of further education

in England is funded:
COLLEGES AS RESPONSIVE ORGANISATIONS
In July 2001, the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, Estelle Morris,
announced that 16 colleges in England had been declared Centres of Vocational
Excellence (CVEs) in the first phase of a £100 million strategy devised by the
previous Secretary of State, David Blunkett, for all colleges to have at least one
CVE by 2004/5 (see LSC, 2001c). Each CVE is recognised for a particular
specialism: for example, construction at Accrington and Rossendale College;
childcare at South Birmingham College; printing at Leeds College of


WHERE WILL I TEACH?

13

Figure 1.2 South-east Derbyshire College

Technology; and media technology at South East Essex College. CVEs are
intended to: ‘…develop new, and enhance existing, excellent vocational