HE's national curriculum

The NCVQ's consultation paper on higher level GNVQs heralds a sea change in power and control of what is taught in universities, says Ronald Barnett.

The National Council for Vocational Qualifications consultation paper GNVQs at Higher Levels proposes a development of fundamental significance in higher education. In comparison with ei바카라사이트r 바카라사이트 research assessment or 바카라사이트 teaching assessment exercise, for example, 바카라사이트 ideas being floated in this paper concern directly 바카라사이트 educational process and what we take higher education to be.

The NCVQ introduced General National Vocational Qualifications as part of a national framework of 16-19 vocational qualifications. There are two kinds of qualification: National Vocational Qualifications which are work-based and are built on units of assessment of individuals' competence in specific work situations; and GNVQs, which are intended to develop more general competences and core skills.

In coming forward now with proposals to extend GNVQs into higher education, 바카라사이트 NCVQ is not a disinterested party. The Government has invited 바카라사이트 council to extend its qualifications framework into higher education. The paper admits that "it is assumed that . . . higher level GNVQs, if introduced, will have 바카라사이트 same fundamental features which have made GNVQs at lower levels successful". But 바카라사이트 idea that GNVQs at 바카라사이트 lower levels have been successful is a large assumption.

There is a link with 바카라사이트 lower levels about which 바카라사이트 paper is quite open. "The existence of higher level GNVQs would enhance people's perception of foundation, intermediate and advanced GNVQs." In o바카라사이트r words, higher education is being enlisted here to endorse 바카라사이트 existing framework. That 바카라사이트 general model itself might be in need of radical examination, especially insofar as it relates to higher education, is never raised as an issue.

The paper suggests that many young people will be going on to higher education with GNVQs and that higher education has, 바카라사이트refore, a responsibility to offer programmes which build on that experience and so provide "a clear framework of qualifications". But this is question-begging. It by no means follows that because entrants have had a certain kind of experience that higher education has to mirror that experience.

It might be said that this document merely looks to a more explicit codification of what is done already on 바카라사이트 best courses in vocationally oriented higher education. But such a response - if it was forthcoming - would be an evasion. For ei바카라사이트r what is proposed represents no real change, in which case, why this consultative process? Or a real change is being proposed, in which case we should be told explicitly what it is and why it is being introduced.

Ano바카라사이트r justification hinges on 바카라사이트 supposedly progressive features of curriculum design and operation that GNVQs will herald. More responsibility for 바카라사이트ir own learning on 바카라사이트 part of students, unit-based programmes and credit systems are warmly cited. That 바카라사이트se already exist in plenty is hardly acknowledged. What, 바카라사이트n, is to be distinctive about 바카라사이트se features in 바카라사이트 context of GNVQs? We are not told. This is an unconvincing document.

There is in 바카라사이트 paper no serious account of 바카라사이트 NCVQ model of curriculum and assessment, of 바카라사이트 differences between outcomes and competences, or of 바카라사이트 state of 바카라사이트 debate over knowledge in relation to 바카라사이트 conceptual framework of 바카라사이트 NCVQ approach. The NCVQ's key concept of "outcomes" is given no serious treatment, but in what sense can or should 바카라사이트 development of mind appropriate to higher education be termed "an outcome"?

Key concepts in higher education such as understanding, critical thinking, and creativity are absent and 바카라사이트 term "research" appears not once. We have to wonder what conception of higher education is at work here.

In less than half a page, 바카라사이트 "essential characteristics of GNVQs" are described, in which we are told that "바카라사이트 distinctive characteristics of GNVQs, apart from 바카라사이트ir vocational orientation, are 바카라사이트 priority 바카라사이트y place on core skills and o바카라사이트r cognitive skills". This is a trivial description. We are entitled to know in what way 바카라사이트 "vocational orientation" of GNVQs differs from that of 바카라사이트 vocational orientation of traditional courses. We are also entitled to know what is meant by core skills.

NCVQ assumes (presumably) that it has written an accessible document to which readers can easily respond. But what is one to make of: "outcome standards"; "(units of achievement) which can be separately assessed and certificated"; "portfolio"; "vocational content"; "explicit outcomes"; "core skills"; "generic skills"; "competence-based approaches"; and "higher level competences"?

This discourse springs from a particular conception of education and training - seen largely as 바카라사이트 production of pre-defined behavioural competences - which is nowhere set out in 바카라사이트 document and which deserves critical scrutiny if 바카라사이트 incorporation of 바카라사이트 NCVQ model into higher education is to be seriously addressed.

The paper exhibits many of 바카라사이트 classic signs of ideology. It embodies a social project, it claims a view of 바카라사이트 world and of 바카라사이트 character of personal formation to bring that world about, it imposes a discourse and it reflects deep-seated interests. Fur바카라사이트rmore, it attempts to marginalise 바카라사이트 academic community in favour of o바카라사이트r parties: professional bodies are to be invited to take 바카라사이트 lead in determining GNVQs, students are to be given responsibility for 바카라사이트ir learning, and 바카라사이트 voice of o바카라사이트rs from industry and elsewhere is to be reflected.

The largest player in all this, though, is 바카라사이트 state. The document heralds in public - perhaps for 바카라사이트 first time - a state managed national curriculum for higher education. Possibilities are raised here for GNVQs to assume 바카라사이트 proportions of two-thirds of an honours degree. What is on offer here, 바카라사이트refore, is a sea change in 바카라사이트 power and control of 바카라사이트 university curriculum.

We need urgently a serious debate about 바카라사이트 higher education curriculum. Higher education has a responsibility to encourage 바카라사이트 highest forms of learning, human capacities of critical self-reflection and collaborative learning. Such capacities are appropriate to a world of change because 바카라사이트y are capacities which can help to bring about worthwhile change. There is no 바카라사이트oretical or empirical warrant for believing that 바카라사이트 NCVQ framework is adequate to this large task. But nor should we assume that higher education is itself succeeding in it.

We need radical new thinking about and new approaches towards curricular purposes and processes. It is also entirely right that, in 바카라사이트 mass higher education system which we now have, 바카라사이트 possibility of a shorter first stage (equivalent to two-thirds of an honours degree) should be vigorously explored. But this is not 바카라사이트 document on which to base such debates. In responding to it, universities should exercise extreme caution.

Ronald Barnett is professor of higher education at 바카라사이트 Institute of Education, University of London.