Cardiff University and University of the West of England
Revised version of a paper presented at the British Educational Research
Association Annual Conference, University of Glamorgan, 14-17 September 2005
Partnership between different types of institutions is a high priority in teacher training across all sectors. This research is concerned with the partnership links between the pre-service PGCE(FE) delivered by Cardiff University and its placement colleges. It arose from concerns while visiting students in their placements that the quality of their experience is highly variable and that an improved partnership between the colleges and the university would benefit all participants.
The main focus was to analyse and evaluate the experiences of a small number of trainees and their mentors in some sample colleges in order to help identify the strengths and weaknesses of the partnership. From these findings recommendations were derived, some of which were implemented during the year 2004-5.
Various issues surrounding placements for pre-service PGCE(FE) trainees had been emerging, particularly since 2000. There is increasing competition between institutions to provide courses and there are more trainees than ever before.
One important factor has been the proliferation, since the 1990s, of PGCE, PCET, Cert.
Ed. and City and Guilds stage one and two courses which have appeared both in HEIs as they further develop training courses for post 16 teaching and in colleges, through franchises and partnerships with HEIs. The course at Cardiff has a long history of 30 years, and has developed and adapted to change over that time. However, profound impacts were felt with the introduction of the requirement of recognised teacher training for all lecturers in the FE sector from September 2001. This came about with the target set in the Gree n Paper “ The Learning Age ” (DfEE 1998). The Further Education National
Training Organisation (FENTO) was subsequently set up to oversee and endorse all such qualifications. It set out a series of standards which must be met by all teachers in
FE in order to obtain a recognised professional qualification (FENTO 1999). More courses, especially those being offered to staff and local students in-house, have meant more competition for places, and sometimes less time and energy available within the colleges for teaching practice students from outside.
1

Another factor linked with this is the availability, since 2000, of a training bursary of
£6000 to PGCE (FE) students in England, and in Wales since 2001. Ian Finlay (2002 p.9) claims that this has doubled the number of students on these courses. This follows the drive by central government to recruit and train more teachers for further education.
The “ Learning Works ” report (Kennedy 1997) stated clearly that priority should be given to the public funding of post-16 education and training. It led to much further policymaking in the late 90s up to the present (Dearing Report 1997, Fryer Report 1997,
Qualifying for Success 1997, Learning to Succeed 1999, Learning and Skills Act 2000,
Success for All 2002). These policy changes have ensured a steady rise in recruitment for training courses, and have made more acute the issues of competition for placements and quality of such placements within the colleges. It should be noted however that the bursary is to be discontinued from September 2006 in England, except for trainees offering shortage subjects (LLUK 2005a [online]). The Welsh Assembly is yet to make a final decision on training bursaries for 2006-7. It remains to be seen what effect this will have on patterns of recruitment for these courses.
Alongside all this is the steady increase in pressure on staff within the colleges. Changes in working conditions since incorporation in 1993 (DES 1992) have often meant less time available to mentor student teachers, and sometimes a view of such trainees as “an extra pair of hands” in an already over-stretched department of stressed staff. Avis and colleagues (2002) refer to the subsequent period as “one of marked turbulence with colleges restructuring and shedding large numbers of staff.” (p.182). They go on:
Such restructuring and shedding of labour has been accompanied by increasing demands being placed on the remaining workforce. The culture of ‘more for less’ has been reflected in research that has explored the changing labour process of those within the sector which claims lecturers have been subject to loss of control and increased intensification of their work .
(Avis et al 2002 p.182)
A further factor, which may well have a bearing here, is the move since the early 1990s to “shift teacher education either partly or wholly out of universities and colleges of higher education ” (Finlay 2002 p.13) for a whole range of practical and political reasons.
Thus there seems to be a conflict between the trend, encouraged by government policy, to focus more attention on the role of the colleges in teacher training during placements, and the pressure on staff in the colleges to take on more and more teaching practice students at a time when their responsibilities and contact time have increased significantly. As Hankey (2004 p.397) points out, the disparity between the salaries and conditions of service between FE and school teachers may be a further factor, although this is not now the case in Wales. The additional strains produced by a request to act as a mentor to a trainee can in many cases seem an unwelcome extra burden to an already overstretched teacher. If the quality of such placements is to be maintained, there is clearly a need to examine the nature of the links between placement colleges and the
HEIs which provide the student teachers.
2

A plethora of policy documents and reports, particularly since 2003, chart the progress of government agencies in addressing the hitherto little-regulated area of teacher training for the sector. What follows is a brief overview of the main policy documents, focusing on the ways in which they impinge on placements and partnerships between HEIs and colleges. It is against this backdrop of rapidly developing policy that this research is set.
OFSTED (ESTYN in Wales) became responsible for inspection of the FE sector in 2001.
It conducted a longitudinal study of quality and standards in Initial Teacher Training for post-16 education and training in England during 2002/3, visiting 8 HEIs and 23 colleges
(OFSTED 2003). The survey report notes,
The lack of systematic and effective mentoring arrangements for trainees on the majority of FE teacher training courses is a major weakness. Few colleges provide their trainees with sustained support from experienced practitioners who can assist them in developing good teaching skills in their own subject. There is an over-reliance on informal forms of support, and the roles of mentors are often not defined insufficient detail. Where mentoring support is provided, the standard is extremely variable and in most cases, not well resourced.
(OFSTED 2003 pp. 18-19)
The report goes on to praise some HEIs for developing more formal links with their partner colleges through, for example, mentor training and the provision of a mentor handbook. “This has raised work-based mentors’ awareness of the generic aspects of the training and has helped them to relate it to their specialist support for trainees”
(OFSTED 2003 p.23).
The Department for Education and Skills immediately responded to this report with a consultative paper which set out proposals for the reform of ITT in further and adult education and training, and invited responses from the main interest groups, including
HEI providers, FE colleges and awarding bodies (DfES 2003). On partnerships and placements the document recognises the shortcomings and makes proposals for improvement:
The teaching practice placement has to be tailor-made, rigorous, properly negotiated, driven by the Individual Learning Plan, and supported by carefully selected, experienced and qualified teacher educators.
(DfES 2003 pp.38-9)
The consultation document again recognises OFSTED’s findings on the “lack of effective mentoring in the wo rkplace”, which “inhibited trainees’ progress, as did insufficient observation and feedback on their te aching” (DfES 2003 p.23). It goes on: “In FE colleges, we would expect all new teachers to be assigned a mentor. Where possible this mentor should teach the same subject as the trainee” (DfES 2003 p.23). The question of provision of appropriate mentors who can offer the trainees subject-specific support and guidance in the development of their teaching skills is an important one in
ITT for FE, because the courses are almost always taught generically.
3

Following a large scale (and hotly debated) consultation event in London in December
2003, FENTO published a position paper in January 2004 in response to the DfES consultation. As the body responsible for quality and validation of ITT courses for the sector, FENTO is closely involved in these unfolding developments. Some interesting ideas concerning partnerships between HEIs and FE colleges were put forward. For example on partnerships,
A key challenge would be to find a way for recognised excellence … to make a distinctive contribution to the succession of first class teachers. At the very least one role could be to ensure that every trainee teacher was able to benefit from observing experienced and effective practitioners.
(FENTO 2004a p.7)
On regional partnerships, the paper recognises that networks already exist which could not only disseminate best practice, but also, ensure the supply of high quality teaching placements; the identification, training and support of mentors and assessors of teaching practice; or in the design and delivery of professional development programmes for teacher educators.
(FENTO 2004a p.11)
In June 2004 the DfES published an online summary of the responses to their consultation exercise (DfES 2004a [online]). Responses had been obtained from 94 FE colleges, 21 HEIs and various others, such as awarding bodies. There was overwhelming support for idea of a formalised mentoring system. Funding was picked up by both the FE colleges and the HEIs as vital to the success of any new system. Of the respondents from FE, almost all said funding was vital as this was an expensive model, and it should be rewarded through finance, time and professional recognition. There were concerns about the provision of subject-specific mentors, which may not always be practical in FE colleges (DfES 2004a [online]).
In Equipping our Teachers for the Future (DfES 2004b), many of these ideas are incorporated into policy, and partnerships are again high on the agenda: “Effective partnerships linking colleges, HEIs and other providers are … critical to effective initial training” (DfES 2004b p.11). For example, some colleges are to be recognised as
Centres of Excellence in Teacher Training (CETT). They will act as models of good practice, and will “take a lead in active local partnerships” (DfES 2004b p.11). The new sector skills council, Lifelong Learning UK (LLUK) has developed proposals for revised standards within the sector (to replace the FENTO standards) which are intended to take into account the breadth of teaching in the whole range of adult learning, not just in FE colleges, and to recognise that the standards should describe the outcomes of initial training, rather than the role of an experienced teacher (DfES 2004b p.12, LLUK 2005b
[online]).
The sands are certainly shifting in the sector, and partnerships are emerging as key vehicles for negotiating the new landscape.
4

A great deal of research work has been carried out on aspects of teaching practice and placements in schools, but relatively little in the post-compulsory sector.
Of these, McKelvey and Andrews (1998) used interviews with students on a pre-service
PGCE FE course to research the ways their preconceptions and previous experience were brought this to bear on their role in the colleges post-incorporation. Bathmaker’s
(1999) timely review of her own Cert. Ed./PGCE (FE) programme, using interviews with partner FE college staff and colleagues from her own department, focused on what should be covered in the course and “the role they see for the Certificate in Education in the development of staff in the postcompulsory sector” (Bathmaker 1999 p.192). This came just before the introduction of the FENTO standards (1999) in colleges. She advocates the continuation and development of partnerships between FE and HE, in order to ensure that “changes to the system are to be part of moving forward, rather than catching up with where we should already be.
” (Bathmaker 1999 p.194).
More recently Avis et al (2002), Wallace (2002) and Hankey (2004), for example, have written on the experiences of trainees in FE colleges. Avis and his colleagues analysed the results of interviews with a group of trainee teachers on a full-time training programme for PCET on “what were the ‘burning issues’ for them in their placement college” (Avis et al 2002 p.183). They compared these with findings from interviews with staff responsible for trainee development in partner FE colleges. An interesting aspect of this research in the current context is the evidence of the widely differing perceptions held by trainees and established staff of the lecturer’s role.
Wallace’s (2002) findings on the preconceptions of trainees and their initial experiences of FE, build on the work of McKelvey and Andrews (1998). Her findings highlight the steep learning curve experienced by many trainees in FE, who want and expect to teach stud ents who ‘wanted to be there’ (Wallace 2002 p.82). She goes on, however, to emphasise “the overall positive and enthusiastic response of these intending lecturers despite the incidents and misgivings reported in their diaries” (Wallace 2002 p.92). The preconceptions and initial experiences of a sample group of trainee FE teachers will be explored in this study from a different perspective, that of the links between university and placement college.
Hankey’s (2004) study explores the notion of effective mentoring in ITT for FE, and draws on her experiences of working with trainees and mentors over the preceding five years. She raises issues concerning both the philosophy and practicalities of mentoring trainees on such courses at the present time, such as the problems inherent in providing good, supportive and consistent mentors when staff in the colleges are often “working at full stretch” (2004 p.397), and the meaning and application of the concept of the
‘reflective practitioner’ (Schon 1983) in the context of mentoring trainees.
Mentors, as partners in the training process, surely should share a common ethos with the university departments from which their placement students come. Arthur et al
(1997) raise an important point about the philosophy behind the training of new teachers.
They suggest that “Subject mentors might like to ask themselves what model of the teacher is at the heart of their partnership scheme.” (Arthur et al 1997 p.26). According to Furlong and Maynard (1995) there are two main models of mentoring, the reflective
5

practitioner and the competence-led model. In an effective partnership, both parties should share a common ethos and approach:
Mentors should be able to compare the claims made for the partnership to which they contribute with both their experience of its operation in practice, and their vision of what the most worthwhile form of partnership would look like.
(Arthur et al 1997 p.26)
Robson et al’s (1995) evaluation study of a pilot scheme at the University of Greenwich provides parallels with this research in that it examines the partnership between the university’s one-year pre-service Cert Ed/PGCE(FE) course and four FE colleges. This was a new form of collaboration in which the FE colleges entered a formal partnership with the university, and a combined team of staff from both institutions planned, taught and assessed many of the key course components. It was different from the way the course had previously been run, and was a deliberate attempt to redress the balance between partners:
There has been a tendency for the educators of teachers to structure and constrain the work experience and to specify the nature and balance of the work that students undertake. Rarely are employers given any direct influence over the operation of the curriculum.
(Robson et al 1995 p.80)
Thus its purpose in part was to “involve education employers and to meet their expectations with regard to the nature and quality of training given to their prospective staff.” (Robson et al 1995 p.81). The authors describe the close involvement of both sets of staff through regular meetings for planning and evaluation, and they report the success of the improvement in partnership links brought about by these changes.
The concept of partnership is therefore seen as central to effective teacher education.
Teachers cannot be educated in isolation, rather they should participate in what Lave and Wenger (1991) have called ‘situated learning’ in the college setting, in close contact with experienced colleagues and others in their ‘community of practice’ (1991 p.97-8).
The mentor is pivotal to this process and is thus central to the success of the partnership. As Hankey suggests, the mentor must be multi-skilled, one who can attend to the affective, as well as the cognitive and practical aspects of learning to teach, who can recognise and acknowledge the powerful feelings that can arise in a mentoring relationship and not be overwhelmed by them.
(Hankey 2004 p.392-3)
However the community of practice also includes the university teacher educators, and the theoretical, research-based aspects of training which they represent, and which must be present in order that the concept of the reflective practitioner may be fostered.
6

It is on this type of complex partnership, between a university and its placement colleges, that this study is based.
The course at Cardiff University involves a single block placement from January to
May/June. There are about 100 students on the course per year.
Semi-structured interviews were carried out with a sample of 5 trainees on two occasions, first mid-way through the placement in March 2004, and again in June 2004, when three of their mentors were also interviewed. Recorded responses were transcribed and analysed, and a number of themes emerged. The data was evaluated using Stake’s model (Stake 1967 in Hamilton et al 1977), separating it into ‘antecedent’
(pre-existing conditions), ‘transaction’ (interactions and events) and ‘outcome’
(consequences for the participants) data. The ‘intents’ and ‘standards’ suggested by
Stake as part of the framework for an evaluation exercise were applied to this research.
These were considered to be the descriptions of the expectation of the placement colleges, the mentors, the trainees, visiting tutors and link tutors involved in the partnership, as set out in the Cardiff University Teaching Practice Guide. The degree of
‘ congruence ’ between these ‘intents’ (how they should work) and ‘observations’ (what actually happens, given the limited evidence of the small sample in this study) was examined. a) Pre-placement conditions: the antecedent data
The evidence shows that the mentors in the study considered the students to have been well prepared for the placement by the university, although some concerns were raised by both mentors and students about the somewhat arbitrary nature of students’ initial contacts with the colleges. There had been a lack of time for preparation of teaching materials in some cases. The student interviews suggest a generally positive attitude on the part of the students, similar to the findings of Wallace (2002), despite these initial difficulties.
In a larger study of 14 sample trainees on a comparable training course, McKelvey and
Andrews (1998) found that the grounding that the students had acquired in the ‘reflective practitioner ’ approach (Schon 1985) whilst studying at the university, helped them to be well prepared for the placement. In addition, they noted that many of the students had previous work experience in business or other teaching, which they could bring to bear on their placement (McKelvey and Andrews 1998 p.366). This was also the case here.
For example, two of the sample students in this study had considerable teaching experience already, and two had substantial experience in industry. However, they felt overall that they had to depend too much on their own initiative to organise preparatory visits to the colleges, establish early contacts with mentors etc. and that other, less assertive, students may have missed out.
She [ the Link Tutor] showed me around, she introduced me to the person who was to be my mentor, and I arranged to meet him again before Christmas. I met him twice. I had to do it myself... Because I’d made the effort to go up and meet them and visit I felt a lot more comfortable when I first went up… I’m lucky in that I will take the initiative.
7

(Student 2, March 2004)
There is strong evidence from the interviews that mentors and Link Tutors are not always as well prepared as they might be. Often the colleges asked mentors to take on the role very late, sometimes only days before the students arrived. As one mentor put it,
I’m not sure how it works. The information doesn’t come straight to the mentors, it goes to senior management. The first I knew, [Student 1] just turned up one day. This has happened before; I’ve learned to accept it.
(Mentor 1, 2004)
Writers such as Maynard (2000 p.28) have noted that some mentors are less than enthusiastic about the role. Hankey (2004) discusses a range of factors which help to explain this in her post-compulsory education PGCE course, such as lack of time, pay disparities and insecurities on the part of the mentor in terms of subject knowledge, training and security of tenure.
In contrast, despite the potential problems of taking on a student, often with little notice, the mentors in this study were on the whole enthusiastic and had formed good relationships with the students, at least by the end of the placement, when the second student and mentor interviews were carried out. However, some trainees brought up the lack of understanding, on the part of their mentors, of the role. Although each had given their mentors a copy of the Teaching Practice Guide at the beginning of the placement, a common theme in the student interviews was that mentors did not have enough time (or inclination) to read it. Consequently the students tended to take the lead on the bureaucratic side of the placement.
In terms of being a mentor, he’s fine about that. In terms of the paperwork, we all have to keep on our toes about what’s got to be in when… Because it’s much more in my interests, I tend to lead, so I say here’s a photocopy, could you fill this in. It is my qualification, so I don’t mind managing that.
(Student 1, March 2004)
Whilst this is to a certain extent expected of them, there seemed to be a feeling among some students that they were not getting their full entitlement in terms of the quality (and in some cases quantity) of mentoring. One student, for example, said he had had no formal meetings with his mentor, but this raises the question of trainees’ expectations and their willingness to accept a more ad hoc approach to mentoring, preferred by some mentors (and trainees). Maynard (2000) explored the relationship between mentors and student teachers, and noted the contribution of the way students ‘manage’ their mentors to its success. In this study, there is certainly evidence from the student interviews that
‘mentor management’, as well as self management was taking place.
Link Tutors, although they were usually instrumental in arranging the placement, and as a consequence central to the partnership, were not always prepared to be further involved, as is envisaged by the university. This is a role taken usually by a senior or experienced member of the college staff, who should oversee the partnership and
8

provide a series of meetings with the trainee to discuss generic professional issues such as quality assurance, marketing the college, etc. Three of the five students reported that there was no programme of formal meetings with the Link Tutor in their college.
I contacted the link t utor myself by email…if I hadn’t contacted her she wouldn’t have contacted me … I said ‘do we need to have regular meetings?’ and she said ‘no, fine, don’t worry’… she gave the impression that she was only there if there were any problems that you wanted to address.
(Student 2, June 2004)
As for the pre-existing links between the colleges in the study and the university, again the evidence indicates a variable pattern, despite the best efforts of the placement officer. One trainee referred to “what seemed like two completely separate experiences”
(Student 3, June 2004) at the university and on placement. For her the links were clearly negligible, although she was at pains to say that this had not impaired her experience.
Another trainee described what he perceived as very close links between his college and the university, with clear lines of communication between them. This was echoed by his mentor at the college which interestingly is the one geographically closest to the university, and the one with which historically it has had closest links.
In summary, the evidence from both student and mentor interviews indicates that the standards set out by the university are partially, but not fully met. b) Interactions and events: the transaction data
The first few weeks of the placement form a crucial transitional period for the students, when they are beginning entry to the wider “community of practice” through the process of “peripheral participation” described by Lave and Wenger (1991). The university’s partnership with the colleges should, at least in theory, ease this transition, so that the students are able to become integrated more quickly with a college community which is both professionally and personally welcoming to them. This clearly depends partly on the degree of preparedness of both student and college staff (see section above), but also on other factors such as the personalities involved, and the complexities of internal college politics. The interactions between student and mentor, student and visiting tutor, visiting tutor and mentor, and Link Tutor with all of them are especially important during this initial period. However, they are also fundamental to the success of the placement as a whole for the students and are important to the continuation of good partnership links between the institutions.
The evidence from the interviews suggests on the whole very positive interactions and relationships between mentors and students. In all but one case, the sample of students interviewed felt secure in their mentor’s ability to mentor them appropriately, and to carry out the role expected of them by the university. Although most of the meetings with mentors had been carried out informally, there had been enough formal meetings to allow issues to be discussed thoroughly, and problems to be ironed out. The students had built up very productive relationships with their mentors. The sample group appeared to reflect Maynard’s findings, which suggested that the mentor/student relationship was “at the heart of students’ school experience” (Maynard 2000 p.28).
9

However there were difficulties over issues such as interpretation of assessment criteria, and this had led to problems between mentor and student, for example in one trainee’s case,
We went through that grid together: the distinction, pass and the fail. We talked about it quite early on, briefly and we talked about it again about 2 weeks before the end.
Gauging how he responded the criteria, putting my mind at rest at that stage was good.
He felt the criteria were too woolly and distinguishing between a very high pass and a distinction could be difficult, it’s very subjective, he had to go on ‘feel’.
(Student 1, June 2004)
Others commented on the variations in the quality of mentoring, such as Student 4 who pointed to “the vast discrepancy between mentors, some were very harsh on people… and then some are very easy” (see Finlay 2002 p.5). Current proposals to improve the entitlement of placement students recognise this as a national issue, and one which needs to be addressed. It was picked up as a weakness in the longitudinal study of teacher training for FE carried out by OFSTED (2003). It reported that “Many trainees who are not employed by the college in which they are doing their training receive no specialist mentoring.” (OFSTED 2003 p.24). In recent publications from FENTO (2004a,
2004b) a more formalised mentoring system was proposed, which has become part of the new “Licence to Practise” (QTLS) regulations to be implemented by 2007 (DfES
2004b, FENTO 2004b). The implicit difficulties for colleges around funding and management of mentoring remain to be addressed, and it will be interesting to monitor changes.
Although the students interviewed were on the whole happy with their mentoring, their comments on interactions with their Link Tutors were less positive. In one college no
Link Tutor had been identified and there were clearly internal political issues at the root of this. Where students did know their Link Tutor, their role as advisor and mediator in case of difficulties was seen by the students as more important than that of organising a formal programme of meetings to cover the university’s list of prescribed topics. Only
Student 5 had apparently attended these formal meetings regularly, and not found them useful, but he clearly valued the Link Tutor in a much wider sense, as one who had an overview of the placement and links with the university.
We have fortnightly meetings… but it’s not helpful at all… it’s very boring stuff, for instance one of them, she was talking about memory … and how you can get your students to memorise things. We have done that [at the university] …there is a very big difference between [the Link Tutor] and the lecturer in the college…we found it a waste of time … For other students, the ones who are struggling with their mentors… it helps them…because they need to talk to somebody higher than their mentor.
(Student 5, March 2004)
The role of the Link Tutor was evaluated as part of a research exercise at the University of Greenwich in 1995 by Jocelyn Robson and her colleagues. Here, the Link Tutor has a very important and active role in helping with recruitment, course planning, delivery, monitoring and assessing trainees. This role was found to be highly valued and
10

successful. In contrast, the results of the much more limited study of the Cardiff course suggest that, in the opinion of most of the interviewees, the role of the Link Tutor could be clarified and improved, perhaps giving it a higher profile at the forefront of the partnership.
Another area of interest in the research was the relationship and interactions between the students’ mentors and their visiting tutors, because of the associated potential for developing closer partnerships between the college and the university, as well as for the closer monitoring and assessment of students. In some cases these relationships were well developed, and the interactions between them were frequent and productive. Some trainees described how their visiting tutors and mentors had met to discuss progress and any issues which may have arisen, but for others this was not so. All three mentors interviewed talked of the importance of developing a good working relationship with the visiting tutor. Two of them had been able to do this, although they were very concerned about time constraints and the practicalities of arranging it. As one trainee put it,
The first time my visiting tutor came out, he met with my mentor before he met with me to talk to him about how I was getting on… The second occasion my mentor sat with me for my feedback. My mentor was very pro-active in seeking to debate and discuss with my visiting tutor.
(Student 1, June 2004)
However one mentor had not met the visiting tutor, and regretted this very much, describing how she would in future like a meeting early in the practice to pick up any problems:
A meeting with the visiting tutor would be very useful, in fact essential, for liaison, contact details in case of a problem, information about expectations. I would have liked a meeting early on in the teaching practice, in January.
(Mentor 2, June 2004)
In the Greenwich study (Robson et al 1995 p.87) the university tutors were based in the placement colleges during the block teaching practice, so this issue was averted.
Again, the judgements of the participants in the study indicate a somewhat variable picture. Overall, placement links are healthy and productive in some colleges, meeting the standards expected, and less so in others. c) Consequences for students, university and partner colleges: the outcome data
There are two main strands to the evaluation of ‘outcome’ data in this study. The evidence has been evaluated for firstly, a productive collaboration resulting in well trained newly qualified professionals and secondly a close and ongoing relationship between the colleges and the university.
On the first of these, the evidence from the interviews is limited. All the students in the sample completed the course successfully, as did the vast majority of their peers in other colleges. Many of the students on the course were employed by their placement colleges or by other local colleges after they qualified. In the judgement of the external
11

examiner for the course the partnerships are healthy and “the course is producing some excellent further education lecturers who will make a significant contribution to the development of the sector” (Cardiff University 2004). Generally, teachers in FE do value their training. In their largescale research project looking at FE teachers’ perceptions of their initial training, Harkin et al (2003) found that the vast majority (80% of 244) rated it as “very helpful”. They also found that these teachers stressed the importance of practical skills development in training (Harkin et al 2003 p.34).
The evidence from the student interviews relating to the second strand, relating to the closeness of the relationship between the college and the university is, on the whole, positive. Only one trainee described a negative situation at her college, and there are particular circumstances at that college which may explain it. It could be argued, however, that the students had, by the end of the placement, become socialised into the college’s ‘community of practice’ (Wenger 1998) and that their resulting loyalty to the college and to the university played a part in their responses to the interviews.
However, the outcomes are less clear for the colleges themselves. Both mentors and trainees recognised the lack of incentives for mentors as a real issue:
The college gets funding, but as a department , what we’d really like is to be given more of that funding. Consequently students get whatever mentors want to put into it; they don’t necessarily feel they’re getting anything out of it themselves. One year we were given fifty pounds… but that didn’t happen again. It’s not much, and a bit of an insult.
(Mentor 1, June 2004)
Time is the problem, we often work through lunchtimes, and here we often have to travel between campuses. We get no remission… I’ve always argued that the mentor should have at leas t one hour a week off timetable but there’s no remission for that at all.
There’s a lot of remission given for other things in the college but not mentoring…
(Mentor 3, July 2004)
The low priority given in some colleges to the role of the Link Tutor may be a symptom of a low level of engagement in partnership arrangements with the university. The situation for them could perhaps be different if they had a more equal role in the partnership and gained more benefits from it, as illustrated in the Greenwich study (Robson et al 1995).
Certainly the placement and partnerships with colleges in the training process is very significant, and it is therefore important to get it right. The challenge is how further to improve the partnerships, ensure their continuation and development, and address the issues highlighted in this research.
A SWOT analysis was derived from this research, which was shared with the course director and PGCE team in late 2004. Recommendations (‘opportunities’) concerned improvements in the nature and degree of contact between all participants in the
12

partnership. In particular, better mentor training was suggested as a key issue to be addressed. Other recommendations covered earlier and more structured meetings between trainees and mentors, and visiting tutors and mentors. A two-part payment to colleges was suggested, which might separate the work of the mentor from that of the link tutor, or possibly simply staging payment to ensure that the entitlement of trainees is fulfilled at the appropriate time. Students could be invited back to the university mid-way through the placement to discuss issues and address problems, and the university could begin to work more closely with other ITT FE providers in the region.
Several of these recommendations were implemented in 2004-5, including the introduction of a new ‘Partnership Coordinator’ role, taken by a member of the university staff who has special responsibility for the partnership in a particular group of colleges, and who oversees the progress of the trainee while on placement there. This has been piloted and reviewed by the team for 2005-6. This year a new Mentorship Training and
Support role has been created, in order to address issues in this area. Although not all the problems have yet been fixed, at least there are signs of significant improvement, and it is hoped that this year’s cohort will benefit from the changes.
Some of the problems and issues which stand in the way of further progress have been identified and discussed, but the goalposts are changing all the time. The environment in which the placement partnerships are set is unstable and dynamic. Sadly, the Learning and Skills Council have stopped short of giving strong guidance in their latest publication
(DfES 2004b) on some issues which could have a real impact on partnerships for teacher training in the sector. For example, the thorny question of how the fee (which is variable and discretionary) paid to colleges by the training providers for taking trainees should be used is not clarified satisfactorily. Consequently, many colleges do not recognise either by time or payment, the vital work performed by mentors. This inevitably leads to inconsistencies in the quality of mentoring which the trainees receive. The decisions made by central government (both Welsh Assembly and Westminster), university, departmental, and college all therefore have an impact on the partnerships, with little real coordination. The whole notion of “joined-up training” for further education teachers may still be some way off.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Arthur J, Davison J and Moss J (1997) Subject Mentoring in the Secondary School
London: Routledge
Avis J, Bathmaker A-M and Parsons J (2002) ”I think a lot of staff are dinosaurs”: further education trainee teachers’ understandings of pedagogic relations Journal of Education and Work 15 (2) 181-200
13

Bathmaker A-M (1999) Managing Messes and Coping with Uncertainty: reviewing training for teachers in post-compulsory education and training Journal of Further and
Higher Education 23 (2) 185-195
Cardiff University (2004) External examiner’s report on the PGCE(FE) course (internal document)
DES (1992) Further and Higher Education Act London: HMSO
DfEE (1998) The Learning Age : A renaissance for a New Britain London: HMSO
DfES (2003) The future of initial teacher education for the learning and skills sector: an agenda for reform London: Learning and Skills Council
DfES (2004a) The future of initial teacher education for the learning and skills sector: an agenda for reform – Responses to Consultation, June 2004 [online] Available from: http://www.dfes.gov.uk/consultations/downloadabledocs/ITE%consultation%20report.doc
[accessed 17 Aug 2004]
DfES (2004b) Equipping our Teachers for the Future London: Learning and Skills Council
FENTO (1999) Standards for Teaching and Supporting Learning in Further Education in
England and Wales London: FENTO
FENTO (2004a) Wider sector: wider perspectives London: FENTO
FENTO (2004b) A licence to practise London: FENTO
Finlay I (2002) Educating Teachers for Further/Post Compulsory Education Escalate
[online] Commissioned articles http//:escalate.ac.uk/exchange/CommissionedArticles/FECartIF.rtf 22 pages [23 May
2003]
Furlong J and Maynard T (1995) Mentoring Student Teachers London: Routledge
Hamilton D, Jenkins D, King C, MacDonald B and Parlett M (Eds.) (1977 ) Beyond the
Numbers Game Basingstoke: Macmillan Education
14

Hankey J (2004) The Good, the Bad and Other Considerations: reflections on mentoring trainee teachers in post-compulsory education Research in Post-Compulsory Education
9 (3) 389-400
Harkin J, Clow R and Hillier Y (2003) Recollected in Tranquillity? FE teachers’ perceptions of their initial teacher training London: Learning and Skills Development
Agency
Kennedy H (1997) Learning Works: Widening Participation in Further Education
Coventry: FEFC
Lave J and Wenger E (1991) Situated learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
LLUK (2005a) Frequently asked questions Lifelong Learning UK, update 18 th November
2005 [online] Available from: http://www.lifelonglearninguk.org/currentactivity/itt/itt_faqs.html
[accessed 5 Jan 2006]
LLUK (2005b) Proposed New Professional Standards (Oct 2005) and Results of feedback on first consultation (Dec 2005) [online] Available from: http://www.lifelonlearninguk.org/currentactivity/newdevelopments/dev_standards_frame.
html [accessed 6 Jan 2006]
Maynard T (2000) Learning to Teach or Learning to Manage Mentors? Experiences of school-based teacher training Mentoring and Tutoring 8 (1) 17-30
McKelvey C and Andrews J (1998) Why do they do it? A study into the perceptions and motivations of trainee FE lecturers Research in Post-Compulsory Education 3 (3) 357-
368
OFSTED (2003) The initial training of further education teachers London: HMI Office for
Standards in Education
Robson J, Cox A, Bailey B and Humphreys J (1995) A New Approach to Teacher
Training: An Evaluation of a Further and Higher Education Partnership Journal of Further
and Higher Education 19 (2) 79-92
15

Schon D (1985) The Reflective Practitioner: how professionals think in action New York:
Basic Books
Wallace S (2002) No Good Surprises: intending lecturers’ preconceptions and initial experiences of further education British Educational Research Journal 28 (1) pp 79-95
Wenger E (1998) Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press
16