Notwithstanding the range of negative feelings expressed by participants, a strong theme that emerged from the narratives was that teachers continued to feel positively about their work in LLN. Largely, this was due to the connection they had with learners and the feeling that they were making a positive difference in their lives. Also strong was the impression that LLN teachers viewed being with learners in the classroom as a type of haven. Carol echoed the sentiments of many in her claim that: ‘In the classroom it doesn’t feel any different, I still get to work with the students and share the journey’.
Not only was the classroom a type of haven, isolated from the effects of fast-paced policy changes, to teachers, the most fulfilling aspect of their roles was working directly with students. Illustrating this, Belinda stated: ‘The best part about it is in the classroom in front of the students and the rest is what has to be done but that isn’t enjoyable to me’. This sentiment was endorsed by Cassie who explained that her ‘only satisfaction’ was seeing her students make ‘little achievements’.
Most participants felt their efforts were appreciated by learners. Don, who felt he had a good level of personal rapport with his students, stated of LLN teachers in general, ‘we are appreciated’. Like many others, Dianne enjoyed being in the classroom—‘it’s very rewarding’, she commented: ‘I feel good you know. I love being in there and the students really appreciate your help’. Anne attributed this feeling of satisfaction to ‘student feedback ... you do get fantastic feedback’.
This study’s capacity to reveal the strong connections that participants have with LLN learners is one of its distinguishing features. Teachers felt validated by the feedback they received from learners, and advocated that learners deserved better than what was currently being offered to them within the VET system.
***
This chapter represented the narratives of 23 specialists working in the field of LLN in VET settings, focusing on how policy reform in both LLN and VET has affected their practices, understandings and core beliefs. Applying Talja’s (1999) discourse analytic method to the data revealed a range of consistencies in the language participants’ used, providing a script for the emergence of a new narrative known as the ‘voice of practice’. To summarise, consistencies existed in the participants themselves and their language formations. Even though there were four interviewees who were not in current teaching roles, their use of language did not vary noticeably from that of practicing LLN teachers. Other than responses to the question, ‘what is your current role in your workplace?’ individual narratives did not show any discernible differences in language use and influences. All participants, regardless of their roles, employment status or type of VET setting, demonstrated similar responses to macro-level influences sitting within the policy reform and were sympathetic to the fact that LLN teachers were having difficulty carrying out their roles.
This chapter illustrated links between the various layers of discourse, from macro, to meso to micro. Language formations consistently showed how changed funding, compliance and curriculum policies affected teachers’ perceptions and job roles at both the meso and micro levels. This will become important later in the thesis, when participants’ statements are viewed as discursive formations that show how the chains of language link within various layers of discourse.
As we have seen, at the meso-layer, reforms to funding policies have resulted in major changes in the ways that LLN courses are delivered and the amount of access that learners have to classes. This has directly affected teachers’ needs and feelings of frustration at the micro-layer. In general terms, ‘employment-driven’ adjustments to curriculum and overbearing auditing requirements have forced teachers to change their teaching practices to fit within a system they perceive as regimented and compliance driven. Supporting this sentiment, Fimyar (2008) noted that ‘policy makers can and do constrain the way we think
about education in general and specific educational policies in particular, through the language in which they frame policies’ (p. 8).
A direct link was observed between the macro-layer of compliance and teachers’ ability to carry out their roles within their institutions. Specifically, there appeared to be an overriding viewpoint that teachers’ time was being consumed by paperwork, which stole critical time from class planning and preparation. The burden of paperwork also detracted from the time that teachers could devote to teaching LLN in their classes, not least because learners were also expected to complete a range of compliance documents. Many participants believed that increased assessment expectations linked to funding were driving the content within their LLN classes. Once again, in support of this perception, Fimyar (2008) stated that ‘there has been a shift in assessment policy discourses in the last 50 years from general knowledge and experiences to competencies and performance which are to be evaluated’ (p. 9).
Some participants questioned the value that increased compliance-related documentation was having on outcomes for learners. Rather than improving outcomes, they believed that it was adversely affecting both the teachers and learners’ ability to have meaningful learning experiences. There was a level of cynicism regarding this documentation; because it did not appear to be making any significant difference to learners’ LLN levels, some participants felt that compliance documentation was solely to satisfy government auditors.
Participants’ repertoires reinforced the notion that an increasing focus on employment- oriented curriculum had changed the nature of the content delivered within classes. Although the interview transcripts showed that participants embraced the notion that LLN should support the development of learner attributes—such as goal setting, confidence building and the ability to transfer literacy and numeracy skills into a range of contexts— they believed that too much emphasis had been placed on employment-driven outcomes and functional LLN skills. This change in emphasis was viewed as limiting the flexibility that teachers had had in designing classes around the diverse needs of their students. At a micro-level, this resulted in teachers believing that their expertise was no longer valued in curriculum design.
The narratives consistently reinforced the extent to which teachers were positively influenced by learners. In general terms, learners provided teachers with positive affirmation through demonstrating their acquired skills, changed learning habits and via
positive feedback. This positive reinforcement from learners contributed to teachers’ ongoing passion for their work, especially in the face of negative macro-level influences. The data also showed consistent evidence of positive feedback and support for LLN teachers from other VET teachers, despite some confusion about their role. Although some LLN teachers saw themselves as playing secondary, supporting roles to VET teachers; others, feeling that the professional status of LLN teachers had grown, felt validated by the support roles they played in vocational classes.
Most participants believed that the voice of LLN teachers had been lost over time. At a micro-level, participants were consistent in their view that the LLN field needed to regain its teachers’ voice. Interestingly, while there were many references to VALBEC as the state body, only one participant made reference to ACAL as the national peak body representing the voice of LLN teachers and learners. This suggests that it is the national LLN voice that has lessened over time. A consistent perception of declining access to PD may have been contributing factor.
The discourse analytic method endeavours to seek out consistencies in participant’s accounts as the principal point of analysis; however, it is also important to acknowledge the emergence of variations in participants’ language. One variation that emerged was the lack of a common definition of LLN. The data showed that participants were divided in their descriptions of LLN across three broad areas: LLN as functional skill development, LLN as deficit and LLN as the acquisition of personal attributes. As will be discussed in more detail in the next chapter, perceiving LLN in terms of functional skill development and/or deficit can be viewed as a form of subscribing to (i.e., agreeing with) policy reforms that connect LLN with employment skills.
Another variation that emerged from the data concerned participants’ perceptions of low pay conditions for teachers working in the LLN field. This perception was only articulated by two subgroups: those working in ACE settings and casually employed TAFE teachers. Members of these groups linked their low pay (compared to other educators) and reduced access to paid work to the diminution in government funding. Participants who held ongoing employment in TAFE institutions did not raise such concerns.
This chapter commenced the process of data analysis by capturing the language of LLN teachers in the field. It represented the emerging interpretative repertoires as macro, meso and micro levels as a way of introducing the discourses of LLN and VET policy reform.
This chapter serves as a starting point to consider the effects of government policy on the identities of LLN teachers’ working in Victorian VET institutions. What has been presented so far is just the tip of the iceberg in terms of understanding how participants’ language has been affected by wider discourses circulating around them and how this, in turn, has affected LLN teachers’ professional roles and identities. To understand not only how these language repertoires have been created, but also the extent to which they been influenced by wider discourses and relations of power in play at government and institutional levels, requires deeper analysis of the kind expressed in Jorgensen and Phillips’ (2002) argument that language should be viewed as a machine that generates and constitutes the social world of individuals. According to Edwards (2008), discourse is not just a unit of language, it should be seen as a unit of human action, interaction and cognition. To understand the totality of the effects of the discourses occurring as a result of VET and LLN reform, it is necessary to examine how teachers have adopted certain positions constructed by contemporary policy (Ball, 1993).
In subsequent chapters, participants’ discourses are examined as ‘statements’ and re- positioned within the various layers related to Foucault’s systems of power—biopower, disciplinary power and pastoral power. Chapter 5, the second part of the trilogy, explores participants’ relationship with the state. Foucault’s tools of biopower and disciplinary power are used to determine how reforms in LLN and VET have influenced teachers’ roles and practices and affected their subjectivities as professionals in VET.