Memorandum 89
Submission from the Archaeology Training
Forum
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This document demonstrates that the historic
environment sector, including archaeologists, is a profession
that requires substantial training and access to further qualifications
in order to meet its professional requirements. We argue that
the removal of ELQ funding will hit archaeological degrees disproportionately
and will hamper the implementation of the forthcoming Heritage
Protection Reforms as a result. A recommendation for exemption
of the profession is made with an alternative position that there
should be a delay of five years if exemption is not granted.
1. This document has been prepared for the
Select Committee of the Department for Innovation, Universities
and Skills' inquiry into the Government's decision to phase out
support given to institutions for students taking second qualifications
of an equivalent or lower level (ELQs) to their first qualifications.
It has been written by Dr Roger White of the Ironbridge Institute,
University of Birmingham, on behalf of the Archaeology Training
Forum whose chair is Dr Mike Heyworth.
2. The Archaeology Training Forum (ATF)
is a delegate body which represents all those organisations which
have an interest in the issues of training and career development
in archaeology. These include the Council for British Archaeology,
Institute of Field Archaeologists, Association of Local Government
Archaeological Officers, English Heritage (and the cognate bodies
of Historic Scotland and Cadw), the Standing Committee for Archaeology,
which is the representative body of all Further and Higher Education
Institutions offering archaeology programmes, the Standing Conference
of Archaeology in Continuing Education, and other institutions.
3. The ATF was constituted in 1998 to review
the present provision of training in archaeology and to co-ordinate
future strategies to meet the profession's training needs.
The Forum exists to:
— keep current training provision by
member bodies and others under review
— seek to ensure that funding for training
from whatever source is distributed according to need within a
framework of priorities
— work towards the alignment of existing
and proposed training sessions and units, sponsored or run by
bodies represented, into a series of related programmes accessible
to all members of the profession and to interested amateurs
— work towards agreement on the validation
of training units and their integration within a widely accepted
professional career structure.
4. Archaeology is a relatively small profession
of approximately 5700 individuals[138]
but is increasingly viewed as part of a much larger grouping of
"Historic Environment professionals" that includes Conservation
Officers, Museum Curators, Conservation Architects, Curators of
Historic Houses and Gardens, National and Regional Park authorities,
and many others. What unites this diverse group is an interest
in, and active engagement with, the Historic Environment in all
its forms. This approach reflects the recognition by government
of the need for a more holistic approach to the historic environment
that will be enshrined in the draft Heritage Protection Bill to
be published during this parliament.
5. The Historic Environment professional
has to undergo training that is similar in character to that of
an architect, engineer, lawyer or medic, ie it involves engagement
with a very broad range of theoretical material allied with practical
knowledge and skills leading to a course of training that can
last a number of years. Where it differs from these professions
is in the relatively low level of remuneration that practitioners
generally receive. This may be linked to the fact that archaeological
work in particular can be carried out by people not necessarily
employed in the sector but who work to professional standards.
It is this aspect that marks out archaeologists in particular
from the related professions noted above.
6. Evidence for the need for further training
after a first degree in archaeology is forthcoming from the Archaeological
Labour Market Intelligence Survey carried out in 2002-3 (it has
been repeated recently and shall report in spring 2008). This
found that over 50% entering the profession had a first degree
yet 74% of these individuals required "considerable or very
considerable" amounts of training as 53% of the intake were
considered to be poorly or very poorly equipped with skills (Aitchison
and Edwards 2003, 57[139]).
Archaeology is, therefore, a profession that requires a great
deal of workplace training both to ensure that those entering
the profession are quickly and efficiently trained to become independent
field workers and that those who have existing skills are able
to continuously develop their skills in the workplace through
CPD programmes.
7. Archaeology is thus unusual in that it
is a profession in which a first degree rarely equips the individual
to undertake archaeological work unsupervised. Further, it requires
considerable training to ensure that its workforce is able to
take advantage of scientific advances in technologies and techniques
that are developed in the archaeological world or that are adopted
from other professions or disciplines and that are deemed to have
applicability in archaeology. The use of Geographical Information
Softwares, for example, is a technology adopted from Earth Sciences
that has a wide application in archaeology and requires considerable
training to achieve proficiency. However, the greatest skills
shortages needs identified in 2003-4 were in more generic areas
such as information technology (67%) or in specific areas of archaeology
such as artefact and ecofact research, (53%), geophysical survey
(another earth science technology—52%) and artefact or ecofact
conservation (48%; ibid, 53-4).
8. Those without a first degree find it
increasingly difficult to progress in the profession. This has
been addressed through the adoption of National Occupational Standards
in Archaeology and the launch in 2007 of the Qualification in
Archaeological Practice at NVQ levels 3 and 4 (level 5 is pending
but still in development).[140]
The Qualification will, for the first time, enable those without
a degree to have their skills assessed and benchmarked, and will
also provide a framework for facilitating the archaeological training
of those with a first degree but without relevant archaeological
skills. At the moment, the Qualification is still seeking both
students and assessors although the latter have nearly completed
their training to enable them to carry out the assessment role.
Once the assessors are in place, NVQ training can begin but will
require the payment of fees that will presumably fall upon employees
rather than their employers. Given that those seeking NVQ 3 training
are likely to be at a relatively junior level (the recommended
minimum salary for a Practitioner in the IFA is £14,197 as
of 1/4/07) the fee of £1000-1500 is a large amount to find
and grant support would be of great value here in enabling training
across the profession.
9. There are moves among some University
departments to link their skills-based undergraduate and postgraduate
taught programmes to the National Occupational Standards and possibly
to the NVQs too. This would offer a valuable linkage between the
Further and Higher Education sector and the profession, but the
proposed withdrawal of HEFCE funding for those already holding
equivalent or lesser qualifications (ELQs) will specifically make
this provision much more difficult to provide as the institutions
shall have to charge a higher fee to compensate for the lack of
HEFCE subsidy to these programmes. Given the low wage culture
that permeates archaeology, this will be a major disincentive
for potential students, especially at the lower-paid end of the
sector.
10. While the need for training, skills
development and continuing professional development is thus widely
recognized in the sector, and will become more important due to
the requirement for a broader, diversified practitioner following
the pending government re-organisation of the Historic Environment
sector, the proposed removal of ELQ funding will make meeting
this need all the more difficult. Yet it is apparent that archaeology,
along with core professions like medics, lawyers, engineers, et
al. have a duty to constantly revise and review their skills base.
Often the only option to do so is through some form of higher
qualification offered through a University. If ELQ funding is
cut, this route will be largely closed to many practitioners and
thus handicap the diversification of the skills base within the
profession at a time when it is being asked by government to develop
new areas of skill and learning.
11. Archaeologists and others working in
the Historic Environment sector are excited by the prospect of
the revised structures proposed by government in the recent Heritage
Protection review. Responses informally and formally across the
sector welcomed this opportunity to set the Historic Environment
profession on a new courses for the 21st century. However, the
key to delivery of the new regime will be the provision of sufficient
resources to enable the sector to do what will be required of
it in the future. We recognize and welcome the fact that we will
have to undergo substantial retraining and up-skilling to fulfill
the requirements of the new legislation but the potential removal
of ELQ funding will make meeting this provision that much harder
to do, and will disincentivise the current burgeoning engagement
between the FE and HE sector and the profession. Accordingly,
we would like to make the following recommendations:
12. The first recommendation is that those
programmes offering training within the Historic Environment sector,
and specifically archaeology programmes, retain their HEFCE funding
in relation to those undertaking an equivalent or lower qualification.
We believe it is in the public interest to do so since the protection
of the historic environment is deemed by the public to be of great
importance for the nation with 96% of people believing that it
is important in teaching them about the past and 87% believing
that there should be public funding to preserve it.[141]
13. If this is not acceptable, we would
request that there be a delay of five years before implementation
for the programmes noted above to allow sufficient time to allow
the sector to adjust to the new demands of the Heritage Protection
Review in practice and enable those already in post to upgrade
their existing skills. Without this funding, by reducing the capacity
of the sector to respond, it will render the practical objectives
of the new Heritage Protection legislation less deliverable in
the short to medium term.
January 2008
138 http://www.archaeologists.net/modules/icontent/inPages/docs/prof/LMI_Report1.pdf,14 Back
139
http://www.archaeologists.net/modules/icontent/inPages/docs/prof/LMI_Report1.pdf Back
140
http://www.archaeologists.net/modules/icontent/index.php?page=199 Back
141
Power of Place (2000), p.1 [http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/upload/pdf/power_of_place_11.pdf] Back
| 
