1. This critique is most readily available in the various contributions to B. Simon (ed), 1990, particularly Mcllroy, 1990a, b and c.
2. The authors' surprising assertion that matters are left to the discretion of tutors in the face of the powerful countervailing fact that the TUC wishes ‘to bring some uniformity to provision’ and that ‘education became a part of the work of the TUC and hence organically linked to is policies' (Bridgforth and Sterling, 1988: 235), neglects both the role of TUC officers (who regularly attend classes and talk to tutors and students) in ensuring they get what they paid for, the role of HMI, the responsibility of most tutors and, as we shall, see the direct intervention by the state. The views of HMI (DES, 1980; TUC, 1989a: 140), of employers (Millward and Stevens, 1986: 91) and of government (House of Commons Debates 1987–88: 123, col. 10, 11) suggest, as does experience, that there is little significant departure from the curriculum and pedagogy prescribed by government and the TUC. And that where it occurs ‘offenders’ arc eventually called to account (cf. Field, 1988: 228–30; Tumbull, 1985).
3. The brief statement in the TUC's Annual Report was bland and inert: ‘the General Council saw no basis upon which this condition upon grant-aided courses could be refused without undermining the whole structure and provision of grant-aided courses’ (TUC, 1991a: 60).
4. For background, see Bees and Swords (eds), 1990; Burke 1986; and the now numerous publications of the NCVQ.
5. On ‘Competence’