Where is museum training in the United Kingdom going now?

Museum Management and Curatorship,Vol. 17, No. 3, pp. 303–314, 1998 1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reservedPergamon

Printed in Great Britain0260–4779/99 $ - see front matter

PII:S0260–4779(99)00022-9

Where is Museum Training in theUnited Kingdom Going Now?

Simon Roodhouse

National Training Developments Since 1986

Over recent years the most far reaching training development in the UnitedKingdom has been the introduction of National Vocational Qualifications (NVQs)and, for cultural organisations, the engagement in developing and introducingNVQs to their sector. The museum involvement resulted from the Museums andGalleries Commission’s report into the professional development of Museumpersonnel in 1987, Museum Professional Training and Career Structure, (HaleReport, 1987) which encouraged the Government to give consideration to theestablishment of the Museum Training Institute (MTI). As a result, MTI was estab-lished in 1990 and its subsequent work was profoundly influenced by two otherreports which were The Government Review of Vocational Qualifications, andthe White Paper Working Together: Education and Training. These papersresulted in NVQs being introduced in 1986 through Acts of Parliament, withthe intention of raising general levels of competence in the workforce in orderto maintain and enhance the United Kingdom’s world competitiveness and itsstatus as a highly skilled innovative and technologically advanced nation state.It was also a reaction to high unemployment, global competitiveness and anarchaic 19th century training and qualification system. Other related factors con-cerned themselves with the need to enable the unemployed and unskilled inthe United Kingdom workforce to gain employment by acquiring the new andrelevant skills needed by industry. These concerns were encapsulated in thefollowing extract from the Working Together: Education and TrainingWhite Paper:

Qualifications and high standards are not luxuries—they are necessities, central tosecuring a competent and adaptable workforce. Economic performance and individ-ual job satisfaction both depend on maintaining and improving standards of per-formance. This applies from the boardroom to the shop floor. It applies as muchto adult training and re-training as to young people starting off.

It was also the case, as mentioned earlier, that the vocational qualificationstructure in the United Kingdom was out of touch with the needs of the econ-omy. The awarding bodies, that is those institutions which award certificationfor vocational achievements, were unregulated and largely unaccountable, bas-ing their qualifications on years of professional expertise in the field. It was atypically British ad hoc, individualistic set of arrangements. There was little dia-

304 Where is Museum Training in the United Kingdom Going Now?

logue between the awarding bodies and even less with industry. In the case ofmuseums, Sir John Hale in his report for the Museums and Galleries CommissionMuseum Professional Training and Career Structure indicated that there wasa lack of coherence in the United Kingdom museum training and developmentstructures; that the Museums Association Diploma (a professional qualificationlargely for local authority museum staff) was out of touch; and that there wasan increasing demand for relevant management skills. It was also noted thatthere was little evidence of career progression between the national, local auth-ority, and independent museums. The traditional schism between national andlocal authority museums was in fact being reinforced through the training andcareer structures.

Consequently, the government introduced an over-arching administrativestructure, the National Council for Vocational Qualifications, to establish NVQs,to regulate the awarding bodies, and to maintain and enhance quality. Interest-ingly the Council was established in the Thatcherite era when the watchwordswere de-regulation, freedom of choice and market economies. The principlesunderpinning the Council’s work were as follows:

1. reflect the needs of employers and individuals;2. provide qualifications which reflect the achievements of clear standards of

competence;3. provide more effective career and training routes for individuals;4. be less about passing knowledge-based examinations and more about per-

formance in the workplace;5. be accessible to all sections of society without unnecessary barriers; and6. identify common areas of competence across industrial sectors and occu-

pations.

The National Council for Vocational Qualifications, in partnership with theEmployment Department of the United Kingdom government, set about estab-lishing industry lead bodies to develop the standards of occupational com-petence based on functional analysis for all industrial sectors, includingmuseums. Substantial public funding was provided to the industry lead bodiesto develop the occupational standards of competence. The choice for the newlyestablished MTI was clear, to become the industry lead body for the develop-ment of standards of competence and use the emerging national framework asa means of establishing a contemporary and relevant professional training andcareer development qualification system which was competence based,explicitly, and responsive to the changing occupational needs of museum staff.Incidentally, it also had the potential to overcome the evident lack of provisionfor continuing professional development in the museum sector.

As a result, between 1987 and 1995, the Council in partnership with theGovernment’s Employment Department, has been able to introduce NVQs toevery sector of the United Kingdom economy and thereby change fundamentallythe nature of training provision, particularly in the Further Education sector (16–19 years). The achievements up to September 1998 are illustrated in Figures 1and 2.

The role of the National Council for Vocational Qualifications has been centralto achieving the revision of existing Vocational Qualifications, with its brief toensure that standards of occupational competence exist, making certain that

305Simon Roodhouse

1. NVQ Certificates awarded.

2. Growth in cumulative total of NVQ Certificates awarded.

vocational qualifications are based on them; creating a new national frameworkfor vocational qualifications; approving bodies making accredited awards;obtaining comprehensive coverage of all aspects of working life and establishinga national database for the new vocational qualifications.

To realise this brief, the National Council for Vocational Qualifications estab-lished a framework consisting of levels, and all standards of competence whichmake up vocational qualifications must relate to these levels. The definitionsof levels was derived from workplace functions, and are briefly described inTable 1.

It is important to recognise that these levels do not relate to British pay grad-ing systems, nor can NVQs be simply equated with traditional university aca-demic qualifications, largely because of the functional orientation of the National


Table 1. Description of the NVQ levels

Level 1 Competence in the performance of a range of varied work activities,most of which are routine and predictable, e.g. museum cleaners.

Level 2 Competence in a significant range of varied work activities,performed in a variety of contexts, some of which are complex andnon-routine, e.g. museum security and technical staff.

Level 3 Competence in a broad range of work activities performed in a widevariety of contexts, most of which are complex and non-routine, e.g.supervisors of museum security staff and junior curators just enteringmuseum work.

Level 4 Competence in a broad range of complex, technical or professionalactivities performed in a variety of contexts and with a substantialdegree of personal responsibility and autonomy, e.g. experiencedcurators and junior conservators and museum educators.

Level 5 Competence which involves the application of a significant range offundamental principles and complex techniques across a wide andoften unpredictable variety of contexts, e.g. senior curators withmanagement responsibility, including senior conservators.

Vocational Qualifications with their emphasis on competency in the workplace.This distinction between the functionally driven competence model and, forexample, university qualifications highlighted and exposed the entrenched atti-tudes of museum employers, particularly the more conservative nationalmuseums. The prevailing view at national level was one that subscribed to thenotion that curators were pre-eminent and their training was provided throughuniversities such as Oxford or Cambridge where it was expected that the individ-ual gained a PhD. As a consequence, the individual could be employed at thelowest curatorial level in the museum and would learn the ‘trade’ on the job,what has variously been described, but most commonly by those who haveexperienced it, as being “thrown in at the deep end”. This debate was oftenpresented in terms of considering national museums as “object-based univer-sities”, which pointed to the arguments around academic freedom and blue skiesresearch. There was an inference that training was for the administrative andother staff, not for the professionals. They did not need formal training or re-training as their development was provided through the nature of their work.However, even in universities, lecturers need to know and demonstrate thatthey can lecture, as researchers have to demonstrate their skills and keep themup to date, particularly in relation to Information Technology. Interestingly, amajor report from the National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education,Higher Education in the Learning Society, published in July 1997 (DearingReport, 1997), has for the first time, recommended the establishment of an Insti-tute for Learning and Teaching to

I address the questions of professional updating and maintenance of stan-dards and

I relate NVQs (work-based qualifications) to the academic qualification systemin the United Kingdom. This is described in Figure 3.

This is a significant attempt to create a single unified qualification frameworkwhich is vocationally orientated. The Museum Training Institute has, from the

307Simon Roodhouse

3. Qualifications for work.

outset, attempted to relate the academic provision and the Museums AssociationDiploma (the professional qualification) within this emerging national frame-work using the newly designed standards of competence as the common factor.Standards of competence, the basic building blocks for NVQs, are useful becausethey state, in terms of outcomes, what can be expected of an individual per-forming a particular occupational role in a museum.

It has been important in this process, however, to emphasise that the occu-pational standards of competence provide more than a basic description of cur-rent museum tasks and activities, not least because future needs and good prac-tice have been incorporated as minimum requirements. As a result, the newNVQ museum qualifications have been constructed for the first time aroundfunctions and activities in the workplace. As a means of understanding the sig-nificance of this it is worth explaining the nature of occupational standards ofcompetence The initial step in constructing these standards of competence andsubsequent vocational qualifications was to establish a key purpose. The keypurpose represents the different areas in which an individual was expected tooperate, for example one of the key purposes for a curator of a museumcould be:

To achieve the museum’s objectives and to continuously improve its per-formance.

This may seem an obvious statement to make, but the approach to NVQs hasenabled the purposes to be discussed, agreed and stated explicitly, by thoseemployed in museums. In Britain it has been the first serious national attemptat mapping all the functions (in detail) which enable a museum to realise itsaims and objectives.

Once a key purpose has been agreed, then the components which constitute


a standard of competence can be produced, such as a unit of competence,which could be a self-contained area of competence of a coherent group ofelements which would be recognised and have value in museum employment.The reference to elements here refers to the performance of relevant taskswhich include the following:

I develop the organisation’s strategy for interpretation;I evaluate the organisation’s ability to implement the strategy for interpret-

ation; andI develop a programme to meet user requirements.

A mechanism for measuring an individual’s competence in these elements hasproved to be essential to this approach, as the individual needs to know howhe/she is meeting the standard. Consequently, performance criteria have beendesigned to complement the standards of competence and describe how some-one can do what is illustrated in the elements to the standards expected inemployment. They have been interpreted as indicators of performance. How-ever, it has been recognised that factors outside the control of the individualoften affect performance, particularly the context in which the element is prac-tised. A range statement has been devised to address this issue by defining thescope of the element, i.e. the range of circumstances, situations and instancesin which the element is applied. By this means, standards of competence havebeen carefully and painstakingly constructed within the five-level framework(described in Table 1) which has enabled the NVQs to reflect the requirementsof the workplace.

This major national development, led by the Employment Department, wasincorporated into the activities of a new Department, the Department for Edu-cation and Employment (DfEE), established by John Major when he won theGeneral Election in 1990. The Department was given a strong remit to completethis work and typified its approach as follows:

The increasing pace of change in modern society leads to the demand for lifelonglearning. Bringing together education, training and employment in one Departmentallows Government to help improve competitiveness by integrating policy in theseareas. Already this is paying dividends. DfEE, which has the National Education andTraining Targets at the heart of its objectives, has looked afresh at the importanceof literacy and numeracy in helping the unemployed back to work and at the impor-tance of key skills at all ages. AND it will be able to take forward at all levels ofeducation and training the implementation of the findings of a wide range of policyreviews. (‘Competitiveness, Creating the Enterprise Centre or Europe, Learning andSkills’. Extract of Command Paper CM3300, Department for Education andEmployment, 1996).

Apart from the merging of Employment and Education, John Major’s governmentalso established the Department of National Heritage to replace the Office ofArts and Libraries. This Department had responsibilities for the media (radio,television, cable and satellite) sports, tourism, heritage (museums, galleries andheritage conservation), Libraries and the Arts. Although small, the Departmenthas been represented at Cabinet level, through the Secretary of State, for thefirst time. It also had responsibility for the Museum Training Institute.

The climate at national level changed and more emphasis was placed on ensur-ing that the skill levels of all those at work was improved to world class levels.

309Simon Roodhouse

The pressure was on to complete the NVQ framework across all the industrialsectors of the country and, more importantly, to ensure that the national edu-cation and training targets for NVQs were being met (Green Paper on Learning,1998). MTI was the tool chosen by government to deliver this on behalf of themuseum sector, and was funded by both Departments. The challenge was thegeneral lack of interest by museums in the new and demanding training anddevelopment system, and in particular, a resistance to the concept of ‘com-petence to do the job’. It was also the case, it seems, that the Department ofNational Heritage was unwilling to enshrine NVQs into the strategic plans ofthe national museums, although NVQs were government policy!

The Museum Collections, Staff Structure and Purpose of MTI

MTI had been established to develop and introduce Museum NVQs on behalfof the heritage sector. The Institute received government financial support andrecognition as the organisation charged with developing standards of com-petence and NVQs for the heritage sector in Britain, under the 1987 Employ-ment Act. The Institute was not only the focal point for the development ofstandards of competence, but was also responsible for putting in place thearrangements to enable museum personnel to gain NVQs in museum practices,as well as ensuring that appropriate and relevant training was available. TheGovernment invested in the Institute dual status as an industry lead body andan industry training organisation. As an industry lead body it was responsiblefor the specification of standards and qualifications and was made up ofemployers and employees from the museum world, while as an industry trainingorganisation, it was the focal point for all training matters within the museumsector. It was responsible for defining the sector’s current and future trainingneeds and ensuring that action was taken to meet them. A Board of Directorstook responsibility for ensuring that these roles were fulfilled. These memberswere employers from national local authority and independent museums as wellas representatives from industry. The first chair was Prof. John Last, CBE, andthe Board included the then Director of the British Museum, Sir David Wilson.This model was applied to all industrial sectors including media, performing andentertainment organisations throughout the United Kingdom and as the found-ing Director of the Museum Training Institute, the present author was given thetask of developing and introducing the new qualifications, as well as raisingawareness of the importance of training. Quite apart from the challenges ofchanging attitudes towards training and qualifications, there were additionalcomplexities associated with the nature of the workforce and organisationalstructures which had to be taken into account, since there are approximately2,500 museums and galleries in the United Kingdom, including 1,100 inde-pendent museums.

The types of collections found in all the museums and galleries which wereregistered with the Museums and Galleries Commission (the Government Advis-ory Agency) in March 1997 are as follows in Table 2.

The workforce employed in museums was recognised as complex with fulland part-time employees totalling 36,300 in 1992, excluding volunteers. If theestimated figure for volunteers of between 25,000 to 30,000 people is to beadded to the 36,000, the total British museum workforce may be estimated to


Table 2. Types of museums and galleries collection requirements with the Museums andGalleries Commission in 1997

Social History 65%Fine Arts 45%Photography 42%Archaeology 39%Costume and Textiles 41%Decorative and Applied Art 40%Archives 39%Science and Industry 31%Personalia 29%Agriculture 26%Transport 26%Military 25%Numismatics 26%Geology 24%Biology and Natural History 16%Ethnography 14%Mantime 11%Music 11%Medicine 8%Oral History 9%

Source: Museums Association Facts about Museums, March 1997.

be between 71,000 and 76,000 people, all of whom have a training requirementof some kind or another!

From a training point of view the museum and gallery sector was full of highlyqualified people in terms of academic qualifications, with over 85% of curatorsand managers having first or second degrees. Interestingly, two thirds of paidemployees, the largest group overall, worked in security and support roles.Approximately 8% of those employees have university degrees and over 50%have General Certificate of Secondary Education level qualifications. As a groupof employees they have been traditionally excluded from museum-specificvocational qualifications and sustained training. Part of the role of the MuseumTraining Institute was to use the new qualification framework to enable thesepeople to realise their potential. The ethnic minorities were also under-rep-resented with only 2.2% of the total museum workforce nationally; most ofwhom are concentrated in the security and support roles. Incidentally this com-pares with 3.9% from ethnic minorities in the United Kingdom workforce as awhole. There were an equal number of men and women in the workforce andwomen hold 51% of all curatorial and managerial posts in the local authoritysector and 46% in national museums. Interestingly, the age of the workforcewas reasonably balanced overall with nearly 70% of curators and managers under45 years old.

Against this backdrop the museum national vocational qualification (NVQ)framework has been established to meet the needs of the majority of themuseum workforce. The construction of the standards was undertaken over aneighteen-month period and involved more than 600 museum professionals, sixtymuseums and 14,000 questionnaires. It subsequently took four years and over£500,000 to produce the nationally approved museum qualification framework.The qualification framework was, as stated earlier, essentially based on the com-

311Simon Roodhouse

petence of the individual to carry out their museum function, with assessmentin the workplace, improved accessibility and reflecting the skill and knowledgeneeds of both employers and employees in museums. This has resulted in theestablishment of NVQs in heritage, care and visitor services, levels 2/3; collec-tion management and interpretation, levels 4/5; and conservation, levels 4/5.

Benefits of the System

Given all this investment, the overriding question was concerned with the bene-fits such an innovative system would generate. For employers it has provided amechanism for raising the ‘quality’ and ‘relevance’ of training given toemployees, by providing an effective means of evaluating training programmes;measuring quality within the museum; ensuring the credibility of training pro-grammes and providing a rational basis for recruitment and selection for jobs.But ultimately, it will improve the standards of performance of people employedin museums. For museum employees, the new qualification framework has pro-vided clearly defined targets, which are competence based; assures a ‘qualityapproach’ within museums; facilitates career progression; ensures a rationalrecruitment and selection system; enables transfer between jobs and other occu-pations, and establishes accessible national performance and appraisal criteria.Furthermore, the NVQ framework has also provided an unique opportunity tobring education and training closer together by helping to break down the arti-ficial barriers between academic and vocational qualifications which havebedevilled education and training systems in the United Kingdom for manyyears. Perhaps more importantly, Arts Managers, whether in museums or othercultural organisations such as theatres, now have at their disposal a well-developed and effective human resource management tool which is based onnationally recognised standards.

What Has Been Achieved?

The Museums Association—the professional association for museum personnelin the United Kingdom—has begun to incorporate NVQs into its regulations forgaining Associate Membership (Museums Association, 1998). For the first timethe Museums Association has included in its criteria a competence-basedapproach, described as: “Sufficient experience of working in or for museumsand a satisfactory level of professional competence”. In particular there wereseveral routes to gaining Associate Membership, all of which include gaining anS/NVQ, for example:

Route A:

1. Evidence of a minimum of three years working in or for museums.2. Evidence of having acquired a MTI S/NVQ level 4 or 5 in collection manage-

ment and interpretation or conservation.

On the other hand Route D suggested the following:

1. Evidence of a minimum of 5 years working in or for museums.2. Evidence of having acquired a S/NVQ qualification at level 3 or equivalent,

relevant to the museum function in which the applicant is involved(Commitment, Competence, Experience, New Ways to the AMA, 1995).


Although this is a step in the right direction, it still shows a lack of understandingof the principles which underpin NVQs. If the Museums Association fully under-stood the system, there would be no need for the specific work experiencecriteria, as an NVQ cannot be achieved without demonstrating competence inthe workplace! The Government has also taken the initial NVQ work and newvocational framework further, establishing baselines and targets for the qualify-ing of the whole United Kingdom workforce up to the Year 2000 (Departmentfor Education and Employment, 1999). This has been interpreted by MTI tomean that by the Year 2000 40% of sector organisations with over 200 staff and35% with between 50 to 200 staff should be recognised as “Investors in People”,the Government’s human resources management national standard, which incor-porates the national education and training targets, and NVQs (Cultural HeritageNational Training Organisation, 1998).

The aim of these targets was and remains, “To improve the United Kingdom’sinternational competitiveness by raising standards and attainment levels in edu-cation and training to world class levels”. This has to be ensured by:

1. all employers investing in employee development to achieve business suc-cess;

2. all individuals having access to education and training opportunities, leadingto recognised qualifications, which meet their needs and aspirations; and

3. all education and training developing self-reliance, flexibility and breadth, inparticular through fostering competence in core skills.

To date, 180 organisations in the cultural heritage field have been committedto/or recognised as Investors in People, amounting to 7.2% of the 2,500museums in the United Kingdom. For museums, however, the pressure toimplement this national policy in a period of public sector financial constrainthas proved difficult. This pressure has been felt most acutely in the local auth-ority museums, and the recent reorganisation of aspects of the local authoritystructure in England and Wales has done nothing to develop a sense of securityamongst museum personnel. National museums, on the other hand, have beenable to avoid the worst strictures of the Treasury funding reductions to theirmuseums, but training in this climate was considered to be of little immediatesignificance and as a consequence the commitment by museums to deliveringtraining and qualifications to their staff was low. Although the Government isproviding funding for MTI, and in the case of NVQs especially for curators, therewere difficulties in terms of the costs to the museum and to the individual. Thiswas overcome where large numbers of people were undertaking the same NVQwhich generated efficiencies in assessment mechanisms. However, the higherlevel NVQs attracted fewer people and consequently the costs of assessmenthave been proportionally greater. These issues remain unresolved.

Funding is, however, the biggest single obstacle to ensuring that there is asustained system of training and development for all museum personnel, andfor those who work or aspire to work in this sector (DPM Report, 1995). Muchhas been made of the Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF) as a financial angel, withtraining playing a minor part at present as the grants are primarily for capitalprojects. However, in the long awaited Department of National Heritage Reviewof Museum Policy, entitled Treasures in Trust, there are 25 specific recommen-dations, and one in particular referred to the role of the National Heritage Mem-

313Simon Roodhouse

orial Fund, the Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF). It suggested that “The NHMF willconsider providing longer-term support from the Lottery, (White Paper on theNational Lottery, 1997) to help museums achieve specific goals” one of whichis: the law to be changed to allow HLF flexibility to fund access, education,training, documentation and information technology. This may open the doorto possibilities for future Lottery funding for training within the Departmentof National Heritage regulatory framework, using the Museums and GalleriesCommission registration scheme as the mechanism for monitoring thresholdinstitutional standards.

A recent (1998) action by the New Labour Government has been to changethe name of the Department of National Heritage to that of the Department ofCulture, Media and Sport. However, in an earlier reorganisation, the fundingresponsibility for the MTI was passed to the Museums and Galleries Commission,which implies a ‘demotion’ of training by the department. Incidentally, the grantaid provided to MTI has also declined since it was established which couldperhaps be seen as indicative of the sector’s lack of commitment to trainingand development. Meanwhile, the Department of Education and Employment(DfEE) is pressing ahead with the NVQ system and continues to support theMuseum Training Institute as a recognised national training organisation, but inthe process of gaining this revised status, the name has been changed to theCultural Heritage National Training Organisation (CHNTO). The DfEE has alsocontinued to pursue policies in the employment, qualifications and higher edu-cation sector which link mass higher education, graduate employability, a singlevocational qualification framework (including university degrees and NVQs)within the context of lifelong learning. This in fact is the heartland of the NewLabour education policy.

There is a contemporary framework of NVQs for the sector which are pro-gressively being used. The current level of registrations is:

7 NVQs685 registrations25 assessment centres36 trained assessors. (Cultural Heritage National Training OrganisationReport, 1997)

The NVQ system has been incorporated into the Museums Association’s pro-fessional membership arrangements as described above. Degree programmes atuniversities such as City, Leicester and Essex, which focus on museum training,have been validated by the Cultural Heritage NTO (previously MTI). However,the number of recognised Investors in People in the museum sector remainslow. As this is a national standard for human resource management, andmuseums’ biggest asset besides the collections is people, it is difficult to believethat there are so few who have been recognised as meeting the standard. Fur-thermore, it is still difficult to determine the actual percentage spend on trainingand development in museums, at all levels and for all occupations. This in itselfis indicative of the relative lack of interest in ensuring that those working inthe sector have and will maintain the skills they need to ensure that the museummeets its aims and objectives. Interestingly, at the early stages of the establish-ment of MTI, there was a real opportunity to place museums in the forefrontof national training and development, with all the advantages that this position


generates. However, over the years, the sector has slipped back with minoradjustments to what it knows and loves. Is this good enough if there is a needfor United Kingdom museums to continue to be of national and international sig-nificance?

The Department of Culture, Media and Sport has also failed to recognise thesignificance of training and development as a means of raising skill levels anddelivering government policy on lifelong learning through the directly fundednational museums, as non-departmental public bodies, as well as the significanceof agencies such as the Museums and Galleries Commission and Area MuseumCouncils. If there is indeed a perception of these national institutions as ‘objectbased universities’ they need to take a closer look at the changes already inplace within the university sector, such as the establishment of the Institute forTeaching and Learning to qualify and maintain professional learning and teach-ing standards of lecturers, and the demands of the Research Assessment Exerciseto deliver regular, measurable research outputs. The substantially increased stud-ent numbers paying fees for higher education (in other words, customers) arealready making cogent demands in terms of value for money and employmentprospects on completion of a degree. How is this trend being translated intothe ‘object based universities’, the national museums and collections ofnational significance?

Whichever way the United Kingdom chooses to look at it, the world continuesto move on, and if United Kingdom institutions wish to maintain and expandtheir international reputations, then it is not just a matter of building yet moreLottery-funded museums, but rather investing in people for life. We have someway to go yet.

Bibliography

Hale Report (1987) Museum Professional Training and Career Structure: Report by a WorkingPaper. The Museums and Galleries Commission, HMSO, London. Heritage Lottery Fund (0171591 6000).

Commitment, Competence, Experience, New Ways to the AMA (1995) Museums Association Jour-nal.

DPM Report (1995) Developing People in Museums. Cultural Heritage National Training Organis-ation.

Department for Education and Employment (1996) Competitiveness, Creating the Enterprise Centreof Europe, Learning and Skills. Cmnd 3300, HMSO.

White Paper on the National Lottery (1997) The People’s Lottery. Cmnd 3709, HMSO, London.Cultural Heritage National Training Organisation Report (1997). National Training Strategy for The

Museums, Galleries and Heritage Sector. CHNTO/MTI.Dearing Report (1997) Higher Education in the Learning Society. The National Committee of

Inquiry into Higher Education, HMSO, Norwich.Cultural Heritage National Training Organisation (1998) Your NVQ/SNVQ Questions Answered.

MTI, Bradford.Green Paper on Learning (1998) The Learning Age: A Renaissance for a New Britain. Cmnd 3790,

HMSO, London.Museums Association (1998) Associate Membership of the Museums Association: An Introduction.

Professional Development at the Museums Association, London.National Heritage Memorial Fund—New Regulations Act.Department for Education and Employment (1999) National Learning Targets for England for

2002. The National Advisory Council for Education and Training Targets, HMSO, Suffolk.

Documents

Where is museum training in the United Kingdom going now?