1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hi Guest, welcome to the TES Community!

    Connect with like-minded education professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.

    Don't forget to look at the how to guide.

    Dismiss Notice

Do you think the IFL should be scrapped?

Discussion in 'Further Education' started by MrJob, May 23, 2010.

  1. "All who teach I expect to recognise the need for a qualification in teaching and a Cert.Ed "

    I have my CERT ED which I achieved through my own volition rather than any coercion but failed to extract anything from that exercise other than the fact that people who teach such courses are poor teachers themselves.
    As for the IFL, CPD, REFLECT and all the teaching and learning methodologies they will not be around for any longer than the burnt out teachers that try to follow them. 2 years max.
  2. Well I couldn't agree more scrap the IFL - it serves no purpose. And as for the expectation of high standards, I thought that was satisfied by OfSTED? CPD should be the responsibility of lecturers and their college.
  3. jacob

    jacob Lead commenter

    Some of the arguments I put forward when we were forced to join the IfL are still valid. At my College we were required to show 30 hours of CPD, half of which was supposed to be laid on by the College. I do not see what the compulsory IfL membership has added to that, or, as stated before, to my professional status. Was there a perceived lack of professionalism before the IfL? I think not. Has the IfL improved the standing of us as professionals in the eyes of the public? the government? Business? I think not.
    If, as suggested, the Ifl (and GTC) start to demand fees in excess of £100 a year, I hope there will be mass opposition.
  4. cariadwch

    cariadwch Established commenter

    I'm sure my employer would take action if I acted unprofessionally, incompetently or inappropriately in any any number of situations - all of which is covered in the iFL code of conduct. But as far as my employer is concerned all I have to do for the IfL 'to be in good standing' is ensure I'm registered and register my CPD to be in good standing.
    Now if my employer was a poor employer (which I must say it isn't) and victimised or bullied me, or made unreasonable demands of me, could I call on the IFL to represent me?
  5. Unlike a teacher calling for others to carry out fraud and admiting they'd done it to, ehh?
  6. Isn't that the job of a trade union?
  7. Jude Fawley

    Jude Fawley Star commenter

    The IfL would probably support your employer.
    Ever tried reporting a college department manager to the IfL?
    You can do it because the college manager would be a memebr of the IfL.
    What do you think would happen?
    Recognise the IfL for what they are. They are all about the structure of F E and have no interest in actual quality of provision.
    Basically, they're extremely right wing and obsessed with their image and the image of F E.
    We all know F E is a toilet but the IfL don't want to engage with the issues of lecturers independence of mind and accepted respect to be able to get on with what they have studied and trained to do.
    That's why a great many qualified lecturers no longer want to work in F E.
  8. I'd say dead in the water, whatever any of us might say about the pros and cons. See also;
    "A string of quangos, at least partly funded by Mr Cable's department, are being axed, phased out or are having their budgets reduced.
    A departmental spokesman said these included LearnDirect, the Institute for Learning, the Learning and Skills Improvement Service. "
  9. Learn Direct has served its purpose! Did anyone learn anything from Learn Direct courses? they throw them out in bundles... ahem
  10. From the IFL website:

    "The government’s plan to close the GTC has no direct implications for IfL. IfL is an independent professional body, set up in 2002 set up in 2002 by teachers, in partnership with unions and employer bodies.
    IfL is a not-for-profit company limited by guarantee, led by its members, by teachers for teachers. It is governed solely by its Advisory Council and cannot be closed by the government or others. IfL is not a quango."

    What a load of tosh! If it is an independent professional body why is membership compulsory? What limited company operates in a framework where it's customers are forced to be customers.
    Normally directors provide the guarantee in a limited company, no doubt the government (or nominated quango/body) has provided the guarantee for the IFL. The IFL is a bureaucratic monster and the IFL says it "cannot be closed by the government or others" - a very worrying quote from a body that achieves its membership by coercion and claims to be independent!

  11. Most professional bodies gain their membership through 'coercion'. Try working in personnel without being in CIPD or as a solicitor without being in the Law Society. In fact I think that is what being a professional means, isn't it - that no one else can do your job without meeting the professions standards. Unless, of course, you want any old numpty to be able to teach, which you may well, I suppose.
  12. But not in a company limited by guarantee, which means the directors' liability is limited, just as most charities do now to protect trustees.
  13. Sounds like you have fallen for all the nonsense the IFL dishes out. Being a member of a club does not make you any more professional. Surely professionalism is about the way you tackle things in your job, the way you treat people, integrity, ethics and ensuring you follow laws and high moral standards.
    Obviously I don't want "any old numpty to be able to teach" - this is a silly response to a challenge about the way FE is heading. College Human resources departments and head of departments are there to ensure able and responsible candidates are employed to teach.
  14. Fighting talk but not entirely tosh.
    The engineering institute I am also a member of. It like the IfL is constituted as a company limited by guarantee and a registered charity. Many of its members have no choice about membership because their employers make it a contractural obligation, (although I choose to be a member).
    True. But this liabilty is limited to one pound. What government has guaranteed hitherto is an income which maintains the limited liability.
    Both the GTCE and the IfL get their 'powers' from secondary legislation and a significant amount of their income from government. The GTCE have also made it clear that the government cannot abolish it.
    Government can withdraw their grants but will also have to amend the legislation to remove the responsiblities that both the IfL and GTCE have for policing the licence to teach. This will leave both intact but with no meaningful powers, unless of course the AoC, or member colleges, insist on membership.
    Those posters who object to the 'big brother' activities of the IfL now need to be very afraid because there is no suggestion by government that the requirement to maintain a licence to teach will be removed. Indeed one of the objections against the GTCE that Gove has stated is that it has not been 'big brother' enough, and has allowed people to teach when they should have had their licence removed.
    It would appear that government's intentention is to take the regulatory roles (and money) away from the GTCE and IfL and either take them in-house, or put the responsibility on employers to maintain a register.
    I suspect the later, and what will then happen is that the IfL will become the nominated body of the AoC for maintaining the register of licenced teachers.
    In effect your employer will then oblige you to become an IfL member, oh and yes, pay the fee. Thus government gets all the control it has now without paying for it or appearing to be responsible for unnecessary bureaucratic 'quangos'.
    The bottom line is that one way or another 'big brother' is here to stay.
    So don't throw your CPD records away yet.
  15. Cheflecturer - You REALLY need to learn to read! How sad you lack this basic skill - not sure who I am sorriest for, you or your students.

    Also - I really do wonder about the true identity and occupation of some of the contributors to this forum who:-
    A. appear to be so very keen to support government strategies which are so obviously unhelpful to the FE system, students and its staff.
    B. appear to so very well informed and have such a remarkable grasp of FE history way beyond that of 'ordinary' lecturers in my experience.

    Colleagues - I think that the TES forum is being baited by those with ulterior motives that go beyond simply maintaining a 'balanced' debate.

  16. jacob

    jacob Lead commenter

    The IfL in its current form was created by an Act of Parliament. Presumably they can repeal the act.
  17. I'm sorry winluser I don't actually know what you are going on about, I didn't say the comment you seem to be suggesting I did.
  18. Yeah. I reckon Jude is ringer for sure.
  19. Stop Press...The IfL is no more. It's gone the way of the GTC. See the post 'Institute for Learning - A Tribute' for more details...

Share This Page