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. We know - see post 34.
  2. The main difference between GTC and IFL is that IFL was created by the field. It is true government then stepped in and bought membership for everyone, but it remains our institute, and whether or not government pays the membership fees there is a powerful case for f.e. to have a professional body. Wherever professional bodies are solidly established they enhance the reputation, and in the end the security, conditions of service and pay of the fields they represent.
    But for that to happen we have to make it our own and use it to assert the rigour and the value of our work, and to argue against the endless tinkering with our work of an over-active and interfering state.
    As to the value of IFL, I for one find Reflect to be a helpful if occasionally clunky tool in helping me think about my work, how I can support learners better, and what I have learned.
    If government does withdraw funding of membership fees we should negotiate with our college management to pay the fees of staff as a part of the staff development they need to underpin
    Aaron Maddever
  3. How? It was set up and made compulsory without much room for my voice!
    I know it has not been around long but it has not really offered me anything tangible I can use.
    I know FE needs a professional body, but one that offers stuff I can use every day. One that actually has relevance to me every day.
    Actually forget that! One that writes its bumf in Crystal Clear English would be a great start! I assume everyone else who grumbles about it has whomped their foreheads against some form of utterly impenetrable IfL communication - my fave was the one that told me I was using the wrong format for my QTLS..... and at the same time acknowledging that I was not!
    It took a while to figure out the fully personalised, scarily worded, warning email was actually an 'all members' notice because theu couldn't be @rsed to work out who really was involved"
    Show me how, without being a wholly political animal, I am supposed to do that?
    Ha! As, without the IfL there would be no mandated CPD there would be no need! Or is that semantically null, solipsistic or some other management speak crud?
    "we should negotiate with our college management" I do love that naivety! Negotiate!!!! How??? I have not
  4. Sod it!
    A brilliant riposte to the above down the 'Oops' swanny!
  5. oh! And now it is there! Oddities of a Silly Sunday!
  6. Have you ever told them what you want?
    From my reckoning there are about 3 of you on here.
    Or no CPD that was about you and what you teach, we'd go back to training days and just suffering what was done to us. Though I imagine some would like that, far easier than having to think for oneself.
    Not true. Wide consultation on it being made compulsory and NATFHE was for it, now it seems it is against it, but then again it needs something to campaign against, seems pants at pay negotiations.
  7. Cheflecturer: "Or no CPD that was about you and what you teach, we'd go back to training days and just suffering what was done to us. Though I imagine some would like that, far easier than having to think for oneself."

    Do you mean you don't have to go to PowerPoint presentations which are read out to you? You don't have to get into groups to discuss what you hope to get out of the training day? You don't have to discuss ground rules? Sit and be fed the blindingly obvious? Give plenary feedback? Write down what was good about the day and what could have been done better? You're lucky!
  8. A few times, yes. Most of what I want is London centred and will, "in the fullnes of time" possibly roll out to the rurality!
    Ah! I don't grumble about it! I hoped it would find its teeth, some real life relevance I am still waiting! The only time it impinges on my life is when I get the 2 yearly emails 1) (don't) pay your fees and 2) fill out your (largely unregulated) CPD. Not really stunningly useful to me!

    The no CPD sentence: I usually miss x-college CPD as I deliver much of it! The courses I would like to go on are miles away and would cost upwards of £600 for almost a whole day, after travel and overnights were added. Not a cost that sits well in FE! So sitting back and not thinking for myself has never been an option, I have to be creative in order to improve my teaching in any meaningful way!
    Being 'so far away' from London and Manchester is a bit restrictive to say the least! Should I go and sit in any old room and listen to any old crud just to claim I had gained something?
    Yes true! NATFHE can have been its mummy for all I care, they had nothing to do with me either!
    I don't know anyone who works in FE who had a voice in any real way! Whether due to apathy, wrong union, left FE, newly joined FE, GTC/QTS teacher not FE lecturer, college entering special measures, etc I have no idea. But the formation of IfL was almost a surprise to many I worked with 10 years ago and indeed, work with now!

    Maybe some of us out here in the not particularly unionised, FE boonies are a little less politicised, so IfL and its ilk are a little bit 'other'.
  9. "otherwise it will be as hated...as...GTCE..." GTCE is gone, so is IFL next to go?
    The basic ethos of IFL came home to me when I filled in my qualifications boxes = degrees were rejected, two OU diplomas in my teaching subject, obtained since 2000, rejected. D32/34 Assessor/box ticker -accepted as valid. IFL's jobcreation function was clear when at least one senior lecturer who had spread the word about how useful it will be - left and joined IFL.
    It will be fun when we are told to pay £30. each next year. Will they dare?
  10. This is the sort of language of IFL - "created by the field" "our institute" -their pronouncements are full of "the field wants this" -no one I know remembers being asked. It is a classic of Newspeak.We are constantly told that IFL is doing what we have asked for -you know it will be things like "the membership think that £30 is not enough, £50 would be better value, no... £100 would be more like it"

Share This Page