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

IfL - Paying for Membership

Discussion in 'Further Education' started by kyle82, Feb 10, 2011.

  1. As you may be aware, as of April 2011 the Government will no longer be funding membership of the IfL for teachers in lifelong learning. This is the IfL's move to become self financing and I would guess that members will be asked to pay the £68 annual membership fee themselves (perhaps slightly less with a bit of tax relief).
    I was just wondering how many of you plan to renew and pay the cost of membership? Personally I am caught in two minds. At the moment I don't feel as though I would get good value for money but at the same time, I can see the value of having a professinal body to fight for putting FE teachers on an equal footing with their school counterparts.
    It seems like make or break time for the IfL because without Government funding, unless enough members pay the annual fee, they may not survive.

  2. Please see the comments posted on this topic yesterday.
  3. cariadwch

    cariadwch Established commenter

    Fight? its not fighting at all....
    Its useless - not even a single press release on the savage cuts to enrichment that will result in redundancies and an extension of evening and weekend work and short term contracts across the FE sector. Even the AoC is setting up publicly in opposition to the cuts...as its membership of SMT and governors are threatened......IfL? sweet FA.
    equal footing? when fully released by this government from the GTC, LA control, unified teachers pay scales and working time agreements, all of which is happening, schools will all be self managing, (like incorporation) and they will then see the practicality of employing QTLS and FE teachers.....at lower costs. The IfL will of course claim this inevitability as a great victory that they 'fought' for. paah
    It is - Don't pay it break it - let membership go back to being voluntary, like the UCU.
  4. Apologies cardoon. I didn't mean to 'step on your toes' so to speak.
    When I initially read your post I wasn't sure whether you were objecting from the standpoint of a part-time lecturer, or whether you were just objecting to membership in general.

  5. But UCU has achieved little of note for years. Go on, give me the one big achievement from UCU in the last 3 - 5 years. All I remember in recent times was the snide comments about black students made by an official when talking about EMAs. Yeah, that's the sort of representation we want.
    Any chance we can keep this discussion in one thread, might actually make it a bit easier to keep tabs on opinions. That said it seems to be mainly highly negative people with the time and inclination to shout on anonimous message boards and then by taking on multiple identities. Watch out or we'll turn into the schoolies over on 'opinion' and what a mess and poor shop window for the profession that is.
  6. You didn't step on my toes, kyle82 - I just wasn't sure whether you had seen the post.
    I have no problem with the desire that many people feel to belong to a body which they feel is useful to them. Cheflecturer, for example, finds value in it and that is his prerogative. What I do object to is being legally obliged to be a member when the body is of no use or value to me and when membership is a condition of employment. In other words, voluntary membership is a reasonable option. I have belonged over the years to a number of organisations concerned with professional and subject specialist issues - I entered into such membership freely, without coercion, and I was willing to pay for the access it gave me to informed discussion on a range of topics that engaged my interest. But I have been forced into membership of the IfL. I did not give my consent freely. I resent being chivvied and chased every year to record my CPD and to renew my membership and now to having to pay. The amazing irony of all this is that if it had been a voluntary option, I may well have considered joining.
    I cannot speak for people in further education - I work in adult education where the IfL does not fit easily. Part-time tutors in LEAs and other organisations working in personal development and community learning do not teach for many hours a year. Their work is short-lived, unstable and poorly paid. Yet they are obliged to pay the same as an FE lecturer in full-time employment. My concern is that many of them are thinking of calling it a day and going private. And the IfL will be a contributory factor in their decision to go.
  7. Since when has adult education not been part of FE? Only a very small number of my students are under 18.
    Ultimately the employer must pay.
    I'm sorry to say that I think you would still have to join the IfL. The regulations do not distinguish between the nature of the employers, but the nature of the work done.
  8. Shirtandtie - I was using the term 'FE' to refer to the accredited or vocational programmes available in colleges and 'adult education' to refer to the non-accredited, informal learning classes that LEAs put on. I wasn't suggesting that there aren't adults in FE colleges. I think there is a difference between the two offers, though.
    "I'm sorry to say that I think you would still have to join the IfL. The regulations do not distinguish between the nature of the employers, but the nature of the work done."
    By private, I meant going freelance and becoming self-employed. Can you really compel yourself to join the IfL if you are your own employer? I am happy to be corrected on this but surely the regulations don't apply to Mr Picasso if he decides to run his own painting class in the local Baptist Hall? If they do apply, then things are even worse than I thought.
  9. My 2 pence worth:-
    I have been working in the sector now for 7 academic years, I originally started as an IT specialist tutor in a local Community College which was an excellent apprenticeship. Since then I have worked freelance / sessional working in the Comm Ed sector, I don't know from one term to another if I have work or not. The college I work for uses Protocol, hence I am paying the following priveledges for working:
    • Income Tax (as everyone does)
    • National Insurance (as everyone does)
    • Personel Indemnity Insurance
    • CRB check fees for new assignments if I am out of work for 3 months at a time
    Now the IFL have informed me that I now will pay £68.00 extra for the priveledge of passing on my skills and knowledge to learners who attend my classes.
    I wonder if the following would be adequate for my CPD this year:
    Debating, evaluating and reviewing if I actually wish to get paid for 2 hours having spent 4 hours preparing for the class. Debating, evaluating and reviewing whether I would be better quitting the role which I enjoy and excel at. Finally taking time out to compile a new CV which I may require if I decide to quit the sector altogether.
    I am honestly in the process of evaluating the Community Education work I do, and the more I evaluate it, the more I am getting fed up with it all. At the moment the only consolidation is the happy, smiling faces of my learners when I walk in to take the class.
    If this situation isn't sorted out soonest, I will probably be working in a different sector in June
  10. Please forgive me for bringing the professionalism of tutors and teachers into disripute:
    I apologise for my inability to spell privilige correctly
    I will put down on my IFL CPD submission my 2 minutes in which I asked my wife how to correctly to spell privilige.
    I will also take 20 lashes on my bare hands administered by shatterproof ruler and also add the time this takes to my CPD submission as a lesson to myself
  11. The IfL is a waste of time and money. What they are trying to do is little better than theft. They are a complete imposition. If you think they offer value, no problem but it should not be compulsory. Don't pay!
  12. Actually this government
    has said publicly that it is committed to the idea of a licence to
    practice in industry to drive up standards. Just because schoolies are
    being forced to become nothing more than civil servants there is no
    reason why we should want to be the same - can FE teachers really want
    that?There is something everyone is missing. If IfL achieves the
    recognition of QTLS in schools (and it seems to be far closer than UCU
    has ever got with its cracked record on pay) surely the unions then
    have, for the first time, a real lever for terms and conditions. I
    think people on here need to get there heads out of the knee-jerk sand
    (or other dark holes) they have shoved them in and think about the long
    term consequences. Trouble is, it will be the same old union lags who
    have resisted teachers even needing a teaching qualification (yes we
    still have some pre-2001ers in our place proud that they aren't
    qualified) that complain about IfL. Professional is as professional
    Surely if there are regulations and
    professional criteria covering FE teaching, then it is difficult for
    colleges to employ any old numpty as a 'teacher'. Or do unions really
    want colleges to sack all their teachers because they are no longer
    required to employ them by regulation. Seems to me to be a case of be
    very careful what you wish for.
    I'm sure Turkeys wouldn't vote in
    favour of Christmas, but if they won the day all they would achieve is a
    much swifter visit to the slaughter-house when they became surplus to
    requirements. Think on colleagues, think on!

Share This Page