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 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

Discussion in 'Further Education' started by carbon footprint, Sep 4, 2007.

  1. Anyone joined yet?

    I did, Sunday morning - dead easy, was expecting a lot of fuss, surprised or what.

    What happens next?
     
  2. Anyone joined yet?

    I did, Sunday morning - dead easy, was expecting a lot of fuss, surprised or what.

    What happens next?
     
  3. Shifter

    Shifter New commenter

    I joined - got the paperwork back - and, er, **** knows
     
  4. hello

    i made it through ok too
    nothing like the gtc system as it all seemed very friendly
    just sit back an wait now i gues
     
  5. All very straightforward. I don't feel any different though...
     
  6. I've submitted the on-line forms and had a 'provisional grade' by e-mail. How long does it take to get confirmation? Does it arrive by post or e-mail?
     
  7. Shifter

    Shifter New commenter

  8. We all did it today! All felt very proud of ourselves.

    Apparently, you have to start putting together a Portfolio of CPD or somesuch which is linked somehow to IfL. Well, that's what we were told today anyway. Not that the College is quite sure about it apparently but just thought I would pass it on.
     
  9. You all would be better off joining the Institute of educational assessors which has now been awarded chartered status. Remember you read it here first.
     
  10. jacob

    jacob Lead commenter

    What you have not perhaps noticed is that this is the GTC for FE. You may not have to pay now, but you will in future. Are the Colleges going to pay the registration for us? I think not. What happens if you refuse to join? Probably sacked. Its more bloody ridiculous fascism designed to de-professionalise us, although we are already not "professional". I note the parliamentary stuff sneaked through in a quiet period in the summer with a very short implementation period. Look at all the whingeing about the GTC on other threads, don't expect IFL ****** to be any better or of any use.

    Bend over and bare your bottoms people, you are about to be shafted!
     
  11. Well there you go then. Once more into the breach and all that!
     
  12. i don't understand your points jacob
    can you please try and help me understand what you are saying, perhaps by being a little less offensive

    you say we have to pay in the future but i thought that the gov had said it was going to meet the costs of registering with the ifl

    where have you read that they will not as this is news to me, can you provide a link

    and what's all this as being the same as the gtc, school teachers don't pay do they, they get the money back in their salaries

    i am quite excited about the thought of having to do cpd, this again is different to the gtc, by having to do cpd our employers will have to consider resources, won't they? this could be just the thing we need make the sector nore professional not less

    why don't you give it a chance and stop whingeing right from the start, or are you one of those miserable types who can't see the positives in anything

    i'm going to give the ifl a chance, they seem little like the gtc to me, i was at one of their conferences in the summer in leeds and i thought they had it just about right and the guy who did the presentation was one of the most knowledgeable people about teaching i have ever met - i can't believe things will go that wrong all the time teachers run the ifl
     
  13. jacob

    jacob Lead commenter

    When the GTC was set up, most teachers opposed it, but it was still imposed on them. This is the same; draconian and insidious. The GTC appears to only be used as a dsiciplinary body. If you read this site you should be aware of the opposition tothe GTC. Teachers pay 30 quid a year which they may "supposedly" get in their pay, but supply teachers do not, and agency staff for FE will not. We are being forced to join a body, the legislation for which has been sneaked through Parliament, without consultation. You were given a period of consulatation about pension changes, why not this? It is eroding your rights, and placing control over you in the hands of an unelected quango, for which you have to pay. Whither democracy? You have, and have had by law, CPD in your job for years. This was set up in one of the AoC pay settlements some years ago. If your College does not stick to it that is up to your Union branch in your College. My points are; that it (IfL) is not necessary, that (assuming the GTC model) it will not actually HELP anyone in their job, it will trump up disciplinary charges against people which would have no standing in Law (having seen the GTC model). It is yet another erosion of independence telling me what to do, not allowing me to think for myself.

    To me this is like the IAM (Institute of Advanced Motorists) going to the Government and lobbying for membership, and persuading the Government that everyone should be a member of the IAM, by a certain date or they will lose their driving licence.

    Incidentally, you might find your use of the English language needs to improve in your dealings with the IfL.
     
  14. jacob

    jacob Lead commenter

    If you look at the "consultation" on their "Code of Conduct" on the website, if you can find it, you will see how vague and badly thought out the whole thing is. They are asking you to abide by undefined rules, as a member of an organisation that you are forced to join.
     
  15. just what's wrong with my use of language? perhaps i would take more notice of you if your message wasn't full of spelling mistakes

    the legislation wasn't sneaked through parliament, in fact as far as i remember being told there is no legislation required for this as it is a part of the existing education act, so your your facts seem to be as accurate as you are pessimistic, perhaps you should get things like that right before making yourself look stupid in print, i'm sue i am right about this, there has been no change to any legislation

    and isn't the body that runs the ifl elected? how can you say it is unelected? i think you are just making it up as you go along because you are a negative person, maybe you are scared that your teaching isn't up to scratch

    for someone who likes to think for themself you get a lot of things wrong, perhaps you are better off not being allowed to think for yourself in case you hurt yourself

    i thought the code of conduct thing was ok actually, all made sense to me
     
  16. Amanda the sentiments Jacob expresses have some currency if you have, as I have, seen the changes imposed on FE staff over the past 10 years.

    The Ifl could not muster support when it was a purely voluntary organization I believe its membership was just shy of 850. That to me is testament to the fact that FE could not see the relevancy and the personal usefulness to them of this body; and I do not think that they saw it as a body that would represent their interests.

    Will it professionalise FE maybe, will it serve its members perhaps, will it increase prestige and pay unlikely, will it create more red tape and quasi-regulation you had better believe it.
     
  17. jacob

    jacob Lead commenter

    I don't see why you have to attack me personally, Amanda. But you obviously can't read either, if you are willing to accept such vague language in supposed rules. Try dowloading the information on the site, as I suggested, and read them. You are happy with the "statutory instrument" dated 27 July 2007? Ok.

    "Page 4: Behaviour 1: Professional Integrity. The members shall; 1. meet their professional responsibilities consistent withthe Institute's Professional values; ...."

    Page 9 "1. Professional Values. Behaviour 1 (Professional Integrity) requires you to adhere to the Institute's Professional Values. These are still being developed by the Counciland will be based upon the notion of...."

    i.e completely vague, and not a consultation. How can you be consulted on something that is not defined? That is just the first example. I am not going to spell the rest out. Part of your "professionalism" is supposed to be beingable to read stuff.

    As has been said before; we are not "professionals" anyway, mere employees.
     
  18. jacob

    jacob Lead commenter

    Hush ma keyboard! Ther might be a spulling mustique in there!
     
  19. I've been a member for a year or so, my membership number is in excess of 1500, so the 850 that one poster cites must be viewed with caution, if not scepticism.

    Can I ask why anyone would hold the view that teaching should be beyond regulation - we draw heavily on the public purse, are responsible for helping learners achieve their goals and work in a sector where professionalism has been eroded over time.

    For me this is well overdue, and I pity the few who view it from a negative perspective.
     
  20. jacob

    jacob Lead commenter

    I am not against regulation, however, I strongly oppose imposed uniformity, stifling regulation, and suppression of innovation and invention. The GTC and Ofsted have done all these to teaching, the IfL is set up in exactly the same way.

    As to the rules with no boundaries, its like being stopped by the police in your car and waiting forthemto invent a law that you may have broken.

    I am incensed by the society we have developed in the "nanny knows best" era, where so many people are stupid enough to believe that the DfEE and the government actually know what they are doing. I'll come back when it all gets like the GTC and say I told you so.
     

Share This Page