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

Institute for Learning - A Tribute

Discussion in 'Further Education' started by Mistermandolin, Jun 9, 2010.

  1. @cardoon - I welcome your input, "new" or not. The IfL developed from a vision for the FE sector - a member body "led by the members for the members." You have no voice in the IfL (none of us do). We are irrelevant & unvalued.
    The tiny minority of IfL people who have annexed the body, the cabal in control, clearly feel their "heroic leadership" benefits us all, and they fundamentally regard ordinary lecturers as being unprofessional, & in need of their "enlightened" reform.
    They fail to listen to the people democratically elected to represent us; they believe disenfranchising IfL members from the election of key roles like Chair & President is acceptable.
    They must be expelled.
     
  2. Thank you for this, Institutionalised. I posted first on this thread about a year ago so rather consider myself an old hand now. Nevertheless, your welcome is much appreciated.
    Yes, indeed. I had deduced that this was the case some time ago but I thank you for clearing the matter up in case there was any risk of my misunderstanding the situation.
    Have they annexed the body? I assume you mean the executive leaders who were appointed to the role. Can appointees annex a private company? I'm not sure they can. They are salaried staff appointed to do a job, with elected members and assorted stakeholders in place to oversee their performance. If anything, it looks as though it is the weakness of the governance arrangements which is responsible for the current situation, not the executives themselves. They're just doing what they've been appointed to do - run a professional body, concentrate on professional development, talk the talk, meet with important people, influence policy, schmooze and flooze, wheel and deal, and all the rest of it. If they're doing a bad job then under the current governance structure I would expect that it is up to our 'representatives' to bring them to account.
    Do they regard lecturers as being unprofessional and that we need their "enlightened" reform? I do not know them personally so I have no idea whether this is true. They do argue that we need professional development. So do the unions. So do college principals. So do governments. You can't blame them for arguing for something that seems to be universally agreed by just about everyone, nor for arguing for the thing that they were commissioned by the government to promote.
    I have no idea whether they fail to listen to the people democratically elected to represent us as I have seen no record of any of the meetings they have had with them. For all I know, they have been instructed by the advisory council to do all the things they have done. Unless you've got minutes of these meetings, I don't think see how you can make such a claim.
    I am no friend of the IfL but I do like to see an argument conducted fairly. My position is pretty straightforward: I have never seen the point of a professional body for the sector. If one can't see the point of something, then one can't see the point of arguments for its reform. I'm not at all interested in expelling anyone. I just want everyone not to pay and for the whole thing to go away.
    The IfL's prime reason for existence is to oversee the declarations of its members' professional development. Every single one of us knows that the current arrangements guarantee absolutely nothing about professional development and its quality. For that reason, and that reason alone, the IfL should be dismantled. It is an expensive agency that adds no significant value to the sector.
     
  3. Which ones, Institutionalised? Have you time to address them now?
    What is your take on professionalism?
    Why would you ever have expected such, Institionalised?
     

Share This Page