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

Performance measures in FE - should we have a greater say?

Discussion in 'Further Education' started by MichaelDaniels, May 24, 2011.

  1. Hello all,
    I want to get your opinion on something. Do you think the government should give education practitioners more involvement when it comes to the design and development of performance measuring systems in FE?
  2. Who does the design and development of performance measuring systems at the moment?
  3. Isn't it our dear IfL that measures FE performance? It has a staggeringly simple criterion, applicable in all FE situations: if you've paid the IfL £ 68, you're a brilliant teacher. If you haven't, you're not fit to work in the profession and if the IfL has anything to do with it, you'll be drummed out. Unless, that is, you work fewer than 28 hours per year, in which case you are assumed to be professionally competent for nothing.
  4. The measurement of FE performance is completely out of the hands of the IfL and it is not really fair to lay this one on their doorstep.
    Performance indicators in FE, as in other parts of the sector, focus around such things as attendance, retention, learner achievement, quality of teaching and learning, leadership and management, student satisfaction, financial management and so on. It is perfectly reasonable to expect that publicly-funded institutions are accountable on these sorts of matters.
    The levels of qualification of an organisation's staff might also be one of the features that tend to predict quality of outcome. That is why modern governments have tried to establish public sector professional development programmes for their workforce. But they have also had to come up with ways to regulate and manage this drive towards qualification and CPD. The solution the previous government came up with in the FE sector was to entrust the regulation of qualifications and professional development to the IfL; it enforced IfL membership and declaration of CPD to the IfL as its regulating agency . The current government clearly shares the view of its predecessor on this matter.
    I'm no fan of the IfL but it is important not to blame it for things that are outside its remit. It is funding agencies, inspectors and the organisations themselves that measure performance.


Share This Page