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

Professionalism in FE - Interim Report

Discussion in 'Further Education' started by Paul HB, Apr 6, 2012.

  1. *
    * What do people think of the recommendations ?

    * If implemented will they enhance or make worse the current situation ?

    * Would you like to ask for advice from a 'professional' if they do not need any training and education ?

    * see also 'Qualifications should be required for FE teachers:

    * http://www.ascl.org.uk/opinion/press_releases_home

    * see also Professional trainers are essential for high-quality apprenticeships

    * http://www.ifl.ac.uk/newsandevents/press-releases/professional-trainers-are-essential-for-high-quality-apprenticeships

  2. Well Paul, it seems to be, as always really about Money.
    Money for education is always the bottom line. From HE to FE to Schools and back. Coming, going, flowing like water. all having, sharing and having again.
    Money is never the bottom line - it is an illusion- never gained or lost, simply transferred from one person's reality to another.
    Fairy stories such as this are the nursery tales of parliament.
    FE privatisation - Apprenticeship - inspection - QTLS/QTS parity - these are all designed to disguise the real issue at hand...where did all the money go? Who benefits and why?
  3. In light of the above post, Paul, I take back my criticism of your OP! At least it was useful(ish)
    barneyboy, are you back tracking? Your other posts all espouse IfL as a wunderkind sent to save us!
    Weird as usual!
  4. No backtracking at all. Just asking legitimate questions... where has all the money gone? Why should FE lecturers be less professional or get paid less than schoolteachers?
    How do you justify that?
    That is what QTLS was for.
  5. To help pay off the national deficit.
    No reason at all.
    No one does.
    Then it has failed misrably in its objectives.
  6. jacob

    jacob Lead commenter

    Is it just me or does this guy write gibberish?
  7. Nope. Not just you jacob.
  8. Not gibberish. Follow the logic.The 2007 regulations were about throwing money at the problem of professionalising the FE workforce. Money is now gone - regs gone - soon professionalism will go too. Money is never the problem or the answer. Winning hearts and minds - that is the solution.
  9. Whose hearts and whose minds? How do you propose that this be achieved?
  10. Wow. Always the unbeliever, the sceptic aren't you Cos?
  11. It was a simple question barney. Whose hearts and minds were you referring to? Nothing unbelieving or sceptic there.
    If you make statements you should be prepared to back them up.
  12. The hearts and minds of the teaching staff, the managers, the learners. EVERYONE.
  13. Ok - we're making progress. Now, how do you propose that this be achieved?
  14. Look here redrag. It is all very well giving us a perfectly sound argument but really!! Did you have steal that learning opportunity from barneyboy? He'll never learn if we all keep on giving him the answers!
  15. jacob

    jacob Lead commenter

    We were "professional" pre-IfL, we did not stop being "professional" with IfL, and we are still "professional" post-IfL.
    At least all "proper" Colleges were because you had to prove to get the job, or do it in-house, and you had to CPD anyway. Nothing changed with IfL except we got a few more useless e-mails.
  16. What exactly is a "professional" in your opinion, Jacob? If you are now, always have been and always will be that state, what good was your training then, whatever it was? How was it shown to be of a quality standard - or is that just a matter of opinion - like any fashionable trend, here today , gone tomorrow?
  17. The key issue is not about IfL. It is the proposal that teachers in FE do not in future need to have any teaching qualifications at all. This will take us back to before 2001 and wil mean a totally de-regulated workforce.
  18. Well, I think it is a little more complicated than this. There is, for example, a suggestion that Ofsted monitors the qualifications of FE lecturers both in teaching and their professional area and also establishes whether there is any direct link between teaching qualification and teaching observation grade. It is early days yet, though, and there will be a further report on all these matters later in the year. As far as I understand, there is now a formal consultation in motion to canvas views about the revocation of FE workforce regulations.
    In any event, the assumption behind the argument you make - that there is a direct link between statutory enforcement of teaching qualification and CPD and improved practice - has not proved to be the case. Ofsted has "confirmed that no sound causal link can be made....."
    I have no figures for the numbers of staff without teaching qualifications in FE that existed before 2007 but the idea that it was a 'totally de-regulated workforce' (by which I assume you mean that no one had professional qualifications) is nonsense and conveys the impression that everything was dreadful in FE before regulatory legislation. Clearly, staff cannot ever be trusted to perform honourably and effectively without the full force of the law and a regulatory body. As the report points out, the idea that FE staff need special measures to assure professionalism is contradicted by the fact that many colleges have been "giving a good public service for a century or more."

    <font size="3"></font>
    <font size="3"></font>

  19. Rubbish, all rubbish. People generally do the minimum required and no more. Regulations are necessary to ensure quality. No one would have complained about IfL if they hadn't had to pay. Rubbish.
    Pre-regulation=no regulation=lower quality=less for learners.
    Math says it all.
  20. Another intriguing gnomic pronouncement, Mr or Ms B!

Share This Page