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. Lee Davies, as you would expect, has an interesting analysis of the review on his blog. I have used it with both 1st and 2nd year PGCE students looking at contemporary issues in further education. Importantly he takes a longer term look at the road to professional status and the crushing consequences of the review being implemented in full. If only we could have an adult debate on the real issues rather than petty name calling and sparring we might come close to realising what we are about to lose and how long we fought for it.
    And before you start on me, I appreciate there are many on here who wouldn't put IfL out if it was on fire, but there are others who campaigned long and hard through the 80s and the 90s for an enhanced sense of professional status for FE and it is devestating to see the debate reduced like an over-cooked sauce through excessive simmering on the back-burner of rank bitterness.
    <u>http://lee-davies.co.uk/2012/04/01/bis-review-of-professionalism-fe-teaching-a-profession-in-crisis/ </u>
     
  2. It's just such a shame that the IfL squandered this effort, and the golden opportunity it was given by the 2007 regs.
    I'm certainly not one of those who thinks that everything was rosy in FE before the requirement to hold a teaching qualification (I was an FE student; and I know how bad, and unprofessional, some teaching was).
    Regrettably I think we are caught in a larger political agenda to de-regulate all teaching, and unfortunatly the IfL has provided our common enemy with much of its ammunition.
     
  3. jacob

    jacob Lead commenter

    In using "professional" in the way IfL meant it, which does not accord with other definitions of "professional", nor mine, but, get this, THEIR definition of "professional", which was also the requirement to do the job, I fulfil those criteria, and did so to get the job, long before some scammer saw a way to screw money out of the government of the time. Thus by their definitions, I was, remained and am still "professional".
    As to my actual quals, it has nothing to do with you.
     
  4. I'm certainly not one of those who thinks that everything was rosy in FE before the requirement to hold a teaching qualification (I was an FE student; and I know how bad, and unprofessional, some teaching was).
    On the other hand, it wasn't all bad either. Many of those unqualified teachers were there to teach a skill - construction, plumbing, agriculture etc and did it very well. Their attitude was that the students were there to learn; they didn't waste time spoon feeding or "understanding" them. It more closely resembled the conditions the students would face in the workplace - work or you're out - and that was to the good.
    Once it all became student led and activities designed to make them rounder students and the notion that noone was allowed to fail crept in, less time was given over to the practical nature of the course and students gradually lost the notion that they had to put in the effort themselves. Employers began to notice that the youngsters didn't have the level of skills they expected and ,although they might hold a qualification, they were in fact unemployable -both in skills and attitude to work.
    Obviously, this isn't applicable throughout FE; it covers a vast array of subjects, but obliging every lecturer to hold a teaching qualification didn't always improve standards.
     
  5. Ah Jacob, that last comment is the telling one! That one comment takes everything from your more rational arguements. It is as silly and pretentious as the ironic ones I have been trying to sarcastically make like "I represent all teachers for all subjects everywhere."
    Professional is not a state of mind, it is an attitude and a behaviour and a philosophy, but one you have to prove to have. It is not assumed. One way to prove it is with quals, but it is not axiomatic.

     
  6. Thanks for the pointer, teachered. He states it well and it is well worth the read.
     
  7. jacob

    jacob Lead commenter

    You really are an ignorant, unintelligent, disigenuous to$$er aren't you barneybonce. You cannot even argue with any degree of reason, even your own warped version. Are you autismuk under another name?
    What you have written is complete and utter nonsense. You do not seem to understand that the definition of "professional" which IfL used was not in any sense of the word correct. You also nitpick, and are far too stupid to realise that THIS IS A PUBLIC FORUM, IT IS WATCHED BY OFFICIALS, AND THEY CAN FIND OUT WHO YOU ARE IF THEY WANT TO. Therefore TES themselves advise you not to give away any personal information. How dense are you? Do not expect me to reply to any of your questions because you do not want to read anything remotely near the truth are any sane person's argument.
     
  8. jacob

    jacob Lead commenter

    You must be a woman. Any man knows that something said over a week previously is inadmissible.
    Apart from which, completely different context.
     
  9. Georgia99

    Georgia99 New commenter

    Professions are regulated. If you are a Physiotherapist or Occupational Therapist then you must be registered with the HPC, a doctor with the GMC, a teacher the GTC (since closing it is now the DFE). Why should professionals in the lifelong learning sector not be regulated? If this is the case then you cannot call them professionals and stating that teaching qualifications are no longer required to work in FE is ludicrous. Government legislation since 1 April states that those with QTLS can apply for school positions on the same basis as those with QTS but they must be registered with the IFL. It may not be compulsory to be a member but to work in a school it will be.
    What message does this give? That schools have higher standards but to work in FE you don't have to have any formal training or regulation? The FE sector have been fighting hard for the same pay and conditions as school teachers but seem willing to accept themselves as the school teacher's 'poor cousin'. The replies from some FE 'professionals' on this thread give the rest of the sector a bad name.
     
  10. jacob

    jacob Lead commenter

    If you trawl the boards, which you are obviously expert at, you will find the "professionalism" discussion was very throughly and heavily discussed. I put my two pennorth in then, go find.
     
  11. From TES forum 09/09/10 What is a Professional?
    jacob:
    Just in case you think having a job in FE and being a member of the IfL makes you a "professional", it doesn't.
    Cardoon :
    An
    interesting reply, jacob. You must have a clear idea of what a
    professional is, if you are clear that being a member of the IfL does
    not make you one. Could you expand?

    But, Jacob - you never did. Read the whole thing. You are not serious at all. You just slag people off and when you get cornered, often make some snide remark (usually a little misogynistic). If you are going to criticise the IfL for not really promoting professionalism, then explain your position, man.
    If you are as smart as you think you are, try to define the word professional, and do something useful with your words for a change.

     
  12. I guess this wasn't the best choice of threads to start posting on 'TES' (having seen the above tit-for-tat). Is it always like this?
     
  13. Only for the threads which deal with matters relating to professionalism and the IfL. I wonder why?
     
  14. No the common thread is Jacob's response not the IfL. Sorry, can't let that go.
     
  15. jacob

    jacob Lead commenter

    So you thought you would quote me out of context.
    Just f*** off! Grow up. When does your IfL salary stop?
     
  16. I would rather have a serious discussion about your definition of professionalim. (Or anyone else's). Why won't you, or anyone else do that? It seems to be easier for you to bash the IfL than be serious. You have not offered an alternative definition.
     
  17. jacob

    jacob Lead commenter

    As stated, this was heavily discussed previously, and Mr Spy has shown how adept he is at trawling threads. IfL failed to deliver, was completely undemocratic, denied its members a voice, was completely ineffectual, and gave its executives huge salaries for doing nothing. The one publication I received from IfL was badly worded, badly spelt and irrelevant.
    In a nutshell Doctors are professional, as are Pharmacists, because of their self regulating groups, with membership and all the things that IfL promised, but did not deliver. The "professional bodies" are also democratic. Just because someone does a job, it does not make them a "professional".
    Is this enough now?
     
  18. Doctors are not self-regulated.
    Pharmacists have lost the regulatory function of their professional body, the regulator is now controlled directly by government.
    IfL 'executives' are paid at a rate commensurate with other professional bodies and at the lower end of the benchmarking scale.
    Professional bodies have many different forms of democracy, the IfL governance model mirrored this practice.
    Apart from that, you got everything right.
     
  19. Hi Teachered, I meant that if you strictly apply Downies 6 standards, then no profession is a profession because non are independent (then again, I guess it depends on your understanding of the word 'independent') G
     
  20. This discussion thread is becoming quite diluted and tiresome. Yawn. Does no one have a new perspective to contribute?
     

Share This Page