Hi Sue (Sue is the helpful person I referred to) et al
One very big issue is the way in which this was sprung on most of us--I
certainly wasn't aware of any consultation process, or perhaps that is
because I was in ACL. The sense of a sudden imposition, whether accurate or
not, did not generate good will. I daresay any blame for this could be
spread quite widely.
The second issue, certainly in ACL so far as I know, is that there doesn't
seem to have been much obligation placed on employers to have any kind of
effective CPD process or structure. I never had a discussion regarding needs
I had identified or that anyone else had identified. The burden appeared to
fall almost entirely on teachers to identify their own needs and somehow
find an affordable way to meet them. The CPD provided by my employers was
not, on the whole, in accordance with my needs nor with what you and others
said it should be. Nor did I get paid time to attend, never mind any
financial subsidy. It almost seemed that giving teachers a time requirement
shifted the obligation from employers to teachers, although I am sure this
was never the intention. Perhaps my experience was exceptionally bad, and
perhaps I had an exceptionally poor employer, but I have heard similar
experiences from others, particularly others who are sessional or at the
lower end of part time.
I would like to have seen a professional body putting pressure on employers
and on government to support CPD through opportunities to determine needs
and support in terms of time and finance for teachers to obtain it--an
entitlement, as much as an obligation. Yes, a lot can be obtained free
through libraries and the internet, but how do you find something
appropriate? It takes hours of searching. Teachers working in isolated
circumstances, or in the diffuse structures of so much ACL are very likely
to need CPD, but not likely to have support in getting it. These teachers
also tend to be less than well paid.
The cost of continuing to teach, with IfL fees being only one small element
of that, was one of the reasons I decided to take voluntary redundancy.
Regards
Cheryl Thornett
Birmingham
-----Original Message-----
From: Sue Colquhoun
Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2012 2:01 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Geoff Petty's IfL letter
Hi James et al
Apologies for this late intervention, but I’ve only just returned from leave
and read the comments on the IfL and Geoff Petty’s letter with interest and
as I work at the IfL, I thought I’d try to provide a little background about
where we are.
For the record, I was an ESOL teacher and teacher educator and have been a
long standing member of NATECLA, previously actively engaged in my local
branch, South Thames and currently on the Language Issues Editorial Board, a
trustee of NATECLA’s charity, the Ruth Hayman Trust as well as a committed
union member, so there is much of what has been said that resonates.
Here’s some background history which might help to put things in context –
late 1980’s & early 1990s – there was a well organised campaign involving
trade unions, academics, LEA reps who sought the establishment of a General
Teaching Council for all teachers by Act of Parliament and NATFHE, now UCU,
was anticipating the inclusion of FE teachers, but in 1997 when the GTC was
established, it did not include FE teachers, only those in schools and the
government agreed to pay their fees.
In order to form a professional body for FE teachers, IfL was set up with
union support as a voluntary independent body in 2002 and then following the
publication of ‘Equipping our Teachers’, Ofsted (2004) and further
consultation it became a fully established independent professional body
involved the workforce professionalisation agenda and it was later given
responsibility through the Regulations of September 2007 to ensure the
registration of all teachers in the FE and skills sector – initially only
including those in FE colleges, but then extended to a wider range of
institutions, including ACL, WBL, emergency and public services, armed
services, voluntary sector and those in 6th form colleges were given the
option of choosing either GTC or IfL. Membership went from 1000 to over
180,000 within a year and while the GTC was given a few years in which to
secure its infrastructure, this rapid increase in members was literally
overnight for the IfL which went from a staff of 3 to about 15 or 20, trying
to manage and support this increased membership.
In addition to the registration of teachers working in publicly funded
provision (LSC at the time), members were required by law to complete annual
CPD, up to a maximum of 30 hours and reducing pro rata to 6 hours per year
and for all those teachers new to the sector following the Regulations of
September 2007, there was a legal requirement for them to become qualified
as teachers. Teaching qualifications were endorsed against the LLUK
Professional Standards and approved by SVUK (both bodies which have now been
discontinued by the government, although many of their functions have been
re-allocated). Newly qualified teachers were also required to gain
Qualified Teacher Status Learning and Skills (QTLS) within 5 years of their
first teaching appointment in the sector and those pre- 2007 were not
required to undertake this, although they could choose to do so as part, or
all, of their CPD as a demonstration of their professional status.
Interestingly, it is Professional Formation which is the process through
which members need to proceed in order to gain QTLS that has provided the
vehicle for securing something which we have all campaigned for, for years
and that is parity of recognition between teachers in schools and those in
FE as since the publication of the Wolf Report (March 2011) into vocational
education, Gove has agreed that FE trained teachers with QTLS should be
recognised as equivalent to teachers with QTS in schools. Consultation on
revising the school teachers’ regulations closed in December last year and
officials in the DfE are working towards embedding this in the legislation
by April 2012 so that these FE trained teachers with QTLS will be able to
able to teach in schools across all subjects, ages and on equal pay and
conditions. While many people in our sector may not be interested in doing
this, I believe it is a huge achievement for which we at the IfL have worked
really hard and is part of enhancing and raising the status of FE teachers
as professionals and securing their recognition as such. It may also have
future repercussions on the pay disparity between teachers in schools and FE
further down the line and it opens opportunities for teaching across the
sectors which should be good for everyone.
Regulations have always been contentious and perhaps a double-edged sword,
providing conflicts between what is compulsory by law and the autonomy
inherent in a professional body and support for professional development.
There were similar parallels with the introduction of the ESOL Core
Curriculum which I was involved in delivering training on its implementation
across the country with ESOL colleagues through the aegis of LLU, London
Southbank University at the same time (before I joined the IfL and which I
didn’t appreciate at the time, was a good preparation for what was to follow
for me!) The Regulations were aimed at reforming and professionalising the
workforce, which has always been wide-ranging and diverse, both its
strength and potential weakness, so perhaps well-intentioned but equally
controversial in compelling individuals to do something by law. This was
slightly softened by the agreement of the then DIUS to pay members’
subscription fees, but there was no guarantee in this being maintained.
There is some irony now that as part of its cost cutting, the government has
decided to close the GTC, but its functions will be absorbed into the
Department for Education, so that school teachers won’t have a professional
body, if the GTC could ever have been counted as a professional body, as its
main function seems to have been to provide a register of those with QTS,
licensed to teach in schools and to hear disciplinary cases, which might bar
teachers from practising and although for school teachers professional
development has always been an entitlement, it was sometimes an afterthought
and managed by the well funded Teachers Development Agency and/or the TLA.
With regard to Higher Education, ILTHE that was, has become HEA, but there
too is a gap, so that as things stand, only teachers in FE currently have
access to a professional body which raises huge questions about the way in
which education and teachers in our society may or may not be regarded as
professionals.
There were many comments on NATECLA’s contributions as a professional body
which cannot be denied, but its position has been developed and
consolidated over 30 years, while the IfL is only just approaching its 10th
anniversary and still has a long way to go and lots to learn which I believe
it is committed to doing. Apologies for this long, rambling email, if you’ve
got this far in reading through it all, but I hope that it might have helped
in understanding the bigger picture and the importance of professional
status in these challenging times. What I find positive and encouraging is
the space for critical debate that this discussion forum provides and long
may it continue.
Thanks so much for your patience and best wishes,
Sue
Sue Colquhoun
Head of Professional Status
Institute for Learning
First Floor, Can Mezzanine
49 – 51 East Road
London N1 6AH
Tel: 020 7250 8129
Mob: 07500 660 846
Institute for Learning
www.ifl.ac.uk
***********************************
ESOL-Research is a forum for researchers and practitioners with an interest
in research into teaching and learning ESOL. ESOL-Research is managed by
James Simpson at the Centre for Language Education Research, School of
Education, University of Leeds.
To join or leave ESOL-Research, visit
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/ESOL-RESEARCH.html
A quick guide to using Jiscmail lists can be found at:
http://jiscmail.ac.uk/help/using/quickuser.htm
To contact the list owner, send an email to
[log in to unmask]
***********************************
ESOL-Research is a forum for researchers and practitioners with an interest in research into teaching and learning ESOL. ESOL-Research is managed by James Simpson at the Centre for Language Education Research, School of Education, University of Leeds.
To join or leave ESOL-Research, visit
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/ESOL-RESEARCH.html
A quick guide to using Jiscmail lists can be found at:
http://jiscmail.ac.uk/help/using/quickuser.htm
To contact the list owner, send an email to
[log in to unmask]
|
