Institute for Learning: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
m Reverted unexplained removal of content (HG) |
←Blanked the page |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{primary sources|date=November 2008}} |
|||
[[Image:ifl top.jpg|right|250px|thumb|the Institute for Learning]] |
|||
The '''Institute for Learning''' is the mandatory [[professional body]] for teachers, trainers, tutors, lecturers, assessors, etc (collectively referred to as ''teachers'') working in the [[further education]] and skills sector in England and in other adult learning settings including private and in-house training provision. |
|||
==History== |
|||
The Institute is a private company limited by guarantee, incorporated in 2002{{Citation needed|date=March 2011}}. The Prime Report ([[Learning and Skills Development Agency|Further Education Development Agency]] (FEDA), 1995) was a key milestone in the creation of the Institute, leading in 1996 to the establishment of the Staff Development Forum for Further Education (FESDF). The forum comprised a wide range of UK representatives including the [[Association of Colleges]] (AoC), the [[National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education]] (NATFHE), the Association of College Principals (ACP), the [[Further Education Funding Council for England]] (FEFC) and the [[Department for Education and Skills (United Kingdom)|Department for Education and Skills]] (DfES); with staff from FEDA acting as the [[wikt:secretariat|secretariat]] and project managing the development of national teaching standards for further education. {{Citation needed|date=March 2011}} |
|||
In 1997, Lucas and Betts (et al.) in “Policy and Management Issues for Incorporated Colleges” ([[Institute of Education]]) noted that although FEDA had established the Staff Development Forum for FE, it was a member-led professional body that was needed to develop a framework of professional development in the sector. In the event, the newly elected Labour government accepted the findings of the [[Dearing Report]] into Higher Education, leading to the creation of the [[Institute for Learning and Teaching in Higher Education]] (ILTHE) and indicated that the [[General Teaching Council]] (GTC) for England, which had been a manifesto commitment, would be established.{{Citation needed|date=March 2011}} |
|||
In 1999, within a backdrop of growing concern from teachers in further education about a sense of de-professionalising the sector{{Citation needed|date=March 2011}}, the FESDF became the Further Education National Training Organisation (FENTO). One of the FESDF’s proposed objectives for FENTO was the need to give consideration to the role that a professional body for further education could play in the professionalisation agenda; this become one of FENTO’s key strategic objectives. In 2000, three research studies{{Citation needed|date=March 2011}} were carried into the feasibility of creating a professional body for further education, two commissioned by FENTO and one a contemporary piece of academic research. Effectively, each was an exercise in market research and, based in sample sizes in the low thousands, the outcomes were consistent – two-thirds of staff surveyed were in support, 30% wanted to ‘wait and see’ and less than 10% were opposed.{{Citation needed|date=March 2011}} |
|||
In 2001 a business plan was established by the FENTO Council{{Citation needed|date=March 2011}} and a name was chosen, the Institute for Learning (FE) – to be comparable with the ILT (HE) as one of its important interfaces. At this point the government amplified the focus on the professionalism of further education teachers with regulations requiring all new teachers to hold a recognised teaching qualification, based on the new FENTO standards, with a target of a fully qualified workforce by 2010.{{Citation needed|date=March 2011}} Early 2002 the Institute for Learning was incorporated, the Memorandum and Articles of Association were signed by founder members Pauline Lovell and Derek Betts, a Transitional Council was formed and the process of attracting a ‘volunteer’ paying membership began.{{Citation needed|date=March 2011}} |
|||
In November 2004 the Institute for Learning’s prospects of becoming a fully established professional body alongside the GTC(E) and the [[Higher Education Academy]] (HEA, formerly the ILTHE) were given a significant boost with the publication of the key DfES policy document, ‘Equipping our Teachers for the Future’.<ref>{{cite web |
|||
| url = http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/furthereducation/uploads/documents/equippingourteachersforthefuture-115-161.pdf |
|||
| title= Equipping our teachers for the future |
|||
| accessdate= 2009-04-17 |
|||
|date=2004-02-01 |
|||
| work= DfES |
|||
| docname= Reforming Initial Teacher Training for the Learning and Skills Sector |
|||
| publisher= DfES/Crown Publishers |
|||
}}</ref> For the Institute for Learning, with a growing membership in the low thousands, section 4.7 of the document came to represent a key turning-point: |
|||
<blockquote>The active involvement of the leading professionals in the sector is crucial to the effective management of the reforms. We want the Institute (for Learning) to have an influential voice as the professional body representing teachers in the sector, and to play a central role in the reform of initial teacher training.</blockquote> |
|||
With one critical modification, the extension of the registration and CPD elements to all teachers in the sector and not just new entrants, ‘Equipping our Teachers’ has been introduced more-or-less as projected. The Institute for Learning is afforded responsibilities in the Further Education Teachers’ Qualifications (England) Regulations 2007<ref>[http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2007/uksi_20072264_en_1 The Further Education Teachers’ Qualifications (England) Regulations 2007 (SI 2007 No.2264)]</ref> |
|||
and the Further Education Teachers’ Continuing Professional Development and Registration (England) Regulations 2007<ref>[http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2007/uksi_20072116_en_1 The Further Education Teachers’ Continuing Professional Development and Registration (England) Regulations 2007 (SI 2007 No.2116)]</ref> |
|||
governing the registration, professional formation and remaining in good standing through CPD of teachers in further education. The requirements of the regulations have been extended to learning providers funded by the Learning and Skills Council (LSC) through the terms of their 2007/08 locally negotiated contracts.{{Citation needed|date=March 2011}} |
|||
In 2010 an enlarged Advisory Council was elected consisting of 45 Member representatives, 15 partner organisation representatives and 5 observers. From that a Non-executive Board was elected consisting of 9 member representatives, 3 partner reps and potentially 3 Expert Directors. All communication with members of this governance board is directed via a single company secretary.<ref>http://www.ifl.ac.uk/about-ifl/ifl-council</ref> |
|||
The first Chief executive Toni Fazaeli was appointed in June 2008. The First President of the Institute For Learning, John Chorley was elected in August 2010. |
|||
==Controversies == |
|||
===Intimidatory Practices and Policies=== |
|||
Chief among the controversies around the IFL is that it has been accused, on a number of counts, of being intimidatory towards its members. One area of this involved the methods employed in compelling members to join. <ref>[http://www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx?storycode=6028096 TES:FE staff ordered to pay up for compulsory membership of IfL]</ref> <ref>[http://www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx?storycode=6005757 Bullied into IfL membership?]</ref> Another related to threats over non-compliance with CPD logging guidelines.<ref>[http://www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx?storycode=6025157 TES:Declare CPD or Lose License]</ref><ref>[http://www.ifl.ac.uk/about-ifl/ifl-council/members-elect-new-ifl-advisory-council/stuart-emmerson Stuart Emmerson IFL Member Council Pledge]</ref> |
|||
Most recent of the controversial moves by IFL advocates is to attempt to shut down social networking discussion by members who voiced opposition to these practices. <ref>[http://www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx?storycode=6069953 TES:Lecturers may boycott IfL in fee backlash] Comments refer to Facebook discussion shutdown</ref> The IFL states in much of its literature that it is representative of its membership. However it has been criticised for stifling freedom of expression through having, within its code of conduct, a non-criticism clause: |
|||
"Members shall uphold the standing and reputation of the Institute and not knowingly undermine or misrepresent its views, nor their Institute membership"<ref>[http://www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx?storycode=6003013 TES:Feeling railroaded into membership? Join the club.]</ref> |
|||
===Proposed Abolition=== |
|||
In June 2010 a number of members of the IFL itself began to call for the body to be abolished.<ref>[http://www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx?storycode=6046337 Institute Attacked], TES Online, Retrieved 2011-02-26</ref> The issue arose due to the stated aim of [[Secretary of State for Education]] [[Michael Gove]] to abolish The [[General Teaching Council for England]]<ref>[http://www.gtce.org.uk/media_parliament/news_comment/gtcabolition0610/ GTC Press Release on government's announcement of closure,] 2 June 2010</ref> Sue Crowley, IFL Chair, defended the Institute claiming close partnership with a list of [[Trade Union]]s including The [[University and College Union]] (UCU).<ref>[http://www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx?storycode=6048061 Defence of IfL's distinctive role], TES Online, Retrieved 2011-02-26</ref> However, the IfL continue to publicise this close partnership despite the Further Education Sector conference at UCU's 2010 congress voting in support of the abolition of the IfL <ref>[http://www.ucu.org.uk/index.cfm?articleid=4653 Motion FE24 was carried without opposition in support of the abolition of the IfL] Business of the Further Education Sector Conference, UCU Congress 2010 Retrieved 06-03-2011 </ref>. In addition to the lack of confidence from the unions there remains widespread and vociferous opposition to the IfL at a grass-roots level amongst practitioners, who feel that it is unrepresentative and that it does not fulfil the role it claims to <ref>http://www.ucu.org.uk/index.cfm?articleid=5279&from=1676</ref>. |
|||
===Increase in Membership Fees=== |
|||
In February 2011 the IFL released information about becoming a self-governing and self-financing body.<ref>[http://www.ifl.ac.uk/membership/changes-to-membership IFL Changes to Membership statement ]Retrieved 2011-02-26</ref> This required mandatory membership and a rise in fees from £30 (government paid) to £68, as they are no longer supported by the Department for Education. Previously membership was free to the compulsory membership registration. The scale of the increase and the transfer of payment from government to individual lecturers caused controversy.<ref>[http://www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx?storycode=6070631 IfL's fee hike bid undermined as survey shows lack of confidence], TES Online, Retrieved 2011-02-26</ref> UCU expressed surprise that the IfL escaped [[David Cameron]]'s [[2010_UK_quango_reforms]] (AKA "Bonfire of The Quangos")<ref>[http://www.leftfootforward.org/2011/02/lecturers-up-in-arms-at-the-quango-that-escaped-the-bonfire/ Lecturers up in arms at the quango that escaped the bonfire], TES Online, Retrieved 2011-02-26</ref> and vehemently opposed the increase <ref>[http://www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx?storycode=6069953 Lecturers may boycott IfL in fee backlash], TES Online, Retrieved 2011-02-26</ref> including a petition by FE members.<ref>[http://www.ucu.org.uk/index.cfm?articleid=5276 Petition opposing the IfL fee increase] Retrieved 2011-02-26</ref> Additional opposition was raised on social networking sites<ref>[http://www.ucu.org.uk/5273 UCU hits out at compulsory fees for FE lecturers] Retrieved 2011-02-26</ref><ref>[http://www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx?storycode=6069959 Anger is less about fees than feelings], TES Online, Retrieved 2011-02-26</ref>. |
|||
The IFL have stated that if FE tutors do not pay then they will no longer be permitted to teach:<blockquote><p>Any individual resigning from membership or allowing membership to lapse by failing to pay a due subscription will lose the entitlement to hold QTLS or ATLS status and any other designation related to their membership grade and will not be able to be employed in a teaching or training role in a college covered by the regulations or learning provider in receipt of a Skills Funding Agency contract.<ref>[http://www.ifl.ac.uk/membership/questions-and-answers IFL Membership Q&A] Point 8. Retrieved 2011-02-26</ref></p></blockquote> |
|||
With a membership numbering over 200,000<ref>[http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/further/how-college-lecturers-are-keeping-up-by-training-one-another-at-work-2014815.html How college lecturers are keeping up by training one another at work], The Independent, July 1 2010 , Retrieved 2011-02-26</ref> the amount raised from this increase gave the IFL a projected budget of approximately £14,000,000 up from £5,100,000 in the previous year <ref>[http://www.ifl.ac.uk/newsandevents/latest/agm IFL AGM statement ]Retrieved 2011-02-26</ref> |
|||
===Polarised Debate and Opposition=== |
|||
The fees issue reignited debate about the IfL's role and alleged value for learners and teachers in FE and skills, including a petition calling for removal of the IfL's statutory registration status. As the IfL is a private limited company (registration no. 04346361) it is therefore exempt from the provisions of the [[Freedom of Information Act 2000]]. This lack of transparency is a prime cause of concern to those members who challenge the institute's role. (See External Links) |
|||
Much of the supportive commentary in the public domain stems from officials within the IFL in the form of opinion pieces in publications such as the [[Times Educational Supplement]] (TES). <ref>[http://www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx?storycode=6071851 TES Article from Sue Crowley, the Chair of the IfL]</ref> (TES) and FE News<ref>[http://www.fenews.co.uk/featured-article/a-licence-to-practise-in-fe-and-skills Toni Fazaeili places a press release in FE News]</ref> Statistics from the IfL's member survey are invoked to defend the position that the IFL is effective and representative of its membership<ref>[http://www.ifl.ac.uk/newsandevents/latest/ifl-a-statement-from-toni-fazaeli Toni Fazaeili responds to questions about the closing of the IfL]</ref>. |
|||
In 2007 The Further Education Teachers' Continuing Professional Development and Registration (England) Regulations 2007 required that all new teachers in FE must be members<ref>[http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2007/2116/contents/made The Further Education Teachers' Continuing Professional Development and Registration (England) Regulations 2007]</ref>. The explanatory memorandum of The Further Education Teachers' Continuing Professional Development and Registration (England) Regulations 2007<ref>[http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2007/2116/pdfs/uksiem_20072116_en.pdf Paragraph 8.4, The Explanatory Memorandum of The Further Education Teachers' Continuing Professional Development and Registration (England) Regulations 2007]</ref> states that [[Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills]] (the pre-cursor to the [[Department for Business, Innovation and Skills]] ) would fund the professional registration costs of individual teachers, so there is no cost burden to individuals or college. There has been little debate since in Parliament over the role of the IFL but Minister for FE [[John Henry Hayes]] has stated categorically that the IFL is independent of the [[Department for Business, Innovation and Skills]] oversight. <ref>[http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm100726/text/100726w0010.htm Hansard 26 July 2010 : Column 870W]</ref> |
|||
===Surplus Funds=== |
|||
It came to light in March 2011 that, despite the proposed increase in budget, the IFL had been storing surplus funds in the region of £2,000,000.<ref>[http://www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx?storycode=6072604 TES 11/03/2011 Fury as IfL squirrels away £2m in reserves]</ref> Full financial statements are not publicly available as the organisation is not required to account to either its stakeholders or the British Government: FE Minister John Hayes stated his belief in the IFL having consulted its membership. He repeated his view that the IFL was entirely independent from of the British Government: |
|||
"An independent organisation has to come to a judgment as to the fees that it charges. IfL made it very clear to me that they had consulted widely among stakeholders"<ref>[http://www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx?storycode=6072604 TES 11/03/2011 Fury as IfL squirrels away £2m in reserves]</ref> |
|||
===Legislative Confusions=== |
|||
The IFL claims that all FE teachers are required by law to register and implies that they must obtain a License to Teach.<ref>[http://www.ifl.ac.uk/membership/questions-and-answers IFL Membership Q&A] Point 8. Retrieved 2011-02-26</ref> However, John Hayes stated in parliament that "From September 2007 regulations have required all new teachers to the FE sector to be appropriately qualified in their own subject specialism and hold or work towards achieving the required teaching qualifications and gain qualified teaching learning skills (QTLS) status."<ref>[http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm101129/text/101129w0005.htm Hansard 29 Nov 2010 : Column 574W]</ref> |
|||
Additionally, the IFL themselves state that only newly qualified (post September 2007) lecturers are required to complete Professional Formation. This process may take as long as 5 Years under the law applied.<ref>[http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2007/2116/contents/made The Further Education Teachers' Continuing Professional Development and Registration (England) Regulations 2007]</ref> Lecturers "employed and qualified pre September 2007, there is no time limit"<ref>[http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/study/cll/othercourses/wmcett/resources/pdzone/who/ifl/qtls/professionalformationsupportpackwebsite250209.pdf IfL Professional Formation Support Pack], Page 13 Hosted at Warwick University</ref> This runs counter to the implications contained in numerous IFL public statements regarding the required License to Teach stated as a benefit of membership. It is unclear whether the IFL's implicit threat to remove the rights of FE teachers to work in colleges is supported by any legal framework. Furthermore, it is unclear whether any threat to remove the rights of individuals to work would constitute a [[Closed Shop]] and thus illegal under other UK laws including the [[Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992]] |
|||
===Regulatory Confusions=== |
|||
The polarised debate continued between those defending the the position of the IFL and those opposed to the compulsory membership, inclusive of fees. Both sides of this debate sought clarity on the legal and regulatory mechanisms for compelling membership to the IFL. A number of regulatory and funding agencies are routinely involved in checking the performance of the FE sector. [[Ofsted]] and The [[Skills Funding Agency]] are key to this performance monitoring. |
|||
[[John Henry Hayes]] has stated that it is not for the government to judge the performance of the IFL: |
|||
<blockquote><p>It is governed by a national council consisting of elected members and representation from key national stakeholders. As such it is for them, rather than BIS, to judge IfL's performance.<ref>[http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm100726/text/100726w0010.htm FE Minister John Hayes] Hansard 26 July 2010 : Column 870W.</ref></p></blockquote> |
|||
However Hayes later stated that "The Department has an observer status seat on the IfL Non-Executive Board and attend its Advisory Board"<ref>[http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm110315/text/110315w0006.htm#11031593000262 Hansard 15 Mar 2011 : Column 306W]</ref> |
|||
The Skills Funding Agency deferred any requirement to ensure that the IFL has compelled FE teachers and lecturers to be members to Ofsted. Ofsted stated that it was not within their remit to judge this and would not be monitoring registrations during inspections. <ref>[http://www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx?storycode=6073438 TES: IfL boycott endorsed as anti-fee crusade grows]</ref> The lack of general clarity of the regulatory consequences coupled with a unclear legislation related to the IFL remain without much, if any, direct government commentary. |
|||
In addition to general membership regulatory confusions, the [[Association of Colleges]] issued a position memorandum to Parliament outlining the lack of parity in the disciplinary regulation of colleges: |
|||
<blockquote><p>The disparity in treatment between teachers working in Colleges and those working in schools is highlighted by the fact that just as the GTCE is being abolished, membership of the IfL continues to be mandatory for those working in FE Colleges. With the IfL’s introduction of a £68 membership fee this year, these differences do not lend themselves to ensuring greater transferability between the school and College sectors.<ref>[http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmpublic/education/memo/e10.htm Memorandum submitted by the Association of Colleges ] Education Bill Evidence(E 10)</ref></p></blockquote> |
|||
==See also== |
|||
*[[British Educational Communications and Technology Agency]] (Becta) |
|||
*[[Department for Business, Innovation and Skills]] (BIS) |
|||
*[[Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills]] (DIUS) |
|||
*[[Learning and Skills Council]] (LSC) |
|||
*[[Skills Funding Agency]] (SFA) |
|||
==External links== |
|||
*[http://www.ifl.ac.uk Institute for Learning website] |
|||
*[http://www.petitionbuzz.com/petitions/endiflmonopoly End IfL Monopoly Petition] |
|||
*[http://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=group_153789048010230¬if_t=group_activity We won't pay IfL Facebook page] |
|||
*[http://www.facebook.com/pages/I-disagree-with-the-forced-68-membership-for-the-Institute-For-Learning/167307803316593 I disagree with the forced £68 membership for the IfL Facebook page] |
|||
==References== |
|||
{{reflist}} |
|||
{{DEFAULTSORT:Institute For Learning}} |
|||
[[Category:Organizations established in 2002]] |
|||
[[Category:British professional bodies]] |
|||