The Department may, in accordance with the Code of Practice
on Access to Government Information, make available, on public request,
individual responses.
The closing date for this consultation is 4 June 2012
Name: Dr
Carol Azumah Dennis
Organisation
(if applicable):
Address:
Completed
responses should be returned to:
Sue Ruck
Teaching
Learning & Workforce Reform Team
Department
for Business, Innovation and Skills
2 St Pauls
Place
Sheffield
S1 2FJ
Email:sue.ruck@bis.gsi.gov.uk
Please tick a box from the list of options below that best
describes you as a respondent. This allows views to be presented by group type.
|
Business representative
organisation/trade body
|
|
Central government
|
|
Charity or social
enterprise
|
|
Individual
|
|
Large business (over 250
staff)
|
|
Legal representative
|
|
Local Government
|
|
Medium business (50 to 250
staff)
|
|
Micro business (up to 9
staff)
|
|
Small business (10 to 49
staff)
|
|
Trade union or staff
association
|
ΓΌ
|
Other (please describe) HE / FE ITE Partnership
|
Do you agree that the Further Education Teachers’
Qualifications (England)
Regulations 2007 should be revoked from 1 September 2012?
Comments:
The
University of Hull Partnership would refer to the recently published BIS
Evaluation of FE Teachers’ Qualification Regulations in stating that it is
important that the 2007 regulations are maintained. Although the regulatory
framework is recent, there is evidence that it has had a positive impact on the
confidence, skill, knowledge and understanding of FE teachers. In addition, they
have reinforced FE colleges existing contractual requirements for staff to be
qualified and led to more consistent application and monitoring of staff
training.
We
agree with the writers of the interim review that the qualifications require
updating. The content and structure are in urgent need of revision; the
regulatory framework itself is in our view valuable and should be retained.
FE
overlaps significantly with compulsory education, working with vulnerable 14+
students unable to achieve in schools. These students present significant
behavioural challenges that only well trained and suitably qualified FE teachers
are able to manage. Without a professional workforce, FE will be unable to
contribute towards ensuring these young people are catered for.
The
needs to FE teachers are more closely aligned to the needs to secondary school
teachers rather then HE lecturers who largely work with successful and
motivated students. The market mechanisms in place to ensure the quality of HE
lecturing does not exist for FE. Students who attend FE colleges do not have
the choices that school student have, in most instances attending the only
available local college.
Young
people, unemployed and unqualified adults in need of basic education, redundant
workers looking to develop new career opportunities are the groups that FE
colleges work with. They are difficult to teach and if they are to make the
most of the 2nd chance that FE offers, the confidence, skill,
knowledge and understanding of their teachers cannot be determined by
individual college HR policies. Regulation needs to establish a framework;
local policies can and should determine the detail of content and structure.
The
deregulation of FE qualifications would seem to undermine the recommendations
of the Wolf Report that recognises the contribution of FE teachers and
recognises equivalence between QTLS and QTS.
Question 2
Do you agree that the Further Education Teachers’
Continuing Professional Development and Registration (England) Regulations 2007 should be
revoked from 1 September 2012?
Yes No Not sure
Comments:
We
are of the view that participation in a community of practice is central to FE
professionalism; membership of a professional body should be voluntary rather
than regulated and enforced. CPD should be viewed as an entitlement rather than
a requirement.
The
comparison with secondary schooling is of value here and we are of the view
that QTLS should be awarded on the basis of recommendation upon the completion
of a PgCE (FE)
Do you think there will be any unintended
consequences or implications by revoking these regulations?
Yes No Not sure
Comments:
The potential consequences of deregulation may be unintended but they
are not entirely unpredictable. While
local institutions can set the content and structure of qualifications within a
mixed market model of awarding body and HEI provision, without a regulatory
framework set and monitored by a government body FE will revert to the
amateurish approach of previous years. The sector plays too important a role in
the local and national economy for that to be allowed to happen.
The outcome would be to lower the standards of teaching and learning
for post 14 students. Experts sharing a passion for their subject need to
understand principles of teaching and learning to work with the extremely
challenging learners who attend FE.
What do you consider to be the minimum level of
qualification needed to teach in Further Education?
Comments:
A positive outcome of the regulatory framework, as mentioned in the BIS
Evaluation, is that it creates a career path for teachers and professional
aspiration. While some sort of introductory, preparatory programme as part of
institutional induction is of value, a minimum level of qualification should be
as suggested in the report – broadly equivalent to a level 5 certificate with
the option of level 7 diploma.
Difference and diversity is the hallmark of this sector and a
one-size-fits-all approach will always produce tensions. The value of localism
is that it is able to accommodate complexity.
The content and structure of courses is most ably decided by teacher
educators working within a framework that ensure the important gains of
regulations are not undermined.
The danger with focussing on a minimum level of qualification is that
it potentially creates the misleading perception that the preparatory programme
constitutes a teaching qualification rather than merely a licence to practice
as part of an extended institutional induction.
What do you consider to be the most effective means
of maintaining a professionalised workforce?
Comments:
The single most important aspect of FE teacher professionalism is
teaching expertise – qualifications at an appropriate level. Without it this
important sector reverts to its previous amateurism. Nor can college principles
be charged with securing the professional status of their workforce. To be
effective, FE teachers need to provided with a regulatory framework that allows
them form a new identity as teachers – as they leave behind their previous
identity as specialists in a specific area of work. If FE is to attract accountants, engineers,
plumbers working in well regarded, understood and high status occupations, it
needs to be attractive.
Maintaining the newly emerging professionalism in this area requires –
a clear inspirational regulatory framework, qualifications, membership of a community
of practice, a voluntaristic professional body, career structure – and a
inspection framework that ensures suitably trained, qualified and competent teachers
are employed.
Do you consider that any minimum expectations for
training and qualifications should be stipulated as a condition of public
funding?
Yes No Not sure
Comments:
Public funding is a valuable steer; with funding linked to
qualification government can ensure that only high quality provision is supported. The broader lifelong learning sector
including work based learning and adult community education has not necessarily
been brought within the regularity framework but they do benefit from the exemplary
leadership of FE and over the past few years have been able to improve their
provision based in part on the increasing numbers of qualifying staff they
employ.
Please use
this space for any general comments that you may have, comments on the layout
of this consultation would also be welcomed.
It is notable that there is a distinct difference between the Interim
review and the BIS Evaluation. The content and depth of analysis of the BIS
review offers a more accurate, considered and welcome analysis of the area and
in our view provides a firmer basis for shaping policy.
Thank you for your views on this consultation and for taking
the time to let us have your views. We do not intend to acknowledge receipt of
individual responses unless you tick the box below.
Please acknowledge this reply
At BIS we carry out our research on many different topics
and consultations. As your views are valuable to us, would you be happy for us to
contact you from time to time either for research purposes or to send through
consultation documents?
.jpg)
