Focus groups - initial impressions

2 Days, 2 Cities and four very different FE Guild focus groups, equals quite a lot of views, but that is exactly what we were hoping for.  Without exception, I found the groups to be very useful in helping us think about how we might take forward the FE Guild development phase and draft the Consultation Document (CD).  Many thanks indeed to all those who attended and the very constructive way people engaged with the challenge of getting our minds around what this is all about.  We will produce a summary, but without even trying to capture everything we discussed, I thought I would use the train journey home to try and record what I thought were some emerging themes from the 2 days.  If I don’t mention something we discussed, it doesn’t mean we will have lost it and indeed I may well update some of this when I see the fuller record of the events.

Strategic position:  In various different ways every group questioned and discussed what the aim or remit was for the FE Guild? What was the ‘problem’ it was trying to solve? What part of the sector landscape was it trying or should it try to occupy? What happens already and how might the FE Guild try and align with that?  Why should we expect it to be any more successful than previous or existing organisations?  How will it add value so that employers want to support it?  Do we need to conduct a “mapping exercise” across the sector to see how it might fit in?  Will it be another fad and how could we build in long-term sustainability?

A recurrent theme was also raised around there being far too many groups/organisations in the sector and how does FE Guild fit in and will it result in fewer groups….”collapse and simplify landscape”? 

Not that I was proposing we should, but clearly just saying it is to enhance the professionalism of the sector workforce is not enough justification or clear enough!

Why are we doing this:  In 3 of the groups, questions were raised around do we really want this or is it being imposed by Government?  But equally if it was going to happen, it is better if we take hold and make sure it does what we want, rather than risk something we don’t really want being imposed on us.

Remit:  Quite hard to paraphrase the wide ranging discussions.  But I think there was general agreement that core focus is around professionalism of the workforce and certainly owning standards and qualifications....but professionalism much wider than just this. So we are going to need to try and define that more.  General agreement that Continuous Professional Development should also be included, although again exactly what this means is not necessarily obvious.  2 of the groups felt very strongly that facilitating ‘networks of professional practitioners’ was a key element of CDP – “build professionalism bottom up”; “inspire professionalism”.  Also discussed was the need for clarity in the sector about what qualifications are available and appropriate for different roles.

Wider remit:  Interestingly in some groups there were debates about a wider role of the FE Guild, for example promoting the wider reputation, success and value of the sector….although this could be more about just the vocational part of the sector.  Others wanted it to focus more on key remit, certainly in the short-term, and not risk diluting core focus too much.  Would some of the other aspects about reputation etc develop once the FE Guild proves itself? How does it relate to role of bodies such as AoC, AELP etc.

Leadership Governance:  Actually not that much debate about this and general agreement that it should be part of FE Guild responsibility – not surprising there was a bit more questions/confusion around ‘how’ especially with what happens elsewhere eg leadership exchange and other programmes in representational bodies etc – eg will the Guild manage or facilitate or commission programmes etc.  One message that came across was that this is not just about courses, but also about facilitating networks for exchanging ideas and sharing best practice etc.

Mandated Qualifications:  This was one area where there were some strongly held polarised views. At one end, some felt qualification requirements and to a lesser extent maybe even membership of the FE Guild, should be mandated and, for example, be a prerequisite for funding or the new chartered status; reasons included level playing field, ensuring quality, only real way to raise professionalism, learner experience, meeting Ofsted expectations etc….”making it harder for rogue providers”.  Others felt equally strongly that it should be more about best practice, benchmarking or recommended standards for individual and organisations “Gold Standard”, but still up to individual employers to decide what qualifications were appropriate for their workforce – no appetite for trying to bring back regulation.  This did lead into questions about the possible relationship between the FE Guild and Chartered Status consultation, although we didn’t explore this too far. 

Equally I think there was consensus that some flexibility is essential – eg visiting professionals or industry experts, even if delivering a number of classes/talks would not necessarily need a formal qualification, although some guidance might be beneficial.  Straw polls would suggest the majority would not favour a mandated approach, but we will need to tease this out a bit more in the CD.

Who does it cover?  Whilst again not unanimous, a message that came across loud and clear (excuse Naval speak!) was that the FE Guild should be for the whole workforce, not just those involved in teaching, training, assessing etc, as everyone has a role to play in the outcomes and learner experience.  After teasing out the issues a bit more, there was recognition that one size doesn’t fit all and, for example, whilst the FE Guild might be directly responsible for the professional skills of teaching/training/assessing etc staff, it might not want to be responsible for professional skills of support staff, but perhaps contextualise them for the FE environment or have specific additional development standards/opportunities covering the uniqueness of operating in an FE environment. Definitely an area that will need further clarification.

Membership – Corporate or individual. Again mixed messages, but often driven by “if we want to enhance professionalism we need buy-in from individuals” and can this be achieved by a purely organisation membership arrangement.  The mixed model of the HE Academy did attract some support as a possible way of meeting both aims.   In one group this also resulted in a debate about Chartered Status for the FE Guild and whether, even if not feasible at the outset, it should be a long-term aspiration?

Again not trying to be prescriptive and I think we will need to develop further in the CD, but I got the impression that in the end there was general, but not unanimous, agreement that it needs to start as an organisational membership arrangement, but develop individual options if appropriate and realistic.

Funding – no surprises here, but completely polarised views and both ends of spectrum felt very strongly.  On the one hand there was “absolutely no appetite to pay” for this [FE Guild] and BIS funding essential – a theme primarily, but not exclusively, from the private providers.  Others felt, and many quite strongly, that if it was to be truly independent, then the FE Guild needs to aspire to become self funding very quickly with providers electing to join and pay.  A mixed economy model was also discussed, eg with funding covering core activities the Government might want and subscriptions to allow sector freedom to ensure the FE Guild meets sector needs.  Also a debate about whether if we had a mixed economy there was any way we could ensure legally that FE Guild is still sector owned and directed.

Common theme was that the FE Guild would really need to show it adds value if providers expected to subscribe ….but equally some, but not all, said that if they saw that value they could see their organisation being a member and subscribing.

Equally some concern that without ongoing funding the FE Guild may well not be financially viable and able to undertake all the necessary activities.  So real mixed messages here.

Sector owned?  This aspect was a bit hard to pin down and I felt we probably need to develop some options about what this might mean and look like to allow people really to comment and express their views.  Not surprising there was lots of debate about what the sector was?  Also concern about the risks to many providers if FE Guild ‘ownership’ is only AoC and AELP – how do we ensure all parts of the sector have a voice?

Name - Unprompted by me, in two groups it was commented that the name does not feel modern (Guild) or inclusive (FE).  Completely unscientific, but judging by smiles and head nodding around the table, I suspect this would be a widely held view!

LSIS - A number of people raised concerns about what would happen to certain aspects of the LSIS work, mainly around quality improvement and funded project work, but the intervention role was also mentioned, when LSIS loses funding.  I explained the mapping exercise we were undertaking covering the relevant areas of work in the sector and this would help inform the debate about which responsibilities currently undertaken elsewhere might come under the FE Guild.

Phased approach Where raised, there seemed too be general agreement that a phased approach would be essential for the FE Guild, initially focussing on some core parts of possible areas of responsibility, before evolving into a wider remit.

Equality and Diversity Not raised in every group – but equally when it was there was strong support for equality and diversity aspects to be considered in the development of the role of the FE Guild.  As this is a wide ranging area it will need more clarification about what aspects should or could come under the FE Guild.

Research – support for FE Guild’s possible role in research, associated with teaching and learning, mentioned in three groups but not discussed in real detail.

Worldskills – Again not raised in every group, but there was support for the FE Guild to be involved/responsible, not in putting on skills shows, but around the professionalism of the staff, networks of trainers/coaches etc – this will need to be developed further in the CD so that people know what this means and what the options are.

 

Ah well train arriving soon so will sign off for now!  Thanks again to everyone who came along and contributed.  Do let me know if you think I have completely misread anything or missed some fundamental point. If you couldn’t make the groups and want to make any comments, please feel free to do so, either here or by e-mail to the project. Have a good Christmas and watch this space for more updates in the New Year.

Discussion document 1 for focus groups

We had two extremely useful and quite different focus group meetings today and have two more planned for tomorrow (Tuesday) in Birmingham.  I will try and capture some of the debate in later posts .....which, given the wide ranging discussions, will be quite a challenge!!  We did send a copy of a discussion document to attendees and a couple of people suggested that I make it more readily available across the sector as soon as we can.  We will do this later this week, with some other discussion papers, but in the interim I have posted it below.   As always we are very happy to hear any views you might have.

FE Guild – Discussion Document – Number 1 – FE Guild purpose & remit

This document is intended to stimulate discussion about the potential purpose and remit for the FE Guild. It provides some information, some ideas and sets out some of the key questions which are apparent at the outset of the project. The aim is that the discussion and debate will help refine the ideas and options and help develop the consultation paper. which needs to go out early in the New Year.

Preamble

1.            We are not starting with a blank sheet in terms of the ideas and options for the purpose and remit of the guild. There a number of reference points for our thinking within our sector:

•        The Lord Lingfield review

•        The history of organisations which have operated in this space over recent years, including LSIS, CEL, QIA and IfL, as well as the many Government-led organisational approaches such as the Standards Unit

•        The AoC/AELP contract bid to undertake the FE Guild development phase.

•        The BIS Grant letter to AoC which contained a list of areas to be considered.

2.            There are also some important reference points from other sectors where organisations exist with similar purposes and remits. The project team will be looking at a number of organisations that represent specialist professional areas to learn as much as we can from their experiences. There are a number of common themes which are emerging from the early work which the project team have carried out and these are covered in this paper.

What should be the purpose of the FE Guild?

3.            Based on the Lord Lingfield review, the BIS prospectus and the AoC/AELP submission etc, is there a consensus that the overall purpose of the FE Guild could be something along the lines of: 

To support and enhance the development, qualification and recognition of the professionalism of the sector workforce, and the leadership and governance of the providers

There is a question about whether it should also focus on the outcomes of a professional workforce in terms of the learner experience and in meeting labour market needs.

4.            Following on from this we could look at key elements, initially covered in the ‘triangle’ of remit produced to support the AoC/AELP bid, supported by many sector stakeholders, and further developed during discussions/meetings prior to the start of the contract, which covered:

Teaching and Learning

•       Defines Competencies (SSC)

•       Endorses qualifications (SSC)

•       Co-ordinates response to McLoughlin Review

•       Develops  Covenant (Lingfield)

•       Identifies CPD best practice

Leadership and Governance Development:

•       Sponsors and commissions Courses

•       Identifies Skills gaps

•       Commissions development programmes

Professional (non-teaching) development:

•       Facilitates professional development with industry for lecturers / teachers

•       Develops communities of practice and scholarly endeavours for VET sector

•       Commissions research to inform professional development and improved teaching

Key Questions 1: Does this cover the essential elements of a potential purpose and remit?  Is anything vital missing? Should anything be excluded?

Aspiration for the Guild – what might it look a few years downstream?

5.            We are keen to encourage people in the sector to think about the medium and longer terms aspirations for the guild; what do we want the guild to achieve over that time? This is a bit difficult as we haven’t yet decided on the purpose and remit of the Guild, so this is really more a stab in the dark, but maybe by just thinking of where we might want to get to will help formulate the purpose of the Guild.  Do the following generic high level aspirations sound right?

•        A body which is recognised internally and externally as the expert voice and advocate on workforce development and qualifications for the sector.

•        Can show real sector ownership and direction by achieving outputs and successes widely accepted and acclaimed by the sector and stakeholders as valuable and contributing to the reputation and professionalism of the sector and most importantly the learner experience.

•        Has a robust, clear, flexible and fit for purpose set of qualifications and standards for new entrants to the sector as well as continuous professional development.

•        Can show significant increased engagement across the sector in leadership, management and governance development programmes, which lead to measurable individual and organisation improvements.

•        Is recognised by Government and other key stakeholders as being effective, making a real difference and offering good value for money.

•        Has helped to enhance the reputation of the sector with public and private sector employers by enhancing the professional reputation and currency of the workforce.

•        When measured against current reviews, eg Lord Lingfield, McLoughlin, and future developments is able to show that their aspirations have been reflected in the position the new body has reached.

•        Dependant on the final remit, has shown improvements across the sector in areas such as equality and diversity, STEM provision etc.

.

Key Questions 2:  Are these the right sort of aspirations? Do they describe the organisation we want to develop?  Are they realistic and measurable? Is anything critical missing? Should any come out as not really being aspirational? Do they help to define the way ahead?

What might an FE Guild mission or vision look like?

6.            From the work the project team has already carried out there is some sense of what a potential mission might look like for the guild. This does in some ways put the ’cart before the horse’, but in order to stimulate a response and with a bit of judicious plagiarism we have put together some possible mission statements. We will of course approach this through the consultation process to get more of a bottom up view.

·            We are the advocate and voice of the FE Sector profession, a champion of our professional interests, a respected partner to the broader FE Sector and a body that works in the learner interest.

·            We enhance the reputation and understanding of the FE profession and the professionalism of our members through the provision of world-class structures for the delivery of learning in the FE sector. We do this by providing advice on standards and qualifications, knowledge building and sharing, leadership development, research, excellent governance, conduct and ethics.

7.            As well as a mission, the guild might want to have a vision, so another stab at something for people to respond to and refine:

                                                                                                                      

To be at the heart of a FE sector profession that is widely respected for its professionalism and diversity, attracting the brightest people and where organisations, government, society and the learner understand the value of what we do. A profession that:

·            has a reputation for, and is built on, best practice, ethical standards, research, practitioner and academic leadership

·            makes an important contribution to society through our ability to build dialogue and trust, and is recognised for this contribution

·            is dynamic, collaborative and networked, reflecting the diversity of the sector and the pace of technological change.

Key Questions 3: Do these reflect your views on what the guild is about? Can you provide other words which might describe the organisation better? Is it helpful to include these sorts of options in the consultation process, or leave them out?

 

What might the FE Guild do?

8.            There is inevitably a long list of potential functions and activities which the guild might want to be engaged in. The following list is some of the more commonly stated potential functions:

·                 promote the values of effective delivery of learning

·                 learn from and supporting improvement in learning provision

·                 maintain ethics and values

Set and enhance first-class national standards of professionalism to ensure excellence in the FE sector by:

·                 developing a set of nationally agreed standards for FE staff to attain

·                 developing a set of guidelines for continuous professional development of FE staff

·                 providing frameworks for standards to be tested and achievement rewarded

Identify evidence of what works in FE learning provision and share best practice by:

·                 providing access to a body of knowledge that is informed by evidence-based research and best practice

·                 continuing to develop an understanding of the evolving learning delivery methodologies

Support the education and professional development of FE Staff by:

·                 developing and maintaining the national FE staff curriculum, assessment and accreditation frameworks

·                 providing guidance on appropriate continuous professional development

·                 delivering leadership, [Governance] and specialist training

·                 accrediting and quality-assuring FE staff training providers

·                 developing future leaders and expertise through effective talent management

Enable and motivate staff and employers to work together to achieve a shared purpose by:

·                 developing a covenant between employers and employees and a code of practise for practitioners

·                 working with partners to make the best use of specialist knowledge

·                 supporting desired behaviours and actions that embody the FE sector values

Influence and support development of Government policy and strategy around workforce development and learning delivery by:

·                 working with Government departments and agencies to provide expert advice on workforce development and learning delivery

·                 ensuring FE employers are engaged and consulted in workforce development evolving strategies

·                 evidence-based learning delivery

There are many questions about how the guild might carry out these functions which need to be addressed over the coming weeks and there are many options and many lessons to be learned from others about the pros and cons of different methodologies.

What might the FE Guild not do?

9.            At the same time that some possible functions/activities have started to emerge in discussions, there are a number which seem to commonly be mentioned as beyond or outside the remit of the guild: 

•        require FE staff to have a licence to practise

•        mandate qualifications or levels of continuous professional development

•        negotiate pay and conditions of employment for FE staff

•        maintain a record of disbarred staff

•        duplicate all the roles other bodies play, like OFSTED

•        investigate complaints or allegations of misconduct against FE staff - this will remain within the remit of the relevant employing organisation

•        create a raft of bureaucratic guidance for the FE sector

Key Questions 4: are these the right activities, functions for the guild? Is anything missing, and any which should not be included?