Progress and update on outcomes from consultation

I am conscious that I haven’t updated this blog recently.  Only excuse is that I have been a bit busy reading all the responses to the consultation document and generating the implementation plan, which we are still aiming to have completed by the end of this month.  We have published some statistical results from the consultation on our website and below is a more descriptive view of some of the main feedback we received.  A fuller report should be finished later this week and we will then publish on the web. As I said on the website, overall support was positive and constructive as well as a little cautious in some areas due to the many unknowns.  Equally, it did give us confidence that we were broadly on the right track and thus it is full steam ahead with writing the implementation plan.

One aspect that will be a bit different from the consultation plan is around the proposals for sector, including practitioner and learner, engagement.  Here there was virtually unanimous agreement that this will be an essential feature for the future, but also some questions about exactly how this should be achieved and, for example, the almost inevitable tension between being all inclusive and not being too unwieldy or over bureaucratic.  In addition, the sector engagement/consultation activities are likely to be different in the early formative stages compared to those needed when the Guild is fully up and running.  Thus in the Implementation Plan we are going to describe the types of engagement processes needed without being over prescriptive about exactly how they will be implemented. .

General feedback from consultation exercise

Overall there was good support for the general proposed aims and remit for the Guild giving confidence of strong sector support for the concept with 83% supporting the aims and 80% agreeing with the remit.  As you might expect in any debate about overall aims, there were some who suggested a wider scope, with others questioning some elements, e.g. the ability of the Guild to really impact of sector reputation.  A number of replies emphasised the need to be more specific about the Guild’s potential role in recognising and promoting equality and diversity issues, including support for people working with learners with disabilities or learning difficulties. There were many interesting comments made about the appropriate definition or definitions of professionalism across this very diverse sector. Thus reaching a common understanding with the sector on what professionalism means for different roles will be an important task for the Guild when formed.

During the consultation events some attendees still had questions about the potential value of the Guild, although this was partly due to a lack of understanding as many groups were more enthusiastic at the end on the session compared to the beginning. 

The scope of the Guild in terms of which parts of the workforce should be included generated quite a lot of debate, between the Guild covering all staff and those preferring it to focus on just staff involved in teaching, learning and assessment and those directly involved in support to learners.  Based on discussions at the consultation events, this is not so much an ideological difference, but concern that if given a very wide remit the Guild could end up trying to do too much and not doing anything well.  Although some suggested the Guild should be a professional individual membership body, the majority supported the proposal that it should be based on the proposed organisational subscriber model.

The Governance structure.  Overall there was good support for the proposed formal with two key themes emerging: 

·         The need to ensure the company members covered the whole sector and not focussed entirely on colleges and private providers.
·         Secondly, whilst virtually everyone agreed that some form of sector engagement was essential, there were some points made about:
·         The need to have clarity of any relationships between any consultative group/s and the main board.
·         The risk of an over bureaucratic sector engagement process and the ability to reach a consensus with such a diverse sector.
·         The processes for engaging other sector general and membership bodies and organisations, as well as Unions.
·         The importance of trying to void duplication with existing sector networks and groups.

Not unexpectedly funding was a much debated topic throughout the process, with three underlying themes:
·         A concern that if the Guild is centrally funded then the real power of the sector employers to decide on the way forward will always be somewhat limited.
·         Affordability issues with decreasing budgets if individual providers are expected to pay a subscription in future years.  Although there was some lack of understanding about the proposed levy approach, there was also concern that in future years this might still result in a reduction of funding for providers if the current ‘top slice’ from the skills budget to fund organisations such as LSIS disappears.
·         Equally whilst not unanimous the majority of respondents believe that without some form of ongoing central funding support the Guild would probably not survive.

There were clearly many other very valuable comments and suggestions, which will form an invaluable source of initial information for the Guild during the formative stages.  A few key points which need to be considered in formulating this plan include:
·         Concerns about the potential loss of some the services currently offered by LSIS, which may not be part of the Guild’s remit – e.g. intervention service.
·         The vital importance of not losing the rich legacy information and expertise in the sector, and specifically the need to somehow retain the excellence gateway whilst also improving access and relevance.
·         Relationship and need to avoid duplication or confused areas of responsibility with other bodies, especially the large provider membership bodies (AoC, AELP etc), the Unions, awarding bodies, Ofsted etc.

Ah well that's an overview.....now back to drafting the Implementation Plan!
Peter

1st consultation events

Last week we had our first two consultation events in Manchester and London aimed specifically at practitioners, although we did have a pretty wide range of attendees.  I have to say I found both events very informative and constructive, if not at times a little challenging, but nobody ever said this was going to be easy….or if they did I clearly wasn’t paying attention! 

It is quite hard to try and summarise all the debate and I didn’t want to publish all the notes at this stage, as I think it is important that each event starts with a clean sheet of paper.  So I am going to just mention some key questions or points I took away with me.

A fundamental area is around the whole question of Continuous Professional Development (CPD).  But crucially this is not just about the ‘supply side’ of ensuring good CPD, which is of course vital,  but practitioners felt very strongly that key to success will be support and encouragement from providers to enable their workforce to engage with CPD.  Easy to say and of course there will always be resource considerations, but if the Guild doesn’t have some meaningful and positive impact on CPD in the round, then I have a horrible feeling it will rapidly lose credibility with the workforce. Equally a couple of good ideas of how good CPD might be delivered were suggested – perhaps based on the Open University type model and definitely using modern technology where appropriate.

Some interesting challenges that the Guild needs to be for anyone delivering training in the learning and skills sector and not just those funded by Government.  Personally, whilst this might be a longer term aspiration and may involve different approaches, I am not clear if it would work in real life – although pretty sure I didn’t convince some of the attendees, so will need to think more about this.

Again as you might expect there was a strong message that if we want to achieve workforce buy-in to the whole concept then we best jolly well ensure that there are processes for practitioners to be involved in deciding what the Guild actually does - need to avoid a purely top down approach and also ensure practitioners have a real voice which is heard.  Whilst we do say this in the consultation document, perhaps it’s not strong enough and we need to elaborate a bit more on thinking here.

Also some debates about costs etc; how Guild will be different from IfL/LSIS; should it be an individual membership body; how will learners be represented; is there overlap with other bodies etc? I didn’t take a poll, but there was also some who argued for mandated qualifications for staff, and it will be interesting to see if this theme comes through other consultation events.

So overall I am very grateful for all those who took time to come to these first events and they certainly helped to get the process off to a flying start….. 10 more events over the next 7 days with really good attendance, which also means lots of train journeys for more blog drafting!  

CONSULTATION AND KEY EMERGING ISSUES

It’s definitely full steam ahead for the project as we draft the consultation document.  As part of this work, Jacqui Buffton, one of our team members, has been reviewing the various strands of feedback we have had over the last 2 months from all parts of the sector, and she has drafted a section for the consultation document.  So to provide some early feedback of what we think you have been telling us, I thought I would publish this draft section on my blog and later on our website.

Informal Consultation Process

As a precursor to this formal consultation document, various discussion papers were produced between November 2012 and January 2013 to stimulate debate and highlight key issues or areas to be addressed. Initial views were sought from individuals through four informal focus groups held in December 2012, in London and Birmingham. An open access, on-line initial consultation survey was available for completion from December to mid-January 2013. The Steering Group, which met twice (December 2012 and January 2013), and the Executive Group, were also used to gain views from organisations and stakeholders on what might be the key issues for consultation on the setting up of a Guild for the Learning and Skills sector. They also ensured, through their networks, that the initial consultation processes were engaged with by all relevant parties. A number of written responses to the initial consultation were also received.  In addition a dedicated blog was used to provide feedback on emerging issues and to help generate debate.  A Guild website was also set up to provide updates and access to key project documents.

68 people attended the four focus groups from a variety of organisations. 404 responses were received from the on-line survey. The majority were from the colleges (54%), the Independent Learning providers (23%), Local Authority and Adult Community providers (7%), with 3% from Third Sector Providers and the remainder (11%) from a variety of individuals not within the above categories.

Emerging Key Issues

All the focus groups raised the need to clarify the remit of the Guild and to identify what part of the sector landscape it was trying to or should occupy.  This was reflected in the on-line survey where half of respondents were supportive or very supportive of the general concept, but 42% were ambivalent until they knew more. 

The focus groups, those responding to the on-line survey and the Steering Group were in general agreement that the core focus of the Guild should be to enhance the professionalism of the sector. The on-line survey showed support for the Guild being responsible for the following functions:

·         Standards and qualifications for those working in the sector (87%)
·         CPD opportunities (84%)
·         Training, learning and curriculum development (80%)
·         Governance, Leadership and Management development (70%)
·         Undertaking or commissioning of research related to teaching and learning (73%)
·         Self-assessment and peer review (65%)
·         Organisational effectiveness and efficiency (57%)
·         Initial teacher training and supply (56%)
·         Learner support and learner voice (51%)

There was limited support for the Guild becoming responsible for ‘World Skills’ (41% in the on-line survey), but one written response pointed up the links with World Skills and connectivity with national and international standards, which had not been explained in the survey, so we will cover this in more detail in the consultation.

Written responses covered the need to include all sectors, develop the authority to set standards (one mentioned including standards for leaders and governors), the role the Guild might have in endorsing teaching qualifications and CPD modules, and in ‘future proofing’ the sectors, the dissemination of good practice models on performance management, the collection of appropriate data on the workforce and the links that could be made to the proposed Charter Status and Covenant. There was support for a Covenant demonstrated in the on-line survey, and from one written response, provided it did not undermine national or local bargaining arrangements. Collective bargaining and intervention with providers was not considered to be a Guild function.

 

Concern was expressed in a number of fora about how the Guild’s functions would align with what is already available within the sector and how it would add value.

The issue of the role of the Guild in enhancing the reputation of the sector, both with learners, employers and government was raised in the focus groups, the written responses and in the Steering Group.

There was general agreement throughout the initial consultation, that the Guild should be sector led/owned. Through the discussions at the focus groups, at the Steering Group and with individual organisations, the view emerged that it should begin as an employer–led organisation (here employer means provider) with the option to provide for individual membership at a later date. How to fund such an organisation was raised as an issue, and will need to be addressed further in the consultation document.

There were conflicting and strongly held views on what parts of the workforce should be covered by the Guild. This will again need further exploration as part of the consultation document.

If we have missed anything crucial please do let us know.

Professionalism and why a Guild

A fundamental question raised at every focus group was around the  need for and function of an FE Guild, articulated in different ways from “what problem is it trying to solve?”, “what value will it add?”, or “which part of the complicated sector ‘space’ is it trying to occupy and own”? 

 There is of course quite a lot already in print including in the Lord Lingfield report and the BIS invitation to tender for the development phase. For example: “acting as an overarching body with end to end responsibility for professionalism and vocational education across the sector”. But rather than trying to repeat or paraphrase these previous statements, I thought it would be worth just trying to articulate some key reasons for proceeding with this initiative.  Again these are just my own personal musings and I have a suspicion this post is higher risk of being more contentious than my previous ones, and indeed some may think it’s a bit of ‘a blinding glimpse of the obvious’!  But here goes and I would positively welcome any input and comment, even if you disagree completely with anything I say.  

 I wonder do you think that a useful starting objective for a guild could primarily be the focus on professionalism of the sector workforce and how this might be recognised, developed and enhanced by the Guild?  You can of course write a thesis about what professionalism means, and even an internet search throws up a plethora of views.  Before even starting to look at professionalism perhaps we need to consider why we want a recognised professional workforce, or is that obvious?

·         To improve the learner experience and outcomes?
·         To enhance the reputation of the sector with learners, society, government and employers so that it is widely respected as a provider of high quality, fit for purpose education and training?
·         To make the sector an attractive place to work so that it can attract and retain the best staff – as one person said to me “FE becomes a first choice career”?

Of course a professional workforce is not the only ingredient needed to achieve the above and others might include high quality infrastructure, adequate resources and strong political support?

But turning back to professionalism and what it means, I have adapted one version below, which I felt reasonably closely matched our sector and thus might provide an interesting basis for a discussion:

One dictionary definition of professionalism is "the conduct, aims, or qualities that characterize or mark a profession or a professional person"; and it defines a profession as "a calling requiring specialised knowledge and often long and intensive academic preparation."

These definitions imply that professionalism encompasses a number of different attributes, and, together, these attributes identify and define a professional.

So, what are these attributes?

Specialised Knowledge

First and foremost, professionals are known for their deep understanding and expertise based on specialised knowledge. They've made a strong personal commitment to develop and improve their skills, and, where appropriate, they have the qualifications that serve as the foundation of this knowledge.
Professionals work in a serious, thoughtful and sustained way to master the specialised knowledge needed to succeed in their fields, and that they keep this knowledge up-to-date, so that they can continue to deliver the best work possible.

Competency

Professionals understand bits of knowledge or separate facts as organised ideas and can apply them in many different contexts; They're reliable, and they keep their promises. If circumstances arise that prevent them from delivering on their promises, they manage expectations up front, and they do their best to make the situation right.

Honesty and Integrity

Professionals exhibit qualities such as honesty and integrity. They never compromise their values, and will do the right thing, even when it means taking a harder road.  More than this, true professionals are humble – if a project or job falls outside their scope of expertise, they're not afraid to admit this. They immediately ask for help when they need it, and they're willing to learn from others.

Accountability

Professionals hold themselves accountable for their thoughts, words, and actions as well as the standard of their work. This personal accountability is closely tied to honesty and integrity, and it's a vital element in professionalism.

Self-Regulation

They also stay professional under pressure. Genuine professionals show respect for the people around them, no matter what their role or situation. They exhibit a high degree of emotional intelligence by considering the emotions and needs of others, and they don't let a bad day impact how they interact with colleagues or learners.

Image

Professionals look the part and act accordingly.  Because of this, they exude an air of confidence, and they gain respect for themselves, the profession and the organisation they work for.
Based on feedback I think we would need to add one specific characteristic for our sector: Professionals recognise and actively promote equality and diversity considerations in everything they do?

I suspect that some will have different views and this whole subject could generate interesting debates.  But if we assume that the above is not a bad starter for 10 at defining what professionalism is about, then clearly many of these are more about personal characteristics.  Equally, even before that, there is a need for individuals to recognise that they actually belong to a distinct profession and for many they will effectively need dual professionalism covering their core vocational area and as a teacher/trainer/assessor or support function.

So how might an FE Guild help?  Before attempting to address that question, it is important to be very clear that I am not saying that some of this does not already exist in the sector, which it clearly does in some form or other through, for example, LSIS, IFL and the various programmes offered by representational bodies. 

The relatively easy part might be around qualifications and standards.  If professionalism implies some level of qualification to undertake a role, then individual practitioners and organisations need to know what qualifications are appropriate to their role and what represents best practice.  In theory I guess we could rely on awarding bodies maintaining the qualifications, but who would develop and improve qualifications in the future.  So for me this would not just be about being the overall custodian of sector qualifications and standards, but more importantly continuously reviewing them with the sector and through research to ensure they are fit for purpose and reflect changes in the specific environment, e.g. use of technology, changing employer needs etc.  A further complication for this sector is that ‘one size does not fit all‘, so whilst there appears to be a consensus that there mal qualification for many staff,ey.  ndeed I have a suspicion that the sector will see thiis a clear need for a suite of qualifications and standards for staff directly involved in teaching/training, learning and assessing, there is also an appetite to have a wider range of either qualifications or perhaps continuous professional development opportunities for everyone in the sector (e.g. those doing outreach work in community settings).

A key theme in the above and in all the articles I have seen, is the concept of professionals keeping their knowledge and practices up to date, as well as learning from others.  The idea that the FE Guild would somehow support, facilitate, endorse and generate CPD opportunities seems appropriate and was a key topic of discussion at the focus groups. It also got very high support in the survey.  There also appears to be a real demand for networks of professionals to facilitate learning from and with others, which is a key selling point of many other professional institutes and bodies. 

In addition, based on feedback at the focus groups, there appears to be a real demand for an organisation to set standards at organisation level also – “being a custodian of what represents excellence”. I guess this could be as simple as saying these are the standards, qualifications and CPD approaches, which are best practice for various providers, although this might sound a bit over simplistic and I suggest will need more debate across the sector.

But, as discussed above, a key part of professionalism is related to individuals and their personal qualities and approaches.  In most professional bodies this is covered by some form of individual professional code or ethics statement, which people effectively sign up to when they become members.  For us the concept of a sector covenant or compact between employers and employees has been raised.  This could encompass both specific agreements, e.g. for employees to undertake CPD and for employers to support employees in undertaking CPD, as well as wider expectations and behaviours.  Whether these are on an individual provider basis or part of being a member of the FE Guild is open to debate.  But in my view, without some approach to cover the wider attributes of professionalism we may not achieve the recognition and end result we are seeking.   

So what space should the Guild occupy if it is to “act as an overarching body with end to end responsibility for professionalism and vocational education across the sector?”

The above would suggest it could be about?

·         Qualifications and standards for the workforce;
·         Champion, support, endorsement and facilitation of high quality and appropriate CPD and networks of professional practitioners;
·         Building a shared understanding of professionalism and what this means for the sector, including ‘dual professionals’;
·         Defining the ‘professionalism gold standard’ for individuals and organisations to aspire to. 
 
At the outset I said I was trying to look at the generic ‘why a Guild’ question and I will admit in doing so I have strayed into a wider debate about professionalism in the round, but felt that without this any comments might be rather superficial – ah the benefits or a unstructured blog!  Anyway I would be very interested indeed to hear what you think and if the above makes it any clearer about the Guild or have I merely succeeded in mudding the waters further?   Perhaps you might wish to use some of this blog content as a discussion point with your individual teams?