Sunday 13 January 2013

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?

4 comments:

  1. Very interesting, Peter: thoughtful and helpful, as ever. You don't say so directly, but I'd like to encourage you and the Guild to be explicit that our ambition for professionalism applies to everyone who works in the college, and not to teachers and lecturers only.

    We're used to dividing the college team into two parts: "the teaching staff" and "support staff", but I think that's increasingly unhelpful (if it ever was helpful). I'd prefer to think in terms of those who work directly with students - who would include careers and recruitment staff, welfare and student support, counsellors, and many others (including catering and security staff, in truth: they, too, can have an influence on students), and others with no direct, face-to-face, contact with students. I should think the first group is at least 80% of all staff in colleges. Add in the 'pure' support staff who have e-mail contact, or informal contact in the coffee queue, and we're getting close to 100%.

    And we want ALL of those staff to be professional don't we, and to contribute to their fullest to support students?

    I saw in an earlier blog that this point has come up in your field consultation. I'm keen to see it enshrined in the definition of the Guild, and therefore in its ambitions for professionalism.

    Iain Mackinnon
    Governor: Ealing, Hammersmith and West London College
    iain.mackinnon@wlc.ac.uk

    ReplyDelete
  2. I like the way you set out the question What is the problem we are trying to solve? This is good. Then you conclude that you went off message, which is good critic.

    The problem we are trying to solve is raising the acceptance of vocational education as a solution in society of British educators. This is not a problem to educators in France or Germany where agriculture, engineering and construction are seen as valuable to society. Why for example do the all elites see fit to denegrate gardening and horticulture as careeres for a certain type. If you don't know where I am coming from look up the RHS website and careers for the future in Horticulture.

    The problem we are trying to solve is a connection between Schools, Colleges and University in education of the rising generation for which the Government spends Billions per year 99.3bn in fact. 7% of our GDP the same as the value of the internet, and at present rate of adancement the internet will create more value to our economy than education. Or looking at this another way it is bigger than the GDP of Hungary and Uganda combined.

    FE should be working together with all education not see it self as a cul-du-sac of educational attainment, which is the message to me of an FE guild.

    ReplyDelete
  3. These two comments are very useful inputs to the debate. Certainly the scope of the Guild, as commented on by Iain, will be an important topic in the forthcoming consultation document.
    I also suspect Neil's comment will chime with the feelings of many in our sector.
    Many thanks for taking the time to add your comments.
    Peter Davies Team Leader

    ReplyDelete
  4. Just filled out the consultation document. It made me think and I decided I could come on here and 'vent' as the youth put it.

    I feel strongly that FE lecturers should pay a membership subscription from their own pockets if they are to be professional, like any other professional body. I am a member of Institute for Agricultural Management as a professional body accepted for deduction on tax form. Many others set themselves up as professionals why not and Institute for Further education lecturers (IFEL) at £120 per year with professional support. If lecturers don't believe in this then they will not be seen as professional. This 'FE guild' needs to sit far more independently. If the 'FE guild' has value and it needs distance from the ofsted mob and other similar Government controls.

    We can see that at present there is more interest in Government funding to FE doing many things that are not founded on educational principles more interested in pick up on the pieces of schools output so we have 50% of the rising generation being sold more of a ponzi scheme than an education.

    ReplyDelete