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.