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.
A minor point perhaps Peter in grand scheme but could Guild use "student" rather than "learner" - I'm yet to meet a student who describes him or herself as a learner. The notion of "Learner Voice" is similarly problematic - if it means genuine student democratic participation that's great - but let's be clear.
ReplyDeleteThank you for your comment. Learner, student, or something else? There's been a lot of debate about this over the years but it seems that it's still not over. Learner seems pretty generally accepted now. Colleges use the two terms interchangeably and seem comfortable about this. We tend to use the term 'learner voice' pretty universally too. If we are to use one term 'learner' is probably more inclusive. Apprentices certainly don't see themselves as 'students', nor would others learning in the workplace, or many in community settings. John Landeryou Guild project team
DeleteI have just been reading through your comments on professionalism. I would like to say, as a teacher educator, that the reason the sector is so disjointed is precisely because of the definitions used here which focus upon the specialism of the lecturer/tutor. What makes a teacher is their knowledge of how to help people learn. That is the specialism, what they are teaching is a topic. QTS training does not consist of learning more about Maths and English, but better ways of helping children learn - they are considered prof. teachers. This is the real problem in the FE sector which needs to be addressed. Lecturers are seen by govnt and institutions as bricklayers, hairdressers or at the upper end engineers who happen to teach and this is also true of the lecturers themselves. From what I see the new Guild is going to follow the trend. E Cross
ReplyDelete