· 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 is 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?
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.
ReplyDeleteWe'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
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.
ReplyDeleteThe 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.
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.
ReplyDeleteI 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
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.
ReplyDeleteI 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.