FE Professionalism & Government Betrayal

FE Professionalism

Just over four million 14 to 19-year-olds and adults are educated and trained through the FE system each year. Courses and options are numerous and encompass a fully comprehensive range of students. FE does not discriminate, why? It has a range of highly skilled, professionally trained and continuously developed lecturing staff.

The government proposes to halt this; to remove the necessity for lecturers in FE to be professionally qualified, through its draft deregulatory bill. The key driver for this is on the first page “Publication of the draft Bill is the latest step in the Government’s on-going drive to remove unnecessary bureaucracy that costs British businesses millions”.

Leaving aside, for a moment, the notion that this is designed purely to save money, let’s consider the impact this would have.

Learners enter FE to gain a qualification. The relentless drive by this and previous governments to qualify our young, middle aged and old, has resulted in a plethora of qualifications, courses and options. The rhetoric is well known; ‘you cannot expect to have a worthwhile career without a qualification’. Is lecturing not ‘worthwhile’?

And yet, the government now proposes that those who lecture in FE do not need a qualification to do so.

I find this deeply insulting and from the overwhelmingly positive response to the topic on #UKFECHAT last week, staff in Further Education at all levels agree.

Why?

At the start of my career as a lecturer, with two degrees and a PGCE was I “Grade One”? No. I had subject knowledge yes, but more importantly; I had training in, experience of and an understanding of educational methods and pedagogy.  I was miles ahead of those without a qualification. Enabling me to develop learners, to bring out their hidden talents, manage classrooms, and identify opportunities for learning in a way that a non-qualified deliverer could achieve; qualifications are measure of competence.

Those with subject experience can demonstrate how to plumb, wire or cut hair etc. But the subject aspect, is only part of the package. I have witnessed a number of people employed, brilliant in their own field complete with PhD, utterly unable to connect with learners in their class. This has nothing to do with their subject knowledge, but is directly related to their lack of lecturing qualification.

An FE lecturer is a professional; Trained to do a job and do it well for the most part. Continuous Professional Development as new theories, ideas, models emerge enhances their initial training and continues to prepare them to be better and more effective lecturers.

We have learners from age 14 upwards. In a School they would be taught by Professionals with Teaching Qualifications alongside their subject specialism.  A 14 year old in FE would have a ‘deliverer’.

Is the Government saying that they do not regard lecturers as worthy of ‘professional’ status but teachers are?

 It would seem so.

Are FE lecturers are not equally deserving of Professional Status? If not, then why are only the highly qualified eligible for QTLS to teach in Schools?  I would say we most certainly are worthy of Professional Status. This is dysphemism by the government of FE lecturers.

FE teachers and lecturers – which ever name you prefer, or is that is part of the problem? Are ‘lecturers’ somehow not as “valued” as ‘teachers’? Labelling us one or the other does not change our Professionalism, which gives us our ability to teach, yes, teach all the learners in our classrooms. We take on all comers and we are incredibly successful at making their aspirations and dreams come true. We achieve this because we are trained professionals, in both education and subject.

If the government persists with this foolish and dangerous notion, standards of achievement and progression in Further Education that we Professionals have worked so tirelessly to improve will be decimated. Learners will leave unqualified (surely no connection to the recently introduced measure of ‘retention’ rather than ‘success’), NEETs will rise and the UK economy will suffer the greatest loss of emerging talent for generations.

FE is the engine of the British economy; to remove the need for Professional status will not only result in poor educational standards, lack of future talent, a waste of young people’s potential and economic misery for many years to come. It will also be a betrayal of those who have worked so hard for their professional status and their determination to pass that ethos on to the learners they teach.

Does the government expect future generations to be taught qualifications by unqualified deliverers? For standards to rise by removing the framework that safeguards those standards?

Don’t remove our Professional Status; you will be removing the opportunity to gain professional status for every learner in Further Education for the next twenty years.

Update: Unfortunately, the Government are no respectors of professional behaviour and today (9th August 2013) announced that the deregulation bill had passed and the death knell for qualified staff in FE tolled.

Categorisation: Chemistry and E & D

Teaching can be an easy route to 'labelling'; sometimes that's a bad thing; teachers who judge by name a la Katy Hopkins, by appearance, by address, by first impressions ...

The public who judge teachers/lecturers; strikers, lazy, long summer holidays, short days, easy life.

Sometimes it's good; able, positive, hard-working.

Sometimes, it's both at once and a can be used as a short cut to understanding something fundamental.

The cognitive effects of 'labelling', selecting the words we use to describe what we see aren't just geographical 'post it notes', they actually determine what we see, as we look at it.

Students/learners - what to 'label' them? What's politically correct this year ... are very good at labelling. Every tutor group or class is a mixture; sometimes potent and reactive, of the usual suspects.

Goth/Emo:Wears lots of black, has pale skin, wears lots of makeup (even if it's a boy), dyes their hair dark colors, listens to rock and metal music which talk about sad stuff, cut themselves, and cry alot.

Gangsta/Thug: Wears clothes twice their size, pulls down their pants to show their boxers, wear lots of chains around their neck, talk in ebonics, listen to rap and hip-hop, loves smoking and doing other drugs, and assumed to engage in criminal behavior.

Preppy/Plastic: Loves shopping, wears lots of pink, frequently wears short revealing clothes, listens to pop music, speaks with exaggerations on many words such as "like, oh my GOD, that is SOOOOO kewl!", is self-centered and conceited, and usually has blonde hair (which might be dyed as well).Thought to be dim.

Punk/Skater: Wears clothing such as ripped faded jeans, studded belts, band shirts, etc., has a mohawk (in which the spikes may have dyed colors), doesn't give a **** about what everyone thinks of them, wants to rebel against society, loves to skate, smokes or does other drugs, and of course, listens to punk music.

Labels are not 100% accurate; they're a stereotypical view of people, however, it is also true that labels can help classify a certain type of person and I decided to use their own prejudices to teach them some Chemistry.

One of my student groups couldn't 'get' the Periodic Table. The idea that elements were categorised by similarities, their behaviour could be predicted by their place in the table, was a stumbling block to their learning; they couldn't see it as a map to explain the world, galaxy or even universe.

So I decided to use their own social prejudices, judgements of who they could and couldn't mix with, how people would behave, their categorising of friends and acquaintances to teach them how it worked. They were used to judging people by their looks, dress, style, music choice; it was easy for them to 'place' people and predict their behaviour, just as the participants in the experiments of John Darley and Paget Gross demonstrated with images of  'Hannah'.

The Periodic Table is as diverse a place as you could wish to find. Every group has it's own unique qualities but all groups are equally important and understanding their interactions is essential in Chemistry.

When they entered the lab, instead of the 'normal' jumble of chemical symbols and Molymod, it had been turned into a party zone; benches pushed to make a kitchen (with wine and beer bottles *empty*), a dance area, a sofa area, staircase and a bathroom, each area had a big label.

We also had two sets of cards; one the groups of the table with defining characteristics and the other social groups (thanks to my daughter who was the right age to label everyone).

We talked about the kind of people who stay in the kitchen all night; loners, no girl/boyfriend, talkers, usually quiet, not reacting with anyone. Then they went through the PT groups and hit upon the Noble Gases.
Perfect; inert and gaseous.

Next we looked at the stair case or 'posing/get noticed area. This area is populated much as a beach is, pose on the rocky shore yes, get wet in water, no; reactive, eager to share and found in a variety of states. Mostly the group decided these are the girls, who pose and pout (some boys too), are overly fond of 'selfies' on FaceBook and after a few false starts, came up with Halogens.

Next came the 'Mean Girls'; girls so cool, hardly anyone could be in their group although many wanted to be. They never react in public; brittle, dangerous, very maleable and lustrous, but underneath, completely unsure of who they really are or want to be. Transition metals.

By now, this was becoming incredibly popular. Students were passing cards around and judgements even faster.

It took a lot of fast thinking to get them to consider their judging and apply it.

Alkaline metals were associated with the super intelligent kids in the college. Burning brightly, they were the stars in classes, 'soft' with a high melting point (so didn't fight) and generally not sporty so had a good density.

Alkali metals were the young girls who drank too much cheap Lambrini, easily giving away electrons and very reactive.

This was a good place to stop the chemistry and start the E and D. When was it appropriate to judge, label, categorise and when not?

How many had not approached someone, made a new friend because of how someone 'looked'? How many had ignored an open invitation to friendship because of their 'social grouping'?

An honest and open discussion followed on this with many admitting that they had chosen a path which dictated not just their friends, social life and style but also their course choices, life choices. They were 'categorised'.

Teasing out from them their course choices and expectations brought out into the open an enormous depth of inherited (parental) educational snobbery, cultural pressure to be a Doctor, Dentist, Vet., fear of being deemed 'unprofessional'.

Some were brilliantly perceptive, chose their own path and worked hard. Leaders of the future.

So much information came out of this lesson, it gave me material for a year of tutorials. Careers, motivation, culture, Equality and Diversity and respect for others, 'soft skills' at work, safety at parties, date rape drugs, sexually transmitted diseases, alcohol abuse and the consequences of 'being too reactive' and not 'reactive enough'.

It also changed the way I interviewed students for the course, the IAG focussed much more on what the student really wanted, not what they thought they wanted or what their parents wanted for them.

Dangerous? Looking back it was but sometimes to get the greatest learning, you have to take the greatest risk.

It was worth it; socially, culturally and chemically. If we learned anything that day, it was while people are mixtures of elements, we share their characteristics of covalency, ionicness, reactivity and inertness. :

• don't treat people as individual elements, but as potential group members to build something stronger
• that understanding the characteristics of people helps you recognise their motivation and helps you to help them
• and potentially prevents some explosive mixtures
• knowing the Periodic Table helps with more than just Chemistry

For a subject that many dismiss as theoretical and dry, we learned more about each other and our humanity than in any sociology lesson that day.

A human periodic table ... isn't that the classroom we teach in, the world we live in?

Palpable nonsense Extended Version

Last week, Sir Michael Wilshaw spoke out. Mostly it concerned the postcode lottery of education in this country; he also took a carefully aimed shot at FE Success rates, called for the dismantling of inadequate colleges grown too large and replacing them with smaller specialist units, for FE to make stronger links to business, implement all of the Richard Review of apprenticeships and finally measure the rate of progress and outcomes for all young people who had previously been eligible for free school meals.

Inspections under the new CIF although rightly focussed on teaching and learning, still quote Success as the main judgement. Reading through Ofsted reports released this month, I found they mention on average, in approximately 14 pages; ‘Success rates’ x18, Retention x4, Outcomes x4 and Achievement x6. 

If it is ‘palpable nonsense’ to measure FE by Success Rates, (and I don’t disagree) why do Ofsted continue to use it as their first judgement? Measures of education need to reflect more accurately the comprehensive mission of Colleges and the diverse student population they serve. 

Now, the Success factor will be replaced by a Retention factor. Is the Retention Factor the right measure? No; just keeping a learner isn’t a good enough measure of what we do. Instead of twiddling with data types, let’s make the system work.

The problem isn't with FE, Sixth Forms or other types of college; it is with the system of measurement; the Common Inspection Framework. We acknowledge that one size of education doesn’t suit all learners, so why should we expect one size of judgement to suit all colleges, why a Common Framework?

How many colleges enrol a disproportionate number of under motivated and challenging learners, yet enable them to achieve wonders, relative to their starting position? When compared to a Sixth form stuffed with bright, motivated, well supported A level candidates, they seem inadequate. Is this fair? 

I do not believe so. 

There are 219 GFE, 94 Sixth Forms, 15 Landbased, 3 Art & Design and 10 Specialist Colleges in England, all with different learners, different objectives and different outcomes. Measure us differently. If we continue to judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, we are condemning excellent teaching and learning to years of failure.

Colleges should be allowed to decide if they wish to have a Vocational or Academic (or Landbased, Specialist etc) focus. Then the inspection framework adjusted to suit one of the five college types. The current CIF is just trying to cover all bases at once and you cannot measure academic, vocational, enterprise, entrepreneurship, apprentices, training, adult and Foundation learning with the same stick. 

So, why not redesign the inspection format and inspect them in a way that is relevant to their aims. For example, FE colleges are run as a business, so why not measure them that way: 

• Customer Satisfaction
• Growing Customer Base
• Stakeholder Satisfaction
• Employee Satisfaction
• Finances 

Put this into the annual SAR to Ofsted; coupled with an External Quality Reviews by Peer colleges on Teaching and Learning. The College grade would encompass both reports. The grade would be timely, relevant and more reflective of the true state of FE.  Any reports ringing alarm bells could warrant a visit by the new Commissioner and his team.

Another measure could be a combination of: 

• Learner voice (how did they rate their experience) Educationally, or wider benefits e.g. confidence or esteem, and employment prospects
• Grading from employers who work with the provider
• Percentages of students who left in which time period relative to their main qualification length?
• Percentage of students who left in the first six weeks
• Achievement of all parts of the Study Programmes
• Percentage of students who undertook voluntary work
• Percentage of students achieving L2 Maths and English
• Percentage of students who would recommend the college
• Measuring the rate of progress of all learners relative to their starting point, not just those eligible for free school meals
• Combined with weighted outcomes job in same industry studied (higher), or other (lower), university or further training (equal to SIS)or no measurable outcome

An overall grade could be assigned to the college on a points system, with a range of points available (out of 100) for each of the (scaled) measures. This could be reviewed by the office of the new Commissioner, leaving a smaller Ofsted to focus on Sixth Form and Schools.

Why not a financial incentive for every positive destination in FE? As Richard reports “This can be most elegantly ensured by making sure that the funding of the system focuses everyone in the correct direction. In that spirit, I also recommend a re-direction of funding.”

Success Rates, driven by the funding incentives have played a large part in the growth of the number of qualifications available and increased course Success rates, but FE now works in a complex financial landscape; forced to make choices that may adversely affect the learners. How does this serve the poor, disadvantaged learners from leafy suburbs and coastal, rural environments? Good education deserves good funding.

Wilshaw talks of dismantling ‘too large’ colleges; are they, rather than their Success Rates the target? A number of large colleges have been downgraded yet the latest advert for an Ofsted inspector states ‘You might be the Vice Principal or member of the Senior Leadership Team of a large college,’ A large college? So, you can’t run a college but you can inspect them?

Size isn’t the issue, it is management and governance. There are Principals who have hung onto their role for years, whilst failing to improve; did Ofsted recommend those Principals were removed? No, they left them in post. If 67% are ‘Good’ or ‘Outstanding’ and 4% are inadequate, then the Commissioner will have to deal with fewer than two or three a year. Could Ofsted, in conjunction with learners and stakeholders make recommendations to be reviewed by an independent Commissioner instead?

Large or small we are focussed on our learners; no matter how it is measured. We take in learners from rural and deprived areas and put on courses to reach this diverse audience. Will these learners stick with a ‘Study Programme’; have the necessary self-motivation to cope with so much independent learning caused by the increasingly stringent funding cuts and hit the new measure of Retention? 

Shine your light Sir Michael, we have nothing to hide; we’ve played by the rules of the organisation that judge us. But before you berate FE colleges further, raise your own game by looking at more varied and reliable evidence. 

Nonsensical?

My first teacher was Miss Armstrong; she taught me to tie my shoelaces, recite the Lords Prayer with precision and how to grow Broad Beans in a jar. 

She also taught me the power of educational policy. I was naturally left-handed, which to Miss Armstrong and educational theorists of the time was an abomination. She tied my left hand to the back of the chair when we practised our looping, swooping handwriting skills on stiff manuscript paper with pale blue lines. This was perfectly acceptable to the school, my parents and even to me. If right-handedness was the key to learning, I would be right-handed. I didn’t question it. No one questioned educational theory or teachers. 

Over the years so many educational, teaching or learning theories and methods have appeared, briefly flared and thankfully faded, although some remain. 'Learning Styles'; Kinesthetic, Verbal, Visual, VAK questionnaires, Active Learning, rote-learning, chalk and talk, accessing skills, critical thinking, higher order skills, learning to learn, lifelong learning, meta-cognitive, problem solving and teaching for understanding. (instead of teaching for …) Hmm. There are hundreds more.

At first glance this appears insane. In twenty years or so teaching has undergone so many changes of direction it is incredible to think that not only have we and the learners survived this but we’ve taught more and learned more. We now question the validity and purpose of educational theorists and policy makers. We evaluate, select and apply to benefit the learners and the subject; we no longer blanket bomb all learners with the same approach. Questioning and discussion lead to higher standards, collaborative working and new directions.

Questioning has informed F.E. practice. Standards have risen, students access higher and vocational education alongside academic, sharing of good practice takes place between industry and colleges, apprentices thrive and more is done with the latest buzz of ‘Enterprise, Entrepreneurship and Education’. 

F.E. has undergone similar multitudinous changes in funding, governance and direction. Some work, some don’t; so isn’t it a sign of maturity to think about and debate the future of F.E. rather than react to or be pushed into changes? To come together and set our own agenda for future growth and direction?

So why, when I tweeted that the #ukfechat topic might be ‘The future of FE’ did I receive a tweet saying ‘the CEO @AoC_info said … that 'future of FE?' is "nonsensical question". Talked of  VET, HE & community etc.’

Given that we are 20 years old and have weathered the onslaught of changes (financial, political and educational), isn’t it right that we debate the future of F.E.? Someone else tweeted ‘the structural reform needed to get to that in govt would take five years min.. and another 10 for colleges to change (rather than just dance round the funding streams in same form) To ensure we're going the right way, don't we all take a holistic view of the map sometimes, ensuring that the way ahead isn't too mountainous, or twisty and that the journey is smooth?

We’re debating because we care; we’re not Ostriches with our heads firmly buried in the policy sands of education, blinkered to the concerns of those suffering the brunt of zero hour contracts, additional teaching loads in unfamiliar subjects and subject to changes that come thick and fast to the form, function and focus of teaching the next generation. 

If we raise our concerns and ideas, debate them honestly and openly, can we hope that those who do set policy; have influence and ability to shape the focus of F.E., will recognise our commitment to and love of F.E. and incorporate them into their thinking?

F.E. is the best place to work in the world. We love it and care passionately about it and our learners. Questioning its future direction is prudent and indicative of our commitment to it.

To not plan or debate the future of such an important institution is ‘nonsensical’ and frankly, of some concern to those who do love it.