Professor Bill Lucas reflects on the findings of City & Guilds research into craftsmanship, and what lessons can be learned across FE.

Craftsmanship is in decline today for a number of reasons.

We live in a throwaway world where being good enough has replaced doing your best, where hands are mainly used only to type on keyboards rather than make things, and where multi-tasking and short-termism are the name of the game.

In colleges and schools these societal forces are further accentuated.

There are pressures on time within some qualifications, lessening opportunities for practical craftsmanship.

And, importantly, there is insufficient understanding about the pedagogies and cultures likely to cultivate craftsmanship.

City & Guilds has published an overview of research I carried out with Dr Ellen Spencer, A practical guide to craftsmanship.

Our research shows that it is indeed possible to acquire the necessary attitudes and skills

Drawing on interviews with expert practitioners and on evidence from many decades it offers practical advice to leaders and teachers.

Unsurprisingly, we found that craftspeople do things differently.

They are passionate. They go the extra mile. They are highly attentive and often self-absorbed.

They notice things more precisely than others, set demanding personal goals are reflective and particularly enjoy giving and receiving feedback.

Three things emerged clearly from our research.

Firstly, you can learn to be a craftsman or craftswoman. Second, it’s about ‘becoming’ as well as doing. Thirdly, the culture of organisations really matters.

Clearly, it is only worth trying to teach students to develop the habits of craftsmanship if it is technically possible! Good news.

Our research shows that it is indeed possible to acquire the necessary attitudes and skills.

Best pedagogies require learners to focus on how they use their efforts, to watch their language (‘I can’t yet do this’ rather than ‘I can’t do it’) and to remain optimistic (seeing setbacks as something over which they have control).

Apprentices and students need to learn to concentrate, focus and practise, all the while tracking the development of their own expertise.

We sometimes forget that part and parcel of vocational education is the sense in which learners are learning to become, to acquire an identity associated with their vocation as they internalise its roles, responsibilities, and tacit knowledge.

Craftsmanship must be similarly internalised. This calls for real-world experiences, authentic assessment, an openness to change and regular mentoring from more skilled workers and teachers.

Context and culture also matter hugely.

Craftsman-like behaviours are promoted when leaders model their commitment to excellence and when ‘second best’ or ‘good enough’ are never tolerated.

Such leaders value effort. They see making ‘mistakes’ (proto-types, drafts) as at least as valuable as outstanding end-products.

Learners need to be surrounded by positive role models. At every stage they need to see the value of group critique and the benefits of sharing work-in-progress.

There are many promising practices across the FE sector and the UK is proudly world class in several vocational areas.

But in a good-enough culture nothing short of a sea change in attitudes is required.

Institutions need to have policies and practices which actively reward everything which has been touched on here.

A massive development in staff’s professional capabilities is called for if we are to produce a generation of craftsmen and women.

Colleges and training providers will thrive where they work with each other to share and promote their shared expertise in craftsmanship.

Best pedagogical practices need to become second-nature in educational and work-place settings.

As one of our interviewees, Jason Holt from Holts Academy of Jewellery, put it, we are talking about nothing less than “a connection between humanity and pride and integrity and applying that in a tangible way to an object or a process or discipline or an output”.

Such a blend of attributes is already evident in pockets within the sector.

But with a more detailed understanding of the leadership and learning methods which work, the ethics of craftsmanship can be spread far and wide.

Q: Many of you have asked me what perfect governance should look like, and some have asked if it’s time for a change. I have therefore decided to dedicate this week’s Dear Sue column to answering this in detail.

A: There are too many variables for us to have absolutely perfect governance in all colleges at any one time, but we can certainly work to make things better.

I have said before that FE governance in England is far from broken, but I doubt whether we could call it dynamic.

The role of a college governor is both rewarding and challenging.

The focus of any dynamic board is on the twin goals of ensuring a first-class student experience, and managing finances in an open and transparent way.

The fundamentals of good governance don’t change, but the way a board is organised and behaves certainly can

These two intertwined activities should be at the heart of everything and, although there have been some failures, on the whole governors do this well.

They are the hidden force underpinning the success of FE, but the landscape is changing and governance should change with it.

I appreciate that the changes to landscape and policy make life in FE difficult.

However, governing bodies need to do more to inspire their colleges to provide a service that does their students justice and motivates them to reach their full potential, with high expectations of students and staff.

They must also give employers and the communities they serve the confidence to invest in college services.

Board members should visibly demonstrate they are sound custodians of public funds and are able to show they have undertaken their duty wisely and prudently.

Area reviews and the creation of new colleges are a once-in-a-decade opportunity to bring in new governors and new ways of working.

The fundamentals of good governance don’t change, but the way a board is organised and behaves certainly can.

Area reviews can provide the trigger to rethink and meet the accountability challenge in a dynamic way.

New governing bodies can start afresh, not just adopt the systems and membership of the past.

These governing bodies should review their composition, working practices, and the roles of key contributors such as employers, governors including staff and students, executives and clerks.

When I speak to chairs with extensive experience in both the public and private sector, they say the most effective boards have a membership of eight to 10, with a composition of people with complementary skills, considered before appointment and utilised once appointed.

They also say good discussion and challenge depends on the quality of material presented to them — and they are most effective when thought has been given to how reports and data are presented, with comparisons and benchmarking used in a consistent manner.

I’m also often told it is crucially important that they are able to provide the most effective challenge and assurance when issues are clearly communicated and potential solutions are offered by the executive.

Board members are least constructive when they have act as “detectives”, spending board time on interpreting data they are given and offering up possible solutions because the executive has not done so.

Many are saying that remunerating chairs would make a difference to the way their role is perceived.

Governing bodies are custodians and legally accountable for funds often in the excess of £100m annually.

Therefore, chairs should be seen as professional governance non-executive directors and should be compensated appropriately.

The accountability and expectations put on such individuals exceeds what can be expected of an unpaid volunteer.

The Charity Commission has recently recognised the extraordinary role governors are having to play in area reviews and have supported proposals to remunerate some chairs.

So should we be making the case for large new colleges to have paid chairs and/or introduce a new breed of remunerated governor whose main job is too scrutinise and challenge?

And, is it not time we dropped the term ‘clerk’ and replace it with ‘company secretary’ or ‘governance professional’.

FE colleges are exciting, dynamic places and governors of the future need to match that dynamism.

Now is the time for new college governing bodies and existing boards to refresh their membership and governance structures and to harness the skills of business leaders and key influencers in their area.

Legal expert Smita Jamdar reflects on legal issues with the implementation of the new Prevent duty, and how this could affect the FE sector.

In parliament last week, the prime minister described the reported decision of an unnamed college to ban Christian Union meetings because of the Prevent framework as “clearly ludicrous”.

People, he went on to say, needed to exercise common sense in making these judgments.

This will be cold comfort for management teams up and down the country trying to navigate the government’s guidance.

This doesn’t list the types of extremism to which it should apply (although it does give examples, including Islamic radicalisation and far-right groups), but instead is based on the idea of views that are contrary to “British values”.

The guidance is based on the much broader definition of extremism as vocal or active opposition to fundamental British values

Hence, the government has chosen a very flexible definition of extremism — so flexible in fact that attempting to enshrine it in statute through the Counter-Extremism Bill is now foundering on the grounds that it is not sufficiently legally robust.

It was chosen deliberately because it can then be adapted to differing environments and changing trends.

While such a broad definition may be a laudably pragmatic attempt at “future-proofing” the legislation, it does leave it open for such vastly different judgments to be reached that even identifying what a “common” sense response looks like may be tricky.

It is important to remember that the statutory duty is to have due regard to the need to prevent people from being drawn into terrorism, while having particular regard to colleges’ statutory duty to ensure so far as is reasonably practicable for staff, students and visitors.

Terrorism is defined as particular action or the threat of particular action (such as serious violence and damage to property) designed to influence the government or intimidate the public in order to advance a political, religious or ideological cause.

This, most people would agree, is a relatively clear threshold to identify.

The guidance however is based on the much broader definition of extremism as vocal or active opposition to fundamental British values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and a mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs.

So much broader is this definition that some legal commentators have questioned whether it is close to being an unlawfully broad exercise of the power to issue guidance conferred by the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015.

Whether or not that is correct, colleges have to apply the definition as it stands.

If there is a religious group (or indeed any other group not necessarily aligned to a religion) expressing views that were contrary to this broad definition of British values, then technically they fall within the Prevent guidance.

Consideration needs to be given, therefore, as to whether or not those exposed to these views could be drawn into taking or threatening action to intimidate the public or a section of the public as a result.

Some religions promote beliefs that raise questions about, for example, individual liberty: sexuality and abortion are issues in relation to which elsewhere in the world terrorist acts have been carried out by religious groups.

If there is a risk that the group’s views could lead to that result, then intervention by an institution is not only justified, but also arguably required in order to discharge the statutory duty.

Having identified a risk, colleges are expected to eliminate it.

In the case of open events, such as visiting speakers, that may be achieved by making sure contrary views are expressed at the event.

But what can be done about private gatherings, other than perhaps ban them?

This may not have been what the government had in mind when it introduced the latest version of the Prevent duty.

But it is perfectly predictable response to a duty drawn so widely that it will capture views that are regarded as mainstream by some groups.

If that is not what the David Cameron wants, then he should ensure his government revisits its definition, not berate colleges for reaching decisions he personally disagrees with.

The recently elected mayor of Bristol explains the key role he hopes FE can play in his plans to drive down inequality through better co-ordinated education and training

Earlier this month, Bristol took to an international stage to showcase how the city became England’s first learning city, joining a network of other places across the globe.

The recent Pascal conference in Glasgow brought together cities from as far away as China and Pakistan to discuss the value of working in partnership to improve learning opportunities – something that is absolutely essential to the success of a place and its people.

Bristol is an affluent city with a reputation as a good place to live, but it’s a city of two halves, and prosperity is not shared by all.

Improving social mobility is one of the core issues that we can overcome through being a learning city, and the FE sector has a vital role to play with making this a reality.

Improving social mobility is one of the core issues that we can overcome through being a learning city, and the FE sector has a vital role to play with making this a reality

This is not a problem that the council or any one organisation can solve on its own.

With more young people under the age of 16 than of pensionable age in Bristol, we need to make changes now for future generations.

Being a learning city shows, however, that things are changing and our college, City of Bristol, has been involved from the start.

Senior leaders, including the new principal, have shown great enthusiasm for the approach and embraced the chance to work in partnership to develop new initiatives which inspire young people.

The idea of working together to improve outcomes is not a new one, but in an increasingly fragmented landscape for learning and skills, the notion of joining together behind a shared vision is an essential one.

Future learning activity will be
governed by a partnership board, made up of city leaders from a cross section of organisations including City of Bristol College, both of our universities, primary and secondary heads associations, as well as businesses and the council.

This ensures a genuine partnership approach as all key decisions affecting education and skills in Bristol come to this board.

The task ahead is huge and work has already begun by bringing the right people together to focus on education, lifelong learning and skills.

Influential individuals are working in targeted groups to tackle some of the core issues Bristol faces – including how to get people into work.

Over the coming year, I am looking forward to working with our city partners and our college to deliver an experience of work for all young people in Bristol and develop and implement a city wide CV.

These are both projects that the college’s senior management are helping to shape, ensuring the skills young people gain are the ones employers need.

Tackling the education achievement gap is also being addressed by a separate group, with a core goal of improving results for young people in school and FE.

With a growing population of nearly half a million, the challenges facing Bristol are the same as those playing out in many major cities in the UK.

We are not unique in that respect, but having grown up locally the importance of levelling the playing field through education is abundantly clear to me.

Becoming a Learning City is one way to improve life for citizens. We will pay a high social, economic and moral cost if we don’t act.