Skills minister calls on sector to bid for ownership of new FE Guild



The Government is to fund a new professional body for further education and put on hold plans to scrap the requirement for lecturers to be qualified teachers, official documents revealed this week.

Ministers yesterday invited bids from outside organisations to run the Further Education Guild which could be up and running by next spring, following up on proposals which were exclusively revealed two weeks ago by FE Week.

Simultaneously, the further education minister John Hayes said that “existing requirements for minimum qualifications [for further education lecturers] are being retained for the time being”, following concerns about the effect scrapping them would have on the “reputation of the sector”. The Institute for Learning said that 80 per cent of its members who responded to consultation on the issue thought scrapping the requirement would deprofessionalise the sector.

I’m immensely excited by the prospect of the creation of this guild”.

The new guild’s functions are likely to include, says the Government, setting professional standards and codes of behaviour for members; developing qualifications for those working in the sector; supporting training; and strategic planning.

The guild, which ministers say will be an “employer-led partnership”, is being designed to act as a focal point for Government efforts to promote professionalism in the sector. Bidders for start-up costs to run the guild could include sectoral bodies and unions.

The move is set out in a prospectus, called “Developing a Guild for Further Education”, which has been sent to leading sector stakeholder bodies by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills.

It begins with a foreword by John Hayes, the FE minister, in which he says he is “immensely excited by the prospect of the creation of this guild”.

The prospectus then sets out proposals which, in relation to the guild, are identical to that in a leaked document presented to the Government’s Further Education and Skills Ministerial Advisory Panel (FESMAP) last month and revealed by FE Week on July 18th.

The Guild would offer institutional and individual membership, the latest paper confirms, both of which would be on a voluntary basis.

FE providers would be encouraged to take out corporate membership of the guild, which would signal a commitment to professional development, says the paper, while for the individual lecturer, training courses provided by the guild would be linked to higher level qualifications.

The guild would also seek “to enhance the reputation and status of the sector as a whole through providing a single, collective focus for raising standards of professionalism and being a custodian of excellence”.

It is understood that organisations who would be eligible to bid to run the guild include the Association of Colleges, the 157 Group, the Association of Learning Providers and unions, although BIS is keen not to be prescriptive in its approach as to who should apply, with any employer led body who has a commitment to professional development in the sector encouraged to come forward.

Ministers are offering funding for unspecified start-up costs, similar from to that offered to other sectors through the Government’s £34 million Growth and Innovation Fund, with some further Government funding after this a possibility.

The Hospitality Guild, which was set up last year for the hotel and catering sector, is being seen as a model for the FE version. It is run by People 1st, the sector skills council for the hospitality sector, in collaboration with 15 organisations.

The FE Guild is being set up quickly, with organisations expected to put in outline bids by September 14th, with a “preferred bidder” then working up detailed proposals by the end of October. The organisation itself could be up and running by next April, though BIS says it wants to be guided by bidding organisations as to a final timescale.

This is a sector-led initiative. If the sector is not enthusiastic about it, we probably won’t be doing it.”

In his foreword, Mr Hayes appears to acknowledge that the move has come following concerns about Government proposals, published earlier this year, for FE staff no longer to be required to be qualified teachers.

He writes: “I have noted in particular the concerns for the reputation of the sector if government regulations requiring minimum qualifications are removed at this time, without first establishing a firmer basis on which the sector can regulate itself and promote ever-higher aspirations. I share those concerns and take them very seriously.”

The establishment of the guild would be, then, one of two responses to this concern. The other, set out in the document, is that the sector’s current requirements for “minimum qualifications” are “retained for the time being”.

The length of this stay-of-execution for the qualified teacher requirement is not being specified. But the stance would appear to put Mr Hayes at odds with that controversially adopted last week by Michael Gove, the education secretary, who is now allowing academies in the schools sector to take on unqualified teachers.

Dr Susan Pember, director of further education and skills investment and performance at BIS, told FE Week that the guild proposals would only be taken forward with support from the sector.

She said: “This is a sector-led initiative. If the sector is not enthusiastic about it, we probably won’t be doing it.”

There was little dissent from stakeholders when the plans were put forward at the FESMAP meeting last month, and Ms Pember said she expected it to be welcomed.

She said: “This is a really exciting endeavour. It’s a chance to bring together FE in a way that’s not happened before. We want to make sure that this is employer-led, working with the employee voice in a really intelligent way.”

Lynne Sedgmore, executive director of the 157 Group, said:  “The government’s proposal for a sector-led guild builds on the freedoms and flexibilities that have been created over the past two years, and the 157 Group is keen to work in partnership with other sector bodies as the sector takes charge of its own future.

“This offers an excellent opportunity for us to help reshape the FE landscape and raise the profile of vocational education. John Hayes’s vision of a vocational craft guild that meets the needs of the economy and society in the 21st century recognises that vocational education should be held in the highest esteem.”

However, not all within the sector are keen. One source who was at the FESMAP meeting said the plans raised many questions, including how a guild would co-exist with existing organisations.

The move to put on hold the scrapping of the requirement for qualified teacher status in FE was welcomed by the Institute for Learning.

Dr Jean Kelly, director of professional development at IfL, said: “IfL has made a strong case for initial teacher education and for a qualified teaching and training workforce, and it is right that the government has taken note of our members’ views.

“More than 5,300 IfL members responded to IfL’s consultation earlier this year, and 87 per cent of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that teaching qualifications should be mandatory on a national basis.

“Around 80 per cent thought that removing the national requirement for teaching qualifications would deprofessionalise the sector.”

The move to put on hold the scrapping of the requirement for qualified teacher status in FE was welcomed by the Institute for Learning.”



Your thoughts

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

4 Comments

  1. Elaine Szpytma

    Why do the government think it necessary to introduce an additional professional body (Guild) when the IfL are in a perfect position to take this on board? There has been so much change in FE over the last decade with numerous regulatory organisations coming and going, each bearing a cost. There has been so much money wasted which could have been used more purposefully to promote excellent teaching and learning. I joined the IfL before it was mandatory and intend to continue with membership. I have obtained QTLS and value the recognition this brings. Rather than spending large amounts of money setting up another ‘new’ body (in my experience different name for the organisation, same old faces running it!)it seems more sensible to expand the role of IfL. They are a dedicated team and I have valued their support. The IfL already has an established infrastructure, has a valued membership, currently has the power to award QTLS (and manages this process well, monitors CPD and provides opportunities for CPD and further development. They are in the perfect position to take on this ‘new’ role. The government didn’t do IfL any favours by making membership mandatory when introducing the 2001/2007 regulations. At that time IfL were a voluntary body and were happy to stay as a voluntary body. Having put them in the position of being seen as the ‘enemy’ by some in the FE sector the government have an opportunity to make amends for this. Whatever decision is made I will continue to be a member of IfL, what is the point in having an ‘additional’ professional body when we already have a perfectly good one already in operation?

    • Lynne Davison

      The IfL are a very good organisation but only deal with Lecturers and trainers.
      Ideally need an organisation like IfL to also encompass – Assessors; Internal Verifiers and External Verifiers etc

  2. Richard Blaiklock

    As the product of a 1960’s grammar school with a love of English, I’d long felt a vocational ‘tug’ in the direction of teaching, but the opportunity to do something about this only presented itself three years ago when I retired after 30 years in manufacturing industry and was able to retrain and eventually take up a position as a part time tutor teaching ESOL (within OLASS).

    What a good move it turned out to be; after 2 years of teaching and learning I am more enthusiastic than ever and feel fully justified in my choice of English Language teacher training courses and the employment sector where I found work.
    So what did the IFL (they are a QUANGO aren’t they?) do to help and support me in my quest for a late career change you might ask?
    Answer: not very much- except relieve me of some of my hard earned cash. I gather nearly HALF of people working in FE regard IFL negatively also.
    A new Guild would therefore seem to me a very positive step, not only in helping me to consolidate and configure the PROFESSIONALISM I’VE ALREADY ACQUIRED & REFINED OVER A WORKING LIFETIME so as to ensure maximum effectiveness within the language teaching sector, but also to acknowledge the contribution late career changers like me can bring to FE in general.