Independence from government 'a good thing'

---

Toni Fazaeli, chief executive of the Institute for Learning discusses the professional body's move to self-financing and its views on government cuts.

Could you tell us a little about the Institute for Learning (IfL) and the work that you do?

IfL was created in 2002 by further education teachers who thought, "Other professions have their professional bodies, why don't we?"

As a result, our own professional body for teachers was created. This demonstrates that commitment to teaching in further education is really being recognised and that teaching and training young people and adults is a very skilled and professional role.

Since 2002, IfL has been developing a number of services and benefits for members, supporting continuing professional development (CPD) and providing advice and support for new entrants into teaching.

In 2007, the government decided that it would be a good thing for IfL to be formally recognised as the professional body for teachers across further education. It introduced regulations that expect teachers to be qualified and to hold IfL membership. IfL is required to ensure that all teachers and trainers remain in good professional standing and up to date through at least 30 hours of CPD a year, and to offer the full professional status, beyond initial training, of Qualified Teacher Learning and Skills (QTLS).

This was to ensure that the commitment to the quality and professionalism of the services offered to young learners and adult learners would be embodied in IfL's work with individual teachers and trainers to help them be the best teachers and trainers they can be. Teachers and trainers in further education and skills are dual professionals – experts in both their vocational or subject are and in teaching methods.

Our role also involves looking at policy and the impact that it could have on teaching and training practice. Where our members show that a policy could have a negative impact, we can feed this back to the government and try and see what can be changed, what can be adjusted or how the policy can be implemented so that it doesn't have a negative effect. We play an important role in helping formulate and adapt policy, so that the views from frontline teacher and trainer professionals inform the development of good policy.

For example, in a recent IfL poll on the likely effect on attendance of removing the education maintenance allowance (EMA), 69 per cent of the 1,700 respondents believed it would have a significant effect, 19 per cent a moderate effect and 12 per cent no effect. IfL will share these findings to influence the amount of investment and the focus of any replacement funds to help make sure that it is targeted to support attendance. Attendance and success for learners go hand in hand, and for teachers to succeed with their learners, full attendance is crucial.

Similarly, IfL has concerns about the effect of funding reductions to literacy and English for speakers of other languages (ESOL) provision, as it may mean larger teaching groups and teachers being able to give less personal attention, when often these learners have had difficulties learning successfully beforehand in larger groups in their initial education.

IfL also influenced the government to secure a grant for initial teacher training and made the allocations process possible by agreeing with the government to take on the role of disbursing the fund. IfL highlights the problems and considers whether there are strategies that could support the best teaching in the circumstances.

IfL is to be entirely self-financed and independent of the government from 1 April 2011. Why has this decision been made? Will this prove to be broadly a good thing for the IfL?

For over four years, IfL has received payment from the government to cover the membership fees of individual teachers and trainers working in further education colleges and provision funded by the Learning and Skills Council – or the Skills Funding Agency, as it is now. That has given a good opportunity for teachers and trainers to get used to the idea of being a member of a professional body. In other professions, however, individuals typically pay their own fees – if you look at midwifery, nursing, accountancy, childminding and numerous other sectors, membership of a professional body is the norm.

Government support in funding from 2007 through to 2011/12, with a little transitional assistance, has helped us all to demonstrate that teachers and trainers are professionals and have IfL as their professional body to support them.

For example, over 80 per cent of our members, by the deadline, confirmed that they had done at least the minimum number of hours of CPD required, which is 30 hours a year for full-time teachers and trainers, and pro rata for those working part time. Indeed, most carried out double the amount that was required. This gives you a strong sense of the dedication and the high quality that teachers and trainers are determined to reach for their learners.

From April 2011, IfL will be on the same footing as other professional bodies. It is already typical that individual members, and sometimes their employers, pay the membership fees, rather than seeking government help. It has been a relatively unusual system that we have had in further education.

Self-financing will be a good thing for IfL in the long term, because it puts our professionalism on the same footing as other occupations and their professional bodies. However, any change, and particularly one where individuals have been used to receiving benefits and services without a payment, can be hard. The policy shift from the government that individuals, or their employers, have to pay for membership from their own money will take some time to be realised.

It is especially challenging in the context where some individuals may feel that their own employment as a teacher or trainer may not be secure, and in the context of funding reductions for further education overall. On the other hand, it is in the interest of individuals and employers to show that they have full IfL membership and keep up to date in their subject and teaching methods in order to offer a really professional service to learners.

Independent research by the National Foundation for Educational Research (NFER) showed that 92 per cent of our members were satisfied with the services from the IfL. This is a good basis on which to build.

What impact will changes in further education funding have on teacher training?

We have a great concern that the changes in funding in further education and higher education, which have been designed for other purposes, will pose a significant threat to the entrance of new teachers and trainers into further education.

We think this was an unintended consequence, not the policy intent. We are working with the government to ensure that whatever the broader policy direction for funding, there is clear consideration and protection to enable the further education sector to continue to recruit and train excellent teachers, and in particular vocational teachers and trainers.

We want to ensure that teaching in further education is an attractive proposition, not one with great barriers of high initial training fees and large loans, but one where we can ensure that there is a flexibility, so that the very best people are not deterred from entering the profession.

What are IfL's concerns about the disparity between Qualified Teacher Learning and Skills (QTLS) and Qualified Teacher Status (QTS)?

We have conducted a campaign to secure recognition of QTLS, the professional status that IfL confers, as being recognised for teaching in schools. We want QTLS to receive the same level of recognition as QTS, which schoolteachers hold, for the benefit of young people.

Thousands of our members work day in, day out with 14 to 19-year-olds and are highly skilled at this; for example, Ofsted has very positive things to say about the effectiveness of their work with 14 to 16-year-olds who come into colleges on the flexibilities programme.

The current policy must be wrong when IfL members with QTLS can teach learners on one side of the road in further education, but if they cross the road to a school to teach the same subject to the very same young people, they are not recognised as qualified teachers. This is not in the best interests of young learners, who need the best teachers, and especially in vocational subject areas, in whichever setting, schools or further education.

By definition, the teachers in further education are more qualified to teach pupils vocational subjects; they are not recognised as being fully qualified to teach them in school settings. Many trainers in further education not only teach vocational subjects – such as health and social care and hair and beauty – but are real vocational and technical experts in these fields.

Young people deserve the best and most experienced teachers in vocational areas. That body of expertise lies almost entirely in the further education sector.

The recognition of QTLS, alongside QTS, is the correct policy. It is not, however, the current policy, and IfL continues to challenge the government, and particularly the Department for Education, to look into this. We have raised our concerns in the education select committee, with the Skills Commission and at various parliamentary seminars and events.

We have also raised the issue with the skills minister, John Hayes, and we have a meeting with ministers shortly on this topic.

What are your views on the government's programme of cuts – notably those that have affected the education sector, such as the scrapping of the education maintenance allowance (EMA)?

We rapidly sought views from our members about what effects withdrawal of the EMA might have on attendance. As set out above, 69 per cent, of 1,700 respondents claimed it would have a significant impact, 19 per cent said it would have a moderate effect, and 12 per cent claimed it would have no effect.

There has been a lot of debate nationally about whether the removal of EMA would affect participation. Attendance, retention, achievement and success go hand-in-hand and there is a very strong correlation between these areas, so as the professional body for teachers our focus was on the possible impact of cuts to the EMA on teaching and successful outcomes for their learners. No other organisation gave this emphasis in their research, showing that IfL makes a distinctive contribution.

When individual colleges, and other providers, are looking for where they might give priority to the funding that they have, the frontline practitioners are saying: "Let's look at focusing funds to support good attendance and preventative measures to ensure high retention and success rates are not lost."

Twenty years ago, there was a concern that young people in further education were not able to concentrate sufficiently on their studies, or to do their homework and assignments efficiently, because they had to work part-time to ensure they could afford to live.

We have been concerned that young people, who have clashes of work and study commitments and are tired because of part-time work, will find that their concentration and their attendance are affected. With the EMA being withdrawn, such problems are likely to increase.

In many sixth-form and further education colleges, 60 per cent of students have been getting EMA. These are students from poorer families, where parents or relatives can't step in with financial assistance, yet as a nation we want all young people to have a good chance to succeed in their studies

What does 2011 hold for IfL? What are going to be the major campaigns and points of focus?

We will have three major priorities.

The first is that we are seeking to succeed in having a large number of members renewing or joining IfL and paying fees, as is the case for other professional bodies, so that IfL can continue to be a robust and powerful voice for teachers and trainers and a credible advocate for our sector.

Moving towards self-financing is not only an ambition; we have a serious responsibility to succeed with IfL being secure in our new funding context for the good of the profession, as is the case, for example, of the Royal College of Midwives. The second focus is that we truly believe that the time has come to recognise the importance of QTLS for teaching in schools. Teachers with QTLS are fully qualified and expert teachers and need to be recognised as such.

The third point is to continue to listen carefully and frequently to our membership about what they consider their priorities are and what they are experiencing. IfL can then support accordingly or garner resources or goodwill from other bodies, and direct that assistance to them.

Very regrettably, some of our members will be losing their jobs as teachers and trainers, because of the impact of spending reductions. IfL must be able to support them as professionals, whether they are in or out of work. We have a duty to our members, whatever their circumstances might be, and will continue to always support them and address the issues that are their priorities.