Ref. No.

Comments

1

Lecturers at Edinburgh workshop (in context of question about CPD)

We discussed the fact that as professionals we are abnormal in not having a 'governing body'. An award from an HEI may be OK but there does need to be some discussion.

2

Lecturers at Stirling workshop (in context of question about CPD)

Chartered FE qualification rather than HE. Want parity with schools. GTC registration - talk of FE Lecturers then being able to teach in schools?

3

TEIs workshop (in context of question about assessment of TQ(FE) programmes)

Must maintain professional consistency? If NOT GTC, who? Professional body? Must ensure standards. Makes sense for it to be GTC, who have been in business for years.

4

SDOs at Stirling workshop (in context of questions about TQ(FE))

Do we need registration with a professional body? (Not necessarily GTC). Who would pay fees? Important for ethical practices. GTC would have to be more relevant to FE (14-16 year-olds/vulnerable clients). Alternative view that FE should align with HE rather than schools. Issue regarding pt/temporary staff, but could be resolved. Absence of required membership of professional body creates view that no genuine professional standards exist. Part-time lecturers - general view that PDAs would be appropriate route. What should constitute a minimum level to practice? Continuing involvement in FE - TQ. Responsibility to show evidence of CPD. Construct professional body to reduce de-professionalising teaching in FE. Live professional register - notion of minimum qualifications to get on plus CPD. Colleges have responsibility to workforce. Individuals also have responsibility to develop. Registered person is valuable source.

5

TEIs Workshop (in context of question about whether there should be a streamlined version of TQ(FE))

The question may be, do we want FE teaching to become a regulated profession. This may change the way part-time and full-time works. GTCS compulsory registration?

6

Mixed group at Edinburgh workshop (in context of discussion about ways to improve Initial Teacher Training and Initial Teacher Education)

Are we professionals in FE? If so, who says so? Need for a central governing body to drive things. At the moment, much depends on local college policy. We should be/are operating in a customer-focussed environment. What are the characteristics of professionalism? Most institutions now have a recognised induction procedure. At the end of this, there could be a requirement to undertake an award before progressing. Danger of TQ(FE) becoming a 'plateau'. Professional development should be ongoing - a 'movable feast'. Important to develop links with senior management from the outset and on an ongoing basis. To show professionalism to outside world, TQ should be compulsory. College lecturers cannot be struck off. Does not equate to maintenance of a professional image. At the same time, we don't want to lose spread of skills through employment of people on part-time or temporary basis. Sliding scale arrangement could address this. Diploma has too many units. Could be reduced to 6 core credits with one more to be obtained as part of TQ(FE). Conclusion - whole profile of quality in FE needs to be raised. Discussion of what professionalism entails. Governing body to protect agreed standards. Self-monitoring professional body preferable to employers organisation like SSC. GTCS disbanded FE Committee. Calls into question what they can offer to FE; culture change would be required.

7

Mixed group at Stirling Workshop (in context of discussion about how to improve Initial Teacher Training and Initial Teacher Education)

There is still a debate about how people view their professional status, e.g. "I am a professional musician" (but we employ him as lecturer - his impression is that being a musician is more attractive than being a lecturer).

8

Mixed group at Stirling Workshop (in context of discussion about potential improvements to CPD provision)

Enhanced lecturer role - highly qualified staff incentivised to stay in classroom and deliver the core product.

9

Mixed group at Stirling Workshop (in context of discussion about possible improvements to CPD)

"Chartered teacher" status is important. Some regulatory body required; not necessarily GTC………..Legal position MUST be clarified about the 14-16 year-olds in colleges. Incident waiting to happen if lecturers are not qualified/registered/accredited.

10

Mixed group at Stirling Workshop (in context of discussion about 'other issues' connected with the Review)

PDF – could become part of GTC or some organisation for FE teaching registration and this organisation would replace TQ(FE). Representatives from lecturing ranks and SFEU (responsible for CPD of staff in colleges).

11

Extract from Cardonald College Response

A formal record of CPD should be established within the profession. Indeed, a "minimum" CPD requirement of, for example, four days of approved provision might be useful. This is established in other professions such as nursing or engineering and helps establish a more credible and developmental professional ethos.

12

Extract from Clydebank College Response

PDF should explore the option of GTC recognition for all staff with TQ(FE).

13

Extract from Dumfries and Galloway College Response

There is support from staff for the development of a Professional Body to oversee a Register of "Licensed to Practice" Lecturers. Such a body would have an important role to play in areas such as overseeing CPD/Progression Frameworks for Lecturers and should be a member of the PDF able to advise on this. The body could oversee development of an ethics code.

One issue raised by staff is the differential between HE and FE. Many FE staff are now teaching on Degree programmes, often to Year 3. There is no similar requirement for staff working in Universities to have any form of teaching qualification. Their concern is that in the very near future the two Funding Councils will be merging which is in line with the Scottish Executive’s ambition to achieve a seamless progression from FE to HE. The considerable existing overlap in provision is likely to increase and therefore it would appear sensible to ensure a more consistent approach to Quality Assurance through the expansion of the TQ to FE and HE.

Given the increasing collaboration between schools and colleges which involves college staff working with pupils from the age of 12 it is important that the TQ(FE) is recognised by the GTC for the purpose of college staff teaching under 16 year olds in schools and/or college.

14

Extract from Glasgow College of Building and Printing Response

The College favours a professional body for the compulsory registration of FE lecturers to professionalise the role. Further work needs to be undertaken to determine whether that body should be GTC or another body covering HE staff.

15

Extract from Glasgow College of Food Technology Response

The development of a formalised log of CPD for lecturing staff with an entitlement to CPD would help to ‘professionalise’ the FE lecturer.

16

Extract from Kilmarnock College Response

There is general lack of knowledge/understanding as well as confusion about the role of the GTCS and why FE lecturers should register with it.

17

Extract from Lauder College Response

The GTCS has a very heavy emphasis on school requirements and is not generally regarded by FE staff as a body from which they would benefit from registering with. Equally there is currently no professional body which sets and monitors criteria or standards relating to professionalism, initial training or CPD in FE. The setting up of such a body would be a significant step forward in supporting the professionalism and training of FE lecturers and would provide an appropriate forum for the delegation of the approval of Initial Training courses. Currently the Professional Development Forum could play a key role here.

18

Extract from Lews Castle College Response

Few lecturers choose to register with the GTCS because they see little advantage in return for the annual fee. Lews Castle would encourage the GTCS to investigate ways of making registration more attractive to the FE and HE sectors.

19

Extract from West Lothian College Response (in context of question about how process of assessing nature and content of TQ(FE) programmes could be improved)

Creation of a body more relevant [than the GTCS] to the FE sector and one which works with it more.

20

Extract from ASC Response

At the time of this further review [after establishment of LLSSC], the question of a professional body for the College sector should also be re-examined. But at this time the different options for such a body should be very clearly defined. There is considerable support for a professional body in Colleges but very different roles and constitutions are being envisaged for it. For example, it could be an independent voluntary association paid for by subscription and bringing benefits to its members in terms of offering training and support in meeting job related challenges. An extended role for the General Teaching Council for Scotland, with statutory powers including a license to practice and to "strike off", has also been proposed in the same context. However, with the increasing alignment of the college and university sectors through:

• Rapidly increasing access and cross-sectoral programmes, which the SCQF is likely to enhance further;
• The forthcoming merger of the Further and Higher Education Funding Councils;
• The Scottish Executive's decision not to create a single department for education but to retain the post-16 sector's close links with industry and training through the Enterprise networks; and
• The developing SSC (which is also building links with Community Learning, private training providers and the Enterprise Networks)

it is more logical to align standards and training within colleges with other areas of the post-16 sector rather than schools. Any professional body will need time and resource for development and this should be taken into account in any future plans. It should be separate from the Professional Development Forum, which should remain an independent body within the Executive.

21

Extract from EIS Response

Indeed it is EIS policy that all lecturers in further education should be teacher trained and that registration with the GTC(S) should be compulsory.

22

Extract from EIS Response

As previously stated, the EIS believes that mandatory registration with the GTC(S) is necessary for the FE sector just as it is for all secondary teachers. The EIS believes this is particularly important in 2003 as more and more interaction takes place between the secondary and tertiary sectors with more and more students crossing between the two.

23

Extract from SFEU Response

We anticipate that the "professionalisation" of those working within FE Colleges will increase, driven by a desire from staff and organisations to build on the initial "license to practice" and accommodate changes in the teaching and learning context by adding specialist units for practitioners and those reaching higher administrative and management levels.

24

Extract from SFEU Response

GTC - currently brings limited value to FE as it has strong schools focus and mind-set. Given the closer alignment of HEIs and FECs, consideration should be given to other forms of professional association.

25

Extract from UCET (Universities Council for the Education of Teachers) Response

It is…..curious to note that there is still no intention to make registration with the GTCS compulsory for FE lecturers. We detect a degree of incompatibility in wishing to see the enhancement of the quality of initial training and CPD for FE lecturers but refusing to acknowledge that the GTCS is the custodian of professional standards in teaching in Scotland and that registration with that body should be mandatory, in line with requirements for teachers in schools.

26

Extract from UHIMI Response

The lack of effective engagement by the GTCS with the FE sector would not make it a natural choice as a body to which determining the nature and contents of TQ(FE) programmes could be delegated. Few lecturers choose to register with the GTCS because they see little advantage in return for the annual fee. Registration should remain on a voluntary basis.

27

Extract from EIS/CLA Langside College Response

We believe that the GTCS should have sole responsibility for assessing the nature and content of TQ(FE) qualifications. It is hoped that this may help to achieve a parity of esteem between sector qualifications and facilitate movement between sectors for all teaching professionals.

28

Extract from GTCS Response

It is….disappointing that the contents of the consultation document itself are limited in their scope and vision for the further education sector and fail to address the fundamental issue of ensuring that the status and standing of colleagues in further education is raised to the same level as colleagues in other parts of the education system.

29

Extract from GTCS Response

To ensure that the status and standing of further education lecturers is promoted in an equivalent manner to those in other sectors and that there is coherence and consistency across the expectations of all teachers/lecturers who work with pupils, further education lecturers should be seen as an integral part of the membership of a professional body such as the General Teaching Council for Scotland.

30

Extract from University of Strathclyde Response

Our view is that all further education lecturers should have competencies in the practice of teaching that qualify them for membership of a professional body for teaching in post compulsory education.

31

Extract from University of Strathclyde Response

…it is our view that CPD should be a requirement of continuing professional status in FE teaching as it is for many other professions.

32

Extract from University of Strathclyde Response

Since GTCS would require funds to carry out the additional functions we recommend for it, we further recommend compulsory registration of further education lecturers with GTCS. It is our view that this would enhance the professional status of FE lecturers.

33

Extract from University of Dundee Response

Related to GTC not being the registering body. If another body should replace it, then it should have relevance for the FE sector. Would a register of practitioners be more appropriate? However, at the moment there is little advantage to FE lecturers in joining the GTC.

34

Extract from individual's response (Carolyn Laird, Project Officer, SFEU)

Consideration should be given to a register for college lecturers, with compulsory registration after a short probationary period. The registration should be updated every two years with compulsory professional development being shown by staff in order to renew registration. This would help to develop a culture of continuing development and enhance the status of lecturing staff. This may or may not be GTC. If it is, it has to become more relevant to FE. Currently it does little other than take monies for registration.