Educational quangos; repeal regulation and close IFL

The Institute for Learning is an intrusive and ineffective body. The idear that standards in further educatuion should be raised is fine but this body is failing to achieve anything. By removing the regulation that all teachers in further education must be registered the body will wither and die. No one, heads students and the vast majoority of teachers have a good word to say for the organisation. They themselves publish achievments the best of which has been that teaches feel their self esteem has been raised. Stop this nonsence and remove the restrictive legislation.

Why is this idea important?

The Institute for Learning is an intrusive and ineffective body. The idear that standards in further educatuion should be raised is fine but this body is failing to achieve anything. By removing the regulation that all teachers in further education must be registered the body will wither and die. No one, heads students and the vast majoority of teachers have a good word to say for the organisation. They themselves publish achievments the best of which has been that teaches feel their self esteem has been raised. Stop this nonsence and remove the restrictive legislation.

Remove Quango interference in how teachers teach/work

The Institute For Learning (IFL) is just an unnecessary organisation that Further Education teachers are obliged to join, just so that they can record any training or CPD that they have engaged in.  Why is this necessary?  it is just  another layer of form-filling bureacracy that wastes time that FE teachers should be using in planning and teaching.

Also, OFSTED appears to be treating Further Education Colleges as if they are schools.  Instead treating college students as trainee adults, we are being forced to treat them more like little children.  Much of what ofsted requires of schools is unsuitable for colleges.

Why is this idea important?

The Institute For Learning (IFL) is just an unnecessary organisation that Further Education teachers are obliged to join, just so that they can record any training or CPD that they have engaged in.  Why is this necessary?  it is just  another layer of form-filling bureacracy that wastes time that FE teachers should be using in planning and teaching.

Also, OFSTED appears to be treating Further Education Colleges as if they are schools.  Instead treating college students as trainee adults, we are being forced to treat them more like little children.  Much of what ofsted requires of schools is unsuitable for colleges.

Abolition of the Institute for Learning (IFL)

The above organisation should be abolished for the following reasons:

1. The annual fee, although currently met by Government for those employed full time in the F.E. sector, is a waste of resources and would be better spent on front line delivery.

2. Should the Government at any time withdraw the indirect funding for IFL, then in effect qualified lecturers would be required to pay an "employment tax". This would not be equitable, nor would it enhance the Government's reputation with those working in the sector.

3.It achieves little or nothing that can be in anyway measured in terms of improving the outcomes for students. It appears largely to be more "political correctness" ( a New Labour legacy), rather than a constructive use of both time and resources. The opportunity cost has also not been figured in, i.e. time taken to complete a rather over complex and over subjective, inward looking contemplation.

4. Just as the Government is set to abolish the General Teaching Council,in being consistent, the IFL should also be abolished.There is no substantial evidence that the IFL, or any other similar organisation, has produced a substantive improvement in Education and standards.

Why is this idea important?

The above organisation should be abolished for the following reasons:

1. The annual fee, although currently met by Government for those employed full time in the F.E. sector, is a waste of resources and would be better spent on front line delivery.

2. Should the Government at any time withdraw the indirect funding for IFL, then in effect qualified lecturers would be required to pay an "employment tax". This would not be equitable, nor would it enhance the Government's reputation with those working in the sector.

3.It achieves little or nothing that can be in anyway measured in terms of improving the outcomes for students. It appears largely to be more "political correctness" ( a New Labour legacy), rather than a constructive use of both time and resources. The opportunity cost has also not been figured in, i.e. time taken to complete a rather over complex and over subjective, inward looking contemplation.

4. Just as the Government is set to abolish the General Teaching Council,in being consistent, the IFL should also be abolished.There is no substantial evidence that the IFL, or any other similar organisation, has produced a substantive improvement in Education and standards.