The regulations didn’t stipulate the type, form and content of CPD for a very good reason. It was always the intention that the regulations would be ‘enabling’ rather than prescriptive, as had become the case for schools. There was a clear policy shift away from employer-led models towards a model placing the professional at the centre of his or her learning. Let’s not forget it was NATFHE that had campaigned for and assisted in the creation of a professional body for FE teachers for this very reason. As a NATFHE branch chair and activist for many years, I know only too well the challenge of stating the importance of professionalism through teacher-centred CPD and, if you don’t mind me saying, my experience of the 80s and right through the 90s is very different to yours in terms of any union’s influence in this area.

I think it is regrettable that NATFHE took the position it did in 1992 regarding incorporation and, more latterly, the introduction of FE teacher qualifications regulations in 2001. It always seemed to me to be at odds with any claim to be a progressive and professionally focussed union to defend the right for any teacher to remain unqualified simply because they worked in the sector before regulation. This, in my opinion, has always made it difficult for NATFHE and then UCU to claim the moral high ground on any matter of professionalism when it campaigns for a position where learners can be taught by unqualified teachers. I suspect this is why other unions with a clearer focus on professional matters became more attractive to FE teachers. Still, it seems that UCU has had its way and we are on the brink of returning to those dark days when access to initial teacher training (let alone meaningful CPD) is at the whim of the individual employer.

IfL’s model challenged the status quo in terms of access to meaningful CPD in that it placed the teacher at the centre and made the teacher the principal judge of whether learning had any impact on practice. I know from the work I led in this area that this was the critical challenge to colleges and (to a lesser degree) other providers who for years had maintained a ‘done to’ workforce training model. So you are right, it was not the regulations but their interpretation through IfL’s model. It was such a shame that UCU couldn’t grasp this (though to be fair its paid officials did) and work with IfL to effect real change. I think you overstate significantly the role of UCU branches in advancing this agenda, where I saw real transformation in colleges it was where leadership, union activism and IfL worked together to achieve this. And I saw some absolutely extraordinary transformation in some colleges.
I would also add that I have seen some of the most meaningful and transformational CPD in non-unionised teaching environments, particularly in areas of work-based learning where, arguably, the place of professionalism and role of a professional body is better understood. Unfortunately it is very often the case that professionals part-fund their CPD and carry some or much of this out in their own time. Perhaps this is one of the characteristics separating a profession from a workforce, but that is another debate.

I agree that regulation alone will never address professionalism, but all parties working together to make the best of the regulatory requirements will. Once the professional ethos is in place and there is a clear expectation of professionalism both in terms of the actions of individuals and their employers, regulations become superfluous. Unfortunately UCU chose to throw its baby out with the bathwater. I suspect history will reflect this, time will tell.

If, and only if, there was any circumstance that lecturers were able to get support from the college for anything other than staff training in the interests of the employer it was through the actions of active union branches, making the case for getting this, generally over and above the management enforced training.

The sitution in terms of CPD will change very little with the change in regulations, it will *still* have to be hard fought by the local union branch on a case by case basis, and most effective CPD that lecturers do will still be done by them, paid for them in their own time. The only difference is that they now no longer have to fill out a form for the IfL.

Regulations are not, never have been and never will be the way to solve a problem like this, and reliance on a regulatory approach is destined to fail - it can be undone by anyone at any time, and can generally be circumvented very easily, because it can’t cover every eventuality.