Talk:Institute for Learning

Review of Professionalism

Following the BIS review of professionalism, IfL has lost its regulatory powers and requirement for lecturers to be members as a direct result of its failure to properly carry out these responsibiliies. It will now go the same way as the GTC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John DePurbrook (talk • contribs) 05:53, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Article 11 Human Rights Act?

There has been some discussion in the magazine of the University and College Union about the pragmatic usefulness of IfL as a membership organization (it is not a voluntary trade union), and whether the mandatory registration with IfL contravenes the freedom of (non-)association (for example, see Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights). – Kaihsu (talk) 13:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

There is, however, no case law or legal precedent to support this claim, indeed many professions and occupations have the legislative requirement to be registered with a professional or other registration body such as law Law Society of England and Wales, medicine General Medical Council, chiropractice General Chiropractic Council, etc. It is unlikely, particularly given the regulation of the legal profession through the Law Society of England and Wales and the General Council of the Bar, that the statutory requirement to belong to the IfL contravenes the Europeran Convention on Human Rights.Socialmedium (talk) 06:19, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

There is actually case law which supports the *negative* right to free association - i.e. the right to not be compelled to join an organisation - I would agree that the particular context of IfL means that it would be a hard fight to match up the circumstances of this organisation with that in case law, but it's not inconceivable that a well present case to the European courts could do just that.

The comparison with other professions is moot - they are different sectors and have different set ups - not all tutors in the sector are covered by IfL (if you are paid privately for example) so it doesn't cover the sector, only those areas funded by central government - this is also watched over by at least two other organisations which overlap with the regulatory functions of IfL (OFSTED and ISA) coupled with the fact that those organisations with regulatory functions actually do something to regulate the sector - IfL didn't do anything about CPD non-submissions and the only hearings it has undertaken have been against people already barred from teaching by virtue of being placed on list 99.

There is a legal question over the right of IfL to actually charge it's members - there is nothing in statute which allows it to do so, and as I understand this will be tested in court in due course. There is also the question of the right to due process which the IfL has proposed to deny it's members prior to lapsing their membership, which is also going to be tested in court as I understand.

Sonicslice (talk) 21:56, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Changes and page clearing

There seems to be an attempt by the pages original creator to try and stop other people adding properly referenced information to this page. I think it would be a more constructive use of people's time if the user actually engaged in the process and rather than just clearing the whole page.

If there areas which are wrong and not referenced, then by all means remove them, if they lack the appropriate balance, then add in the information which provides that balance - all properly referenced of course.

When this page was initially made it lacked references to independent third party sources - this can be seen by the note at the top of the page. The entry was flawed on the basis that it only pointed to the IfL website as it's primary source for all of the information about it. The article now has significantly more balance than it did previously - there are a wide variety of independent sources for the information contained in it and it now more closely follows the wikipedia guidelines.

Sonicslice (talk) 21:49, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I note that the particular member has chosen to stop editing wikipedia, and as such this is no longer required. Sonicslice (talk) 16:14, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

"The" Institute for Learning

This article has been painstakingly edited to remove any references to "The" Institute for Learning or "The" IfL - if it doesn't include "The" then it is not the definitive and therefore begs the question is there more than one? This doesn't make any sense to me what so ever - it needs a the.

Sonicslice (talk) 22:15, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

The use and style of acronyms and initialisms is very much down to the brand of the organisation. Some retain the definitive article ('the' BBC, 'the' PCC) others refrain (NATO, NASA and, indeed, UCU and historically NATFHE) see: Acronym_and_initialism#Orthographic_styling. It is typical for professional bodies to take the latter. Socialmedium (talk) 06:35, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I find it quite odd - in conversation it is consistently referred to as "The IfL" and the only time I've seen it called IfL is when it is the IfL themselves talking about it.

80.73.210.90 (talk) 19:13, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

As it is their brand I imagine it is very much up to them what they choose to call it Socialmedium (talk) 12:27, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

That's not really relevant to the context of how it is referred to by those outside the organisation - the article should reflect the reality of how the IfL is considered rather than the image which they wish to portray. In addition, surely as a member-led organisation that brand belongs to the membership, and not a small clique of ex-college senior management figures who run the IfL?

Sonicslice (talk) 23:18, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

If you think democracy and engagement comes down to the colour of a logo or style of typeface, you clearly have absolutely no idea how any organisation operates, not least a professional body. I don't believe, for one moment, that UCU (note no 'the' as this is how UCU styles itself) goes out to a ballot every time it considers its brand. The only time the definite article is required in writing is when used as 'the Institute'. Use of the acronym or title in full clearly relates to the organisation as the single entity it is. I don't see 'the' before Marks & Spencer, B&Q, ACAS, etc. This was a pointless diversion introduced by someone without a clear grasp of the issue.Socialmedium (talk) 05:43, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the 'the' is used by most people because it's a comfortable phrase to say, it trips off the toungue - the article should reflect language as used - Toni Fazaeli uses 'the IfL' all over her recent article for the TES. This was noted because the article was painstakingly edited to remove any referece to the IfL and replace with just IfL - a notable change to an article which doesn't represent the actual language used by people (unlike the examples given). The reason why people say the IfL is pretty much a diversion - the fact that they do, is what is important.

Sonicslice (talk) 16:22, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

So, is it UCU or 'the UCU'? Is it ATL or 'the ATL'? B&Q or 'the B&Q'. I am going to the B&Q on the corner - correct as it refers to an individual store, in the sentence B&Q is synonymous with 'shop' or 'store'. I am going to buy some timber from B&Q - correct as it relates to the chain, not an individual store. I am going to visit the Institute for Learning - correct, I am going to go to the office housing the organisation. I am a member of IfL - correct, I am a member of the professional body. Socialmedium (talk) 11:13, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

So if it is sometimes correct to call it the IfL - why has every single reference to it been removed from this entry?

86.144.56.91 (talk) 20:53, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

over-reliance on UK newspaper journalism as references

This article uses UK journalistic references as primary sources of evidence. The recent exposure of the UK press in terms of its balance and fair reporting should be considered by readers when examining any bias in this article. A number of the edits appear to be made by people who are very 'close' to the cause which has established itself against the IfL and regulation of the further education teaching profession. These may include a conflict of interest.

Socialmedium (talk) 07:26, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

So is this a point about the use of UK journalism on a topic which is confined to England (and trying to conflate issues in other parts of the UK press is a poor show - TES is nothing to do with Murdoch) or is it raising a conflict of interest (which has already been raised) - this isn't clear...

80.73.210.90 (talk) 19:15, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Sign in and I'll reply Socialmedium (talk) 21:03, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Aside from the lack of: WP:NICE discussion from people who want to discuss the issues is pretty much par for the course - this is the internet, "on the internet no-one knows you are a dog". I'm interested in the direction this statement is heading, is there an issue due to conflict of interest - which has already been highlighted and is not specifically directed at the pro-IfL management editors of this article - or is this is problem with using newspapers - if all the content which used newspapers and non-secondary sources (e.g. the IfL and UCU website) were removed then the page would be blank - this seems a little pointless - so if you could be clearer about what you think is the best way to progress this then it would be great.

Sonicslice (talk) 21:46, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Socialmedium You are incorrect when you state... "This article uses UK journalistic references as primary sources of evidence." This article actually uses UK journalistic references as secondary sources NOT primary sources of evidence. Primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Wikipedia articles rely on material from secondary sources. Articles may make analytic or evaluative claims only if these have been published by a reliable secondary source. Which is why I deleted the unreferenced comments...and your edit summary "editor not qualified to make this revision" is outrageous!Teapotgeorge^Talk 22:02, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Reversions of edits by TeapotGeorge

I am concerned that there have been six edits reverted by Teapotgeorge^Talk, two related to a simple statement of current UK legislation, on this page. There was nothing in any of these edits contravening WP guidelines and I am no 'closer' to the subject matter and, therefore, having a conflict of interest than those who are close to the cause that opposes IfL and, therefore, have an equal conflict of interest (if, indeed, any exists). I am not sure why I have been charged with having a conflict of interest - yes, I am a member of IfL but this is no different to a person who is a fierce opponent of IfL adding content to this Wiki. We both have a close and passionate interest in the subject matter, but from different perspectives. To not allow a perspective from my position whilst allowing the perspective from the other is clearly wrong and adds to the view that Wiki has ceased to present clear and balanced factual authoring at the expense of 'activism'.

By reverting edits made in good faith by someone primarily concerned with balance and fairness you are encouraging this article to remain skewed in favour of a particular protest group which has relied heavily on unbalanced UK press coverage of this issue.

Please rest assured I have no interest other than the accuracy of this article and am surprised you made the reversions you did as my edits were simply factual. If you believe this to be to the contrary then I am not sure how I can convince you otherwise. For further clarity, I am a published writer on further education professionalism and I have a nuetral position on the Institute for Learning. I am a member and have been since before regulation, indeed since before the publishing of Equipping our Teachers for the future in 2004. IfL has got some things right and some things wrong and I believe that it deserves balanced reporting. In future, could you please take your concerns to the talk page rather than blanket revisions as this exposes you to the charge of 'reverting vandalism'.

Socialmedium (talk) 07:50, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

If you check my edit history you will see I have made some 24,000 edits to a very wide variety of articles, you have made rather less and all to the same article, where you are removing content with reliable third party references and replacing them with with your own organisations primary sources. Wikipedia relies on third party references NOT primary sources.Teapotgeorge^Talk 13:56, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I very much doubt that biased UK journalism is really a 'primary source'. Out of interest, where did I cite my 'own organisations (sic) primary sources'? My university would very much consider itself to be a better primary source. Socialmedium (talk) 20:09, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh and by the way - quantity is no indicator of quality, but I guess 'my one is bigger than your one' sums you up. Poor show to delete topics on the talk page, don't you think? Socialmedium (talk) 20:10, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

You are misunderstanding my point, you have added content which is sourced to the organisation of which you are a member (the article's subject) That is a Primary source, Wikipedia needs reliable third party references and you may not like what the press has to say but that is how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources.Kind regardsTeapotgeorge^Talk 07:03, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Interesting, as you have not edited or removed content framed from a negative perspective which cites the article's subject so there is a somewhat inconsistent approach here. I neither like nor dislike what the press has to say on this matter and it is not for you to infer that I do. I do, however, believe that readers have the right to know that such references are subjective. All of the contributors to this article appear to be either current members of IfL or should, by law, be members of IfL - so your point on my membership is moot. It would be like barring a UK taxpayer from contributing to HMRC or referencing HMRC information. I respect entirely your right to edit, but you simply blamket deleted six additions I made on the basis that (in your judgement) my closeness to the topic made me have a conflict of interest. This had nothing to do with "removing content with reliable third party references and replacing them with with your own organisations primary sources". I did no such thing, I added reliable UK govt references to regulations.Socialmedium (talk) 08:30, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Request for more citations for numbers.

In the reversion of 11:06, 23 August 2011 Socialmedium is asking for additional citations regarding the number of people who boycotted payments - what information is being requested - it is far from clear what addition citation is required, all of the figures are based on the data from the cited sources in that section.

86.144.56.91 (talk) 20:57, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Your citation linked to an often cited TES FE Focus article that did NOT relate to the figure quoted, I would like a citation that supports the claim being made: that 96500 people have chosen to boycott IfL Socialmedium (talk) 15:58, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The citation clearly states that 1/3 chose to pay, the corollary is that 2/3 chose not to pay, and to boycott - the number of people who are supposed to be members are quoted are clearly cited (although from a dubious source - the IfL - who seem to change the number of members there are or should be to suit themselves) and the 96500, is merely a concrete expression of the information provided in the cited article, this isn't exactly complicated and I think that in reality you're just being difficult for the sake of it.

109.157.109.140 (talk) 21:23, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Not so - that is the conclusion you choose to make because it suits your argument. There are a range of reasons compounding the current level of membership - the illegal boycott, the state of the sector, those simply 'waiting to see what happens' rather than actively renewing or boycotting, the impact of poorly conceived advice from trade unions. Therefore your citation does not support the argument.

Socialmedium (talk) 05:38, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Illegal boycott? I'd love to see the factual basis of that - I'm not aware that it is being challenged in the courts (although the IfL's right to charge is being challeneged in the courts...)

I think you are splitting hairs by saying that some people are just 'not renewing' as opposed to boycotting, and surely those following the advice of their union are still boycotting (no matter how ill conceived you might think it is) waiting to see what happens could be done by paying or not paying, those who choose to not pay are clearly making a choice to not pay, ergo they are boycotting - there is enough propoganda around encouraging people to pay it from all sides (Govt., IfL, Colleges) except directly from members and their representatives in UCU.

The state of the sector is surely taken into account by the numbers the IfL have been using to justify the low membership numbers ? I.e slashing 55,000 people off the potential membership to ensure the statistics don't look to bad - I know that the situation is bad in the sector, but we've not lost 25% of staff just yet.

Sonicslice (talk) 11:45, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I note that this appears to have been concluded with a change of wording from 'boycott' to 'choosing not to renew'. So we can close this aspect of the discussion.

Sonicslice (talk) 16:13, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Exaggerated claims

I have removed this section as it appeared to be opinion and original research. To be clear; the purpose of cites is to link to reliable sources that back up what the article says, i.e. something that actually says something along the lines of "The Institute's extensive use of superlatives and exaggerated claims have drawn anger". Cites are not there for the purpose of illustrating examples of what the article is claiming, as this is purely the opinion of the editor who wrote it. Also analysis of what, and what isn't, in the Wolf Report is original research; not permitted here. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:39, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I have also removed the "Lack of open governance" section for the same reasons, and it appears that this is rife across much of the article. You simply cannot use cites to IfL's website to cite criticism of IfL. (Unless they are criticising themselves.) The cite used must contain the criticism, not simply be ammunition for the criticism that appears nowhere but this article. Otherwise you have blatant original research and synthesis. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:52, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

This last edit was reverted, so I will give specifics;

• "Only within the last twelve months has the IfL started to publish notes of proceedings of the Advisory Council" - This is cited to the IfL's website on a page that doesn't say any of this.
• "and it still does not publish equivalent notes for Non-Executive Board meetings." It is not usual practice for Wikipedia to discuss what doesn't happen, as that is indication of an opinion that it should happen. This is doubly the case when the cite doesn't mention it.
• "The IfL's officers do not engage with questions of openness and transparency on the official IfL Facebook page." Again, it is not up to Wikipedia to draw attention to what doesn't happen, "fact" or not. Lots of things do not happen on Facebook, that's a fact, but it is only opinion that determines that this in particular should be happening.
• "Those notes that are published are far from transparent, for example there is the evident secrecy of the statement, 'Two experts in governance and leadership development were introduced and they outlined their role'." - Whose opinion is this?
• "The IfL is curiously reluctant to identify participants at the meeting including keynote speakers." - This is cited to a copy of IfL minutes. Analysis of what is in documents is original research.
• "It is also evident that Advisory Council members feel constrained by an unstated bond of secrecy. This is evidenced in one member's comment on the meeting evaluation summary (Q.13), in which she/he observed, 'I still have concerns of what I can say back at work and what I am not allowed to say'." - More analysis of a cited source. No one cares what a Wikipedia editor thinks someone may "feel" from what they said.

--Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 23:20, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I've removed a whole lot more of original research, synthesis and opinions. Could all editors please remember that there is absolutely no problem citing criticism of IfL in Wikipedia, if it is within a cited reliable source. You cannot construct criticism that has not already been expressed by the sources. That means you cannot say things like;

• Look at what happened here [cite]
• Look at what government legislation says over here [cite]
• Therefore, in my opinion, something is very wrong with things.

That is synthesis. A Wikipedia editor is not an authority on employment law and in not in a position to perform this analysis. Nor can you say things like;

• This happened/happens here [cite]
• but if you look here you'll not see this happening [cite]
• therefore, in my opinion, someone is at fault for it not happening.

An infinite number of things don't happen, who decides which are the ones that should be discussed? You cannot discuss these unless you have a cite from a reliable source that has already decided it should be discussed. Nor can you do things like;

• Here's a figure for one thing [cite]
• Here's a figure for another sourced from somewhere else [cite]
• Therefore if I perform a calculation involving the two it demonstrates, in my opinion, a point I'd like to make.

That too is synthesis. How is the reader to know if either the calculation, or the conclusion reached by it, is accurate or valid? You can only use figures that are within a reliable source, in a calculation already performed by them. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 11:22, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Mass deletion of substantial amounts of text

HayesBob (talk) please refrain from deleting on mass substantial amounts of text on the pretext of ridding the article of uncited references. Such widescale alteration of the article should be discussed on the talk page first Socialmedium (talk) 19:51, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Dispute History

A subject close to the parties involved in the dispute has used unrelated quotes from the Chief Executive of the IfL to make it look as if the quote refers to the subject of the dispute. It doesn't and it is misleading to make it appear so. Socialmedium (talk) 09:42, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

LetsDoItRight (talk) - I have included references from both sides of the journalistic piece for balance. The quote attributed to the IfL's Chief Executive is from an earlier TES article which did not relate to the dispute, using this quote out of context in this way is misleading. Socialmedium (talk) 09:58, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Theroadislong (talk) The supportive quote is taken from the same, already referenced, TES article (as you know) - please discuss on talk page and do not delete this quote as it adds balance to the negative quote taken from the same article. Socialmedium (talk) 10:03, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Theroadislong (talk) your repeated removal of a quote which is clearly IN the referenced article is unjustified. Please justify here, with example, instead of deleting. I have clearly demonstrated BOTH quotes are in the same article and you are not deleting the negative one.Socialmedium (talk) 11:23, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

The quote was supported by the wrong reference [1] you have now added the correct reference,[2] but no need to add it twice. All good wishesTheroadislong (talk) 11:52, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

The quote was not supported by the wrong reference, the reference was clear, unambiguous and included both attributed quotes and I do not accept you closing this section of the talk page with the assertion that I was incorrect. You were linking to a second reference in the paragraph which supported another, unrelated point. I found it interesting that, as both quotes were not in the article, you were only ever deleting the one which supported the IfL's role and not the one which was negative.Socialmedium (talk) 05:13, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Synthesis

I have again removed synthesis from the article. Just to remind people; you cannot construct points, arguments or observations from sources by combining them. The point, argument, or observation needs to be already made for you within the one source. If a reliable source has pointed out a discrepancy with what was said/done at different times then that's fine. But Wikipedia cannot cite two separate sources and criticise (by implication or otherwise) the discrepancy between the two. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 15:29, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

future relevance and longevity of QTLS

This concerns the addition of a "in conclusion" paragraph that provides original analysis on the content of the Professionalism in Further Education Final Report (October 2012). The report does not say it is casting doubt on the future relevance and longevity of QTLS, yet this is the conclusion presented.

The quote cited says, when discussing QTLS and QTS equivalence, that "this formal interchangeability is likely to be of diminishing practical value". Whether this means the future of QTLS is in doubt involves analysis of what the report says and speculation on its implications. This means original research, which is not permissible.

The only way Wikipedia can include this conclusio is if either;

• The report itself explicitly says the future of QTLS is in doubt. Does it?
• a reliable secondary source has performed analysis to conclude that the report casts doubt on the future of QTLS.

I'd also say that according to WP:BRD principles, it is the responsibility of those adding the content to justify it and obtain consensus. It is not the case that it gets re-added until those challenging it can justify its removal. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 23:47, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

It's worth noting that this policy spells out the problems with quoting primary sources, which is what was happening here. "primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation.". --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 23:54, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of text entry

I provided quotes from the Report which cast doubt on the future relevance and longevity of QTLS. I didn't provide an analysis of what the implications of the Report are.

Can you please provide a detailed explanation as to why you deleted my text entry which shows the Report casts doubt on the future relevance and longevity of QTLS? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.38.143.36 (talk) 23:21, 13 November 2012 (UTC) No problem. The report does not say it is casting doubt on the future relevance and longevity of QTLS. You are saying the report casts doubt on the future relevance and longevity of QTLS. This involves your analysis of what the report says and its implications. You may be right, you may be wrong, but either way it's original research which is not permitted. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 23:28, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Apologies, I see your point. I'm new to Wikipedia. I thought I was citing independent quotes, relevant to QTLS, from a reliable source. Can you please read the following and tell me if this is more acceptable:

With regard to QTLS, the Professionalism in Further Education Final Report (October 2012) states: ‘BIS and LSIS are working with the Department for Education to ensure that clear routes to the equivalence of QTLS and QTS are maintained.....it should be noted that following the announcement by the Secretary of State for Education in July 2012 that teachers in academies will no longer be subject to mandatory teaching qualification, and in the light of the government’s belief that most secondary schools will become academies by 2015, this formal interchangeability is likely to be of diminishing practical value. Academies will be free to employ any lecturer from the further education sector, if they so wish.’

Many Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by LetsDoItRight (talk • contribs) 23:52, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

That's much better. You just need to take care that you are not leading the reader to a conclusion, even unintentionally. But this is more acceptable , as it is saying exactly what is in the report. The reader can then reach their own conclusion. Could you perhaps place this on the Talk Page, so that everyone can read it? Thanks. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 00:04, 14 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LetsDoItRight (talk • contribs)

References

Consultations and influencing policy

IfL has a well developed process for consulting with members and using this to respond to government policy. The online poll on the home page is there to provide a snapshot of opinion on a current topic and is open to the public/multiple entries, this largely because of shared access to IT in teaching staffrooms make it difficult to use IP tracking to close the poll to contributors. It is not appropriate to identify the online poll as a deficiency in IfL's membership consultations. It is clear this has been done in response to the criticism offered over UCU's survey, which was open to the public and multiple entries but was then presented as a membership survey. No place for this form of tit-for-tat when it distorts the facts.Socialmedium (talk) 17:41, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

This is the paragraph I inserted:

"IfL also conducts on-line polls whose results, according to IfL themselves; ‘cannot be considered statistically viable as individuals are able to respond more than once. They may also include responses from those who are not IfL members.’"

This paragraph neither states nor infers that polls are part of member consultations and it categorically does not identify the on-line poll as a deficiency in IfL's membership consultations. This insertion is placed under the section headed: ‘Consultation and Influencing Policy’ and refers to the latter as Socialmedium. It contains no synthesis, personal opinion or personal analysis and the citation used is from a reliable source in accordance with Wikipedia principles. This paragraph provides information from which readers can reach their own conclusions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LetsDoItRight (talk • contribs) 20:18, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Placing this under the title 'Consultation and Influencing Policy' is, of its self, synthesis. If, as you argue, it does not comment on IfL's consultations, then I do not see what pace it has in this section.Socialmedium (talk) 22:23, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I already removed this earlier the content wasn't supported by the reference.

This section doesn't only cover the topic of Consultation. The heading states two separate topics, 'Consultation' and 'Influencing Policy'. Thus I am justified in inserting information regarding Influencing Policy in this section. Follow ups such as further research and articles for IfL’s website and their professional journal InTuition all influence policy one way or another. The paragraph you deleted informs readers of IfL's view of the viability and role of its on-line polls. An important piece of information which people should be made aware of. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LetsDoItRight (talk • contribs) 23:33, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Once there are reliable third party references that support this, it can be added, otherwise it is just synthesis or original research.Theroadislong (talk) 23:39, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Theroadislong, Can you please explain precisely how the text I added is 'synthesis or original research' when all I added was information provided by a reliable source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.38.143.36 (talk) 17:13, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

According to Socialmedium "The online polls are not part of member consultations and this infers that they are", because of the section heading? You say "Follow ups such as further research and articles for IfL’s website and their professional journal InTuition all influence policy one way or another". There are no references to support this view?Theroadislong (talk) 17:25, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Maybe it just doesn't belong in this section?Theroadislong (talk) 17:26, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Theroadislong. Neither is there a reference to support Socialmedium's original research stating: "The online polls are not part of member consultations", so by the same token this cannot be used as a basis for deleting the entry, as it is invalid.

With regard to the section it's in, I would argue that on-line polls are part of 'Influencing Policy' as they are followed up by research, webpage articles and professional journal articles - all of which de facto contribute to Influencing Policy and stating this fact doesn't need to be supported by references.

If the heading was 'Consultation and it's Role in Influencing Policy' I'd accept your point about it being in the wrong section. How do you feel about changing the heading? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LetsDoItRight (talk • contribs) 19:09, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

What if the heading was simply "Consultation" then we don't infer anything about what happens with the consultations?Theroadislong (talk) 19:35, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd go along with that as Influencing Policy is a whole separate subject. The ways to Influence Policy are many and various and this topic shouldn't be coupled with only one method of how Policy is Influenced. Information on this should be in its own section. LetsDoItRight (talk) 20:53, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok... sounds like a plan.Theroadislong (talk) 21:02, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm a Newby as you may know. What's the etiquette as to who amends the heading and what to put in the Edit summary? LetsDoItRight (talk) 21:49, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I made the point about the polls not being part of any consultation on the talk page, not in the article. It is not original research, it is my informed knowledge. The talk page is here to debate aspects of the article, I was doing that.

Why does any professional body consult its members? I would argue it is to build a knowledge base to influence policy, be that the internal policies of the body or the external policies of others such as government. Consultation in isolation and out of context is meaningless and this section, I imagine (I didn't start it), is to show how IfL consults with its members and uses this to influence internally and with others. I do not support the proposal to amend the title and am surprised it has been done with limited discussion. This is not how I understand the talk page to work. There is no inference about what consultations lead to, the given examples clearly show how IfL has used consultations to (try to) influence policy.Socialmedium (talk) 22:36, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

My apologies if I have miss-read the situation feel free to revert.Theroadislong (talk) 22:51, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

appreciated, but I've had my little rant and am content that it is on record here - let's leave as is Socialmedium (talk) 23:04, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Socialmedium. Your explanation of having “informed knowledge” regarding the subject of on-line polls prompted me to look into Conflict of interest editing on Wikipedia. Do you have conflict of interest? If not, would you care to expand on the nature of your informed knowledge? LetsDoItRight (talk) 08:47, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

'newbie' ehh? I have an interest, not a conflict of interest - if I didn't have an interest I wouldn't contribute, I imagine this is the case for the majority of wiki editors. You repeatedly introduce UCU references and clearly have a contra-position to the work of IfL ...... so go and read your Conflict of interest editing on Wikipedia again. My "informed knowledge" - I am a member of IfL (with 10s of 1000s of others), I take part in consultations, I have an interest in influencing policy...... but I maintain neutrality. Would you care to expand on your relationship with UCU?Socialmedium (talk) 12:36, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Socialmedium, I am disappointed by the tone of your reply and confused by its content. I expected a straight answer, a simple yes, no or an explanation. Are you saying categorically that you don’t have a 'Conflict of interest' as defined in Conflict of interest editing on Wikipedia? A simple yes or no will suffice.

For the record I am not a member of nor do I have any links with UCU. My interest in Wikipedia is to try to ensure it is not used as a marketing tool by unscrupulous organisations, or people close to such bodies, who prefer to hide the truth by deleting unfavourable or critical entries but that it contains reliable, encyclopaedic information, warts and all, regarding the subjects it covers. LetsDoItRight (talk) 23:48, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

In which case you would do well to comment on aspects other than the dispute and to use references other than (in the main) UCU. I agree entirely that Wikipedia should be reliable and accurate, this extends to it not being used as a sounding board by any party in a dispute, wouldn't you agree? To continue to proliferate dispute references throughout the article, rather than restrict to a section dealing with this aspect, suggests intent. I will continue to edit this page to ensure it is not used as a battleground in this way and that references to the dispute are confined to the appropriate section. Socialmedium (talk) 06:59, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Socialmedium. You answered my question with a question so I will ask again: Are you saying categorically that you don’t have a 'Conflict of interest' as defined in Conflict of interest editing on Wikipedia? A simple yes or no will suffice. LetsDoItRight (talk) 12:17, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

LetsDoItRight you probably need to re-read my reply to your initial question, in particular the part where I say "I have an interest, not a conflict of interest". Now I respectfully ask that you desist from using this talk page to repeatedly ask me the same question in such an accusatory way. Can I also point out that you shouldn't edit your contributions to to a talk page once it has been responded to as this can confuse readers. Socialmedium (talk) 06:37, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Socialmedium. You haven't answered my question which was specific in it's intent to ascertain whether you have "Conflict of interest' as defined in Conflict of interest editing on Wikipedia' ".

Far from being accusatory, if it ensues that you don't have a 'Conflict of interest', I'm sure it would make many contributors to this page a little less suspicious of your motives. But since you continue to refuse provide a simple yes or no answer I am satisfied that this question will remain unanswered and comply with your respectful request not to ask again.

Thanks for the advice on editing this page but what should one do if one makes a spelling mistake or any other simple typo? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LetsDoItRight (talk • contribs) 08:33, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

What should one do if one makes a spelling mistake or any other simple typo? You should follow the Talk Page Guidelines of course. That said, the history of this talk page shows that you inserted a reference and didn't make a spelling mistake or simple typo. I am not aware that many contributors to this page are suspicious of my motives. If you would care to cite specific examples of places where you feel I have made amendments or alterations which demonstrate activity likely to result from a Conflict of interest editing on Wikipedia then, of course, I will consider this. I am, however, afraid that I do not respond to repeated accusations without any basis or fact, other than to answer directly, as I did in my initial reply to your question, that I do not have a conflict of interest, I have an interest. Socialmedium (talk) 06:42, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore, you may wish to note that you are not referencing Wikipedia's guidelines on Conflict of interest but are instead referencing an unrelated article on Conflict of interest editing on Wikipedia, you may wish to read the former before pursuing this point. Socialmedium (talk) 06:50, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

References

ATLS

Please could someone explain what ATLS stands for? It is not at all clear in the article . thanksTheroadislong (talk) 21:41, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

The 2007 regulations (poorly) defined two types of teaching status - 'full' - Qualified Teacher Learning & Skills (QTLS) and 'associate' - Associate Teacher Learning & Skills (ATLS).http://www.excellencegateway.org.uk/node/18378 Socialmedium (talk) 22:19, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I'll add the full name to the article to make it clearer.Theroadislong (talk) 22:21, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Editorial bias

It is quite clear that this article is subject to editorial bias, evident from the proliferation of references to 'the dispute' and UCU. UCU took a position over regulation which, time will tell, will prove to be either positive, negative or of little impact on the professional identity of FE teachers. It is arguable that these should be on the UCU wiki page as the repeated references here lead the reader to determine a motive.

By repeatedly introducing element of a UCU generated dispute into other areas of the article other than the section dealing with this dispute, the article is substantially weakened, particularly when these are brought to the fore by including in the introductory paragraph. Wikipedia is concerned about contributors who are too close to the subject. If this were an article solely on the dispute, it would be arguable that the repeated UCU references were from a source too close to the subject.

Can I ask that unless there is anything new to add, contributors desist from embellishing aspects of this article for effect. I believe 'the dispute' should be consigned to a single section and aspects of the dispute not be proliferated throughout the article.Socialmedium (talk) 22:56, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Socialmedia. May I remind you that it is not for you to dictate the content of this contribution and that this is not an IfL Members group. I advise you to read Wikipedia: Policies and guidelines and Ten Simple Rules for Editing Wikipedia for advice on Wikipedia entries. LetsDoItRight (talk) 07:24, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

You may remind me of anything you like, but you may not infer anything that is not present in my comments. Rather than direct me to a resource in the way that you have, perhaps you would care to identify where asking contributors to remain on topic and contain content within appropriate sections departs from any published guidelines. May I remind you that this is the talk page, where contributors are free to discuss the content and style of the article in order to improve it. Either you believe that the article is improved by restricting references to the dispute within that section or you disagree. If you disagree, feel free to explain why. But please do not use the talk page to criticise me in this way, I refer you to the Talk Page Guidelines. PS - your second link doesn't exist.Socialmedium (talk) 07:59, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Proposed abolition

The claim that Sue Crowley continued to claim a close relationship with unions despite the UCU motion and the Unison statement does not stand up. The Sue Crowley reference pre-dates the announcements by UCU and Unison. Socialmedium (talk) 23:29, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

You are in correct when you say Sue Crowley’s reference (8th June 2011) pre-dates the announcements by UCU and (28th May 2011) and Unison (8th April 2011). Sue Crowley makes this clear in the reference.

That being said, she didn’t claim to have ‘close relationships’ with unions after the announcements. So in this respect the entry was either original research or synthesis. LetsDoItRight (talk) 23:14, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, and you will see I deleted it for exactly that reason. Your dates, however, are wrong. The Letter to the TES by Sue Crowley was published on the 18th June 2010 (be careful, as online the TES has a 'modified' date each time a comment is added). The Unison piece was published on the 8th April 2011. The UCU reference has no publication date, though refers to the 2010 Congress held between the 30th May and 1st June. The second UCU reference was published on the 18th February 2011. One imagines that, as UCU did not withdraw from holding a directorship of IfL after the 2010 Congress, it retained a close relationship. Socialmedium (talk) 06:50, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Intimidatory practices and policies

Unless a strong rationale not to do so is presented through the talk page resulting in its reversion, I have deleted this section for the following reasons:

1. The references provided in support of IfL being 'intimidatory towards members' do not reinforce this point. One person writing "I felt bullied into membership" is not evidence of intimidatory practices, not least because it doesn't mention IfL as doing the bullying - employer? government? Assuming the writer meant the IfL is original research. Both references have different voices being positive about the role and work of the IfL, it is conjecture to conclude that there is evidence of intimidatory practices and policies by IfL.

2. The references to intimidatory practices and policies relating to CPD do not mention such practices, the first simply sets out the facts in relation to declaring CPD, the second is the election statement of an IfL Council member and makes no reference at all to intimidatory practices and policies.

3. The closing reference, in relation to the Code of Conduct, makes no reference to intimidatory practices and policies. It is an opinion piece on the consequences of IfL having and operating disciplinary rules under its Code of Conduct.

Socialmedium (talk) 06:47, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Other opposition: 'polarised debate and opposition'

This is simply an additional link to TES article about proposed industrial action by UCU. It belongs in the section relating to membership fees and is not an example of further 'polarised debate and opposition'. Being pedantic, all debate is polarised; if debate isn't polarised it is, in fact, agreement.

Socialmedium (talk) 06:57, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Other opposition: proposed abolition

I have removed this section as the single reference in this brief, one sentence section does not support the claim that the UCU voted for the IfL to be abolished. It is a comment piece in the TES which says:

Lecturers attacked the Institute for Learning (IfL) for having “failed” members and called for the University and College Union (UCU) to survey branches on whether it should be abolished. Members at the weekend’s annual congress said the IfL should campaign with the union in issues of pay and workload but instead it was merely “a continuing professional development enforcement body”. They urged more union members to stand for the IfL’s council to change it from within."

Whilst there is a call for a UCU Branch survey on abolishment (which could not, in any case, have happened as IfL was and remains a company limited by guarantee and not a vehicle of government) the Congress action was for union members to stand for IfL Council.

Socialmedium (talk) 07:08, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Regulatory confusions

I do not see how the content of this section relates to the subject/headline. Nowhere in the section is any confusion evident about the purpose or status of regulations. Could the author/contributor please consider the headline/content? If not, I propose either changing the headline to something like 'stakeholder opinion' or simply moving the comments and references to other existing and appropriate sections.

Socialmedium (talk) 07:17, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Supporting professional practice for the benefit of learners in the UK

LetsDoItRight requested a citation for the opening statement that the IfL is "supporting professional practice for the benefit of learners in the UK". The supplied NIACE reference clearly concludes, from its title, that a "strong and professional IfL will benefit adult learners". It is wrong to claim that linking the two is synthesis. NIACE is discussing the subject of this article, IfL, and perceived benefit for adult learners. These are, of course, learners in the UK. The reference discusses the role of IfL in "raising standards of teaching and training" and goes on to argue that "there is no doubt that learners' interests are best served by having teachers, tutors and trainers committed to maintaining and extending high standards and continuing their professional development". There is an absolute relationship in the article between IfL, professional practice and the benefit for learners. There is no synthesis.

Socialmedium (talk) 22:17, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Socialmedium The reference you provided, which is far from being relevant as it dates from 2011, does not say IfL is "supporting professional practice for the benefit of learners in the UK". You synthesise your own conclusion from the title of the reference. You say the reference 'clearly concludes' from its title that the IfL is "supporting professional practice for the benefit of learners in the UK". This is your conclusion. This is your opinion. This is personal analysis. You may be right, you may be wrong, but either way it's original research which is not not permitted.

LetsDoItRight (talk) 23:13, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I think you are mistaking quotations and citations. A Quotation is the verbatim publication of text from a source or reference and must be used word for word. A Citation is used to uphold an intellectual argument, on wiki in much the same way as it is used in academic research and writing, to allow the reader to see that there is underpinning prior art for a given idea, theme or proposition. It does not need to be a verbatim representation of the argument, but must stand up to scrutiny and support the argument. In this case the citation does not need to include the phrase "supporting professional practice for the benefit of learners in the UK" but it must provide third party evidence to support the statement. This I have argued above and do not need to repeat. You cannot move from your claim of 'synthesis' to a new claim 'personal analysis' and 'original research' without demonstrating unequivocally that the citation does not support the statement.

It is clear that "supporting professional practice for the benefit of learners in the UK" is a stated aim of the IfL. You cannot argue that it isn't. The statement may benefit from amendment to "that aims to support the professional practice of its members for the benefit of learners in the UK".

Oh, and given your preference for citing journalistic sources which are simply the repetition of a press release from a given organisation, please don't presume to lecture me on the validity or relevance of any citation on date alone. I am sure any researcher would conclude that 2011 is close enough to 2012 for a citation to be valid and reliable.

Socialmedium (talk) 06:27, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Socialmedium Although I disagree with much of your argument and am offended by the tone of your final paragraph, I agree the statement will benefit by changing the text to clarify that these are the aims of IfL rather than a statement of indisputable fact.

LetsDoItRight (talk) 08:38, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Conditions of IfL Membership: Original Research

This is original research. The IfL Conditions of Membership state that members are not ‘members of the company’ (or Directors in the legal definition). This is not unusual or distinct among membership organisations. It is no different to membership organisations who are charities limited by guarantee, where all members are not trustees. This protects members from the financial consequences should the organisation need to be wound up. The IfL Conditions of Membership make no reference to the governance procedures or appointment of staff. The second ‘legislation.co.uk’ citation is a link to the index page of the Companies Act 2006. It makes no reference, directly or indirectly, to the governance processes of IfL or the rights of its members.

IfL members with voting rights, those professionally qualified in line with the majority of other professional bodies, can stand for election and elect candidates for Council. Council then elects those who form the non-executive board and who occupy the roles of Chair and President. This is a democratic process in line with the UK government model. Please be careful to describe the attestable facts of the matter and not to infer any meaning through unrelated citations.

I have started a separate section on governance.

Socialmedium (talk) 07:20, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Governance

The reference to a May 2011 newspaper opinion piece (not fact reporting, please see Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources) includes editorial commentary (not fact) about IfL's Advisory Council. Wikipedia describes this form of reporting as 'rarely reliable for statements of fact'. The piece also refers to IfL at the time of its regulatory responsibility for the FE sector, not in its current state as a voluntary professional body. This adds little, if any, value to the section on governance.

Socialmedium (talk) 05:28, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I have amended the piece to conform with Wikipedia Guidelines which state ‘Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (opinion pieces) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author’. Since the governance structure hasn’t changed since IfL lost its regulatory responsibility this piece is reliable.

LetsDoItRight (talk) 10:16, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Wiki guidelines on reliable sources state:

Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (opinion pieces) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact.

This means the only conclusion that can reliable be drawn from such an opinion piece as the one cited here is the face that it was written by Joseph Lee. If the article were about Mr Lee it would be a reliable statement of fact, as it is about IfL it is Mr Lee's non-expert opinion published in a UK magazine and as such falls outside of wiki's guidelines on reliable sources. He is the editor of the magazine and is self-publishing his opinion, not fact. Please demonstrate how the citation is a reliable statement of fact and not the sole opinion of the journalist.

Additionally, Mr Lee's opinion was formed at a time when IfL was a mandatory regulatory body with regulatory responsibilities, it is now a voluntary professional body. Had Mr Lee's opinion been valid and reliable at the time of publication, it is not now. IfL's governance model may or may not be appropriate for a voluntary professional membership body of its size and scale, but a 2011 opinion of a 2009 statement has no bearing on this. Please do not revert without responding to these two points.

Socialmedium (talk) 06:59, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

This is an editorial comment and as such is a reliable primary source. It not meant to represent fact and the comment is still relevant as nothing has changed in the make-up of the NEB since mandatory regulation was revoked.

LetsDoItRight (talk) 07:31, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for confirming you are using opinion and not fact and that you do not mean to represent fact in making this contribution using this citation. I have reverted the edit as only reliable facts should be used in Wikipedia drafting. Given that you have been quite clear that you do not mean to represent fact with this contribution, I would appreciate it if you did not undo this edit to restore content you know is not factual.

Socialmedium (talk) 08:13, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are mistaken in your presumption that I have used anything but an editorial comment. This is an editorial comment and as such is a reliable primary source therefore it will not be deleted from this article.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by LetsDoItRight (talk • contribs) 12:18, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I do not know how I can be mistaken in my opinion. I believe you are using editorial comment which is not a statement of fact. You have confirmed that you are using editorial comment which is an opinion and not meant to be a statement of fact. We are in absolute agreement on this. I assert that the fact that this is the self-published opinion of a non-expert places it outside of the guidelines for reliable sources. You are not countering this with any substance: how is Mr Lee expert in professional body governance? how can an opinion made in 2011 about the state of affairs in 2009 be reliable now those affairs have changed significantly? Your refusal to discuss these issues and, instead, simply revert my edit verges on gaming the system. I have reverted my edit and asked for a third party opinion.

Socialmedium (talk) 13:57, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

It would appear this editorial, properly attributed and placed in the right context, may be notable. But I don't know who Joseph Lee is, if this was clearer the reader would be better equipped to assess the value of his opinion. Is he journalist? Does he speak for TES? What insight does he have that he was given this platform? What bias or personal involvement might he have? Can the context of what he was saying and when he said it be made more precise? Is there be any other balancing viewpoints that could be similarly included? If the article is to cite opinions it's important to give due weight to opposing opinions. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 15:06, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Joseph Lee is a journalist who became the editor of the FE Focus insert to the Times Educational Supplement (despite its name, nothing to do with the newspaper of the same name). He is a journalist. He is noted for taking FE Focus from its earlier focus on professionalism towards a more tabloid approach. He is, as far as I am aware, not expert in the area of professional bodies, membership associations and their governance. This opinion was presented at the time of the UCU position on membership fees and is, in my opinion, potentially subjective as it was intended to illicit responses by way of comment and contributions to the TES's forum (all anonymous). I am not aware of any balancing opinion, largely because it is unusual for anyone to opine publicly in favour of something like the appropriateness of the governance model of a given professional or membership body. It adds no intellectual or factual weight to the article.

Socialmedium (talk) 16:51, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to intermediate Escape_Orbit. Joseph Lee is a reporter with TES, which has more than 2 million registered online users in 197 countries. Since 2004 Joseph Lee has published, or been quoted in 1077 publications in the TES Newspaper, 110 in TES Magazine and 33 in TESS, the majority of which cover major government Further Education (FE) policies and issues surrounding them in the UK. Neither has TES or Joseph Lee ever, to my knowledge, been criticized for being biased or radical in their views or comments on FE in the UK. On the contrary I’d say TES is regarded as one of the foremost, informative and objective educational news sources in the UK.

As for context, this piece by Joseph Lee comments on the make-up and structure of the Non Executive Board (NEB) of IfL which has not changed since the citation was published, so it is still relevant and it is in a section entitled Governance. The reason that there are no reliable balancing viewpoints is that none have been, as yet, been submitted.

Instead of repeatedly deleting any piece which is from a reliable primary source, initially without discussion on the talk page, I’d encourage all readers to use the talk page 'before' deletion of contributions and whenever possible, to provide balancing viewpoints, as has previously been the case in this entry.

N.B Refs don't seem to work so here they are:

http://www.tes.co.uk/searchResults.aspx?keywords=%22joseph%20lee%22&area=thePaper&cmd=AddPm&val=WVPUBLICATIONID%7C2

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Times_Educational_Supplement

LetsDoItRight (talk) 21:45, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

With respect, I bring all major edits to the talk page, as I did with this one. I am still waiting for LetsDoItRight to acknowledge that Joseph Lee is not expert in the area of professional body governance (links to other published work would suffice). This is key. Mr Lee is in a position to self-publish, as he did with the citation in question. As the editor of FE Focus he is in the position to publish his own opinion, this does not make it reliable or factual. I observe that LetsDoItRight relies almost exclusively on citations from FE Focus, largely written by Joseph Lee. It is not appropriate to cite the number of online registered users of the TES forum, it is widely acknowledged that the forum is riddled with trolls, sock-puppets and multiple identities. It is an anonymous online space with little by way of proactive moderation. It is also predominately a schools-focussed space, with just two FE fora out of circa 100.

The TES is not a newspaper and doesn't describe itself as such. The circular wiki reference does not support the statement that the TES is 'one of the foremost, informative and objective educational news sources in the UK', indeed since the launch of FE News and FE Week the size of its further education readership has diminished and I would argue that both FE News and FE Week are more objective, with FE Focus often taking an oppositional, contentious tabloid style of journalism.

I stand by the point that this article relates to IfL as a regulatory body. There is no basis in fact that Mr Lee's opinion was reliable at the time of publication and certainly it is not reliable now. Nothing provided by LetsDoItRight convinces me that Mr Lee is an authoritative voice in terms of the leadership and governance of professional and/or membership bodies or that his opinion at the time was anything more than that: opinion. The Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources guidelines caution against using editorial comment, citing it as being ' rarely reliable for statements of fact'. The guidelines also guard against anything self-published by a non-expert. LetsDoItRight continually refers to Mr Lee's writing as a 'reliable primary source'. The guidelines advise great caution in the use of primary sources - 'they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research' - presenting a Secondary source as a more reliable alternative. This is not even original research, it is Mr Lee's non-expert opinion and is not supported by any facts.

Socialmedium (talk) 23:06, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

The point I was trying to make was that you deleted my entry ‘before’ any discussion took place on the talk page, which is what I meant by using the word ‘initially’.

My entry was inserted at 00:17 on the 9th of December, was deleted by you at 05:22 and your talk page entry was inserted, after it was deleted, at 05:28. So it was deleted ‘before’ it was discussed. I just wish you would agree not to do this in future.

I find your reference to the TES forum and it being widely acknowledged that the forum is riddled with trolls, sock-puppets and multiple identities is wholly unsubstantiated and in extremely bad taste. In future correspondence I respectfully ask you to moderate your tone, which I find offensive and unbecoming of professionals.

As for other issues you refer to I am happy to abide by the judgement of the third party you referred to.

LetsDoItRight (talk) 00:15, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure, unless you are the proprietor, how you can be offended about my opinion on the TES online communities. I am a regular user of the two FE fora, where currently one individual ‘enjoys’ at least five different identities, largely for the purpose of disrupting threads and winding up others. This is open knowledge and suffered by the half a dozen (yes, as few as that) regular contributors. There are frequent episodes of trolling in the community, which has been shut down several times and been subject to emergency moderation, far removed from the policy of light touch administration. The ‘general’ and ‘opinion’ fora are particularly prone to episodes of trolling and sock-puppetry, which you would know and acknowledge if you were a regular there. Again, I find your statement that you are offended and that the assertion that the community experiences these issues regularly in ‘bad taste’ something of an overreaction.

There is no requirement to bring every edit to the talk page before carrying out. For completeness, I note that you are yet to start any discussion on this talk page. I could take offence at your tone. I won’t, because that is not my style. I will not agree to discuss every edit in advance, not least with someone who has yet to do this in a single instance.

I note with interest that you continue to refuse to address my two key questions: in what way is Mr Lee considered to be expert or authoritative enough to publish on the matter of professional or membership governance and, given that the status of IfL has changed substantially since Mr Lee self-published his non-expert opinion, how can a statement that was unreliable then be any more reliable now? Is there a body of evidence from expert sources challenging the governance of IfL in a way that makes this single, non-expert opinion, relevant to this article? If not, what point are you trying to make?

I really see no merit or value in this contribution on governance, other than to cause the reader to doubt the efficacy of the governance model. If there is a body of evidence to support this then I am content, but the citation should be from one or more of those expert sources and not from the opinion piece of the editor and principal journalist of a trade magazine. Mr Lee’s opinions on effective professional governance are without any basis in fact or any declared experience. They are his opinions and his alone and should not be portrayed as fact.

Socialmedium (talk) 06:45, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

References

Substitution of text from original source

Socialmedium. I tried to find the difference between the words 'repealed' and 'revoked' without success. Can you please disclose your source to confirm it is reliable?

Failing that would you agree that in a case where referenced terminology is incorrect or ambiguous, in the interests of accuracy, this wording should nevertheless still be used? i.e. in; 'We recommend that they should be revoked with effect from 1 September 2012' [3] the word 'revoked' is used but the word 'repealed' isn't and to substitute it with a word which has a different meaning may alter the original author's intent.

LetsDoItRight (talk) 20:08, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

You repeal all laws. See any legal dictionary such as: Websters - 'repeal'. However in this case I am mistaken and will revert. I see, quite bizarrely but maybe with future intent, that the law has not been fully repealed and is still on the statute book, meaning it can be brought back at any time by repeal of the latter statutory instrument. This is the difference between repeal (which takes precedence) and revoke. I had thought it was the Minister's intent to strike from the statute book, but it seems he chose instead to keep it there. This is usually only done where there is the potential to reintroduce the law in future without full Parliamentary process. Interesting.

You repeal an Acts of Parliament and other secondary legislation. Once repealed, it cannot be brought back onto the statute book without full Parliamentary process. You revoke Acts or statutory instruments with the introduction of a new law which specifically states the statue is revoked (an express repeal) or contradicts it (implied repeal). Most MPs don't understand the distinction and the words have come to be used interchangeably. In short all laws are repealed (so I was, at least in part, correct). Revocation comes into play when considering how the repeal is effected and if the repeal can be reversed without full legal process. In this case the initial legislation remains on the statute book - either through intent or ham-fisted Ministerial action to change the law without considering the consequences - and can easily be reversed. Therefore the correct term would be 'repealed through revocation'.

Socialmedium (talk) 06:57, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. When one considers this change in law came about primarily through insurmountable issues surrounding the compulsory membership of IfL, and that compulsory membership formed only part of the 2007 statutory instrument, it’s not beyond the bounds of reason to presume revoking, rather than repealing this law was the only way they could address the awkward problem of getting rid of IfL, whilst leaving themselves room to manoeuvre as to whether some form of legislation requiring FE teachers to be qualified, (as Hayes seems to have had leanings toward, or not, as Gove still seems to believe), remains in place.

LetsDoItRight (talk) 19:35, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

There again it could be that they are leaving an easy path for the FE Guild should it ever take off and prove popular. But either way I don’t think there are any plans to reinstate IfL.

LetsDoItRight (talk) 19:57, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

It's not repeal or revoke. Revocation is one of the ways you repeal a law. If a law is revoked it is, by definition, repealed. The qualification regulations were (are) in a separate statutory instrument. Repealing the statutory instrument doesn't get rid of the IfL, but your obvious prejudice is clear and, I am sure, helps readers understand the motivation between the edits and contributions you make. Oh, and you can't 'reinstate' something that is still there.

Socialmedium (talk) 20:06, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid your explanation of repeal/revoke is far too complex but I thank you for providing a reliable source and reverting to the original text anyway.

Like it or like it not, the FE sector is now free of IfL and they have been got rid of through statute, one way or another and I, along with tens of thousands of others, am glad. Stating the IfL has been got rid of is a short phrase to replace a long winded explanation, e.g. 'dispensing with the necessity to continue with legislation relating to... etc. etc. etc'. It doesn't show prejudice in relation to this article just as your obvious support for IfL and condemnation of those who criticise it does when you say references to the UCU dispute are littered throughout the piece.

We all have a point of view but we all must assume good intent and use Wikipedia as it was intended to be used, as a source of encyclopaedic, reliable information. Not as a platform to offend and make accusations against contributors through the talk page nor promote an organisation by sanitising it through deleting all 'unfavourable' comments within an article.

LetsDoItRight (talk) 21:15, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

It is hardly complex. Repeal is the act of overturning UK law, revocation is one of the tools through which it is achieved: by passing a new law repealing the Act or Instrument but without removing the former.

The IfL has not been got rid of through statute. It shows absolute prejudice in relation to this article. A neutral point of view would focus on the repeal of secondary legislation requiring membership and not express that the author was glad that the subject had been got rid of. This is emotive language, whether in the talk page or the main article, and it becomes difficult to assume good faith. The fact is that IfL has not been got rid of.

Socialmedium (talk) 06:05, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Integrity of the article

See my early observation regarding editorial bias.

I agree that the dispute over fees was an important part of IfL's history. It should not, however, be used as an excuse to edit sections of this article to ensure references to it are littered throughout the piece. This verges on gaming the system. The dispute should be described in its appropriate section and confined there. There do not need to be repeated insertions of "UCU said...." against aspects of IfL's work. I will, over time, remove duplication of such comments and restructure the page to confine to a single section on the dispute. In future could authors please come to the talk page first to explain why a reference to the dispute is needed outside of the specific section.

Thanks

Socialmedium (talk) 07:07, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

We mustn't forget the dispute wasn't just about fees nor did it only involve UCU members. It was about a lot more, including mandatory membership, IfL's governance, etc. etc. and has its place in more than a single section. The dispute didn't only involve UCU, they only had 35,000 affected IfL members while well over 100,000 IfL members chose to boycott.

I, and I hope many others, will keep a careful watch on future edits to ensure this article is not used merely to promote IfL but provides encyclopaedic knowledge of IfL, warts and all, and that anyone attempting to sanitise it by the removal of 'unfavourable' comments, whatever their motives, will not succeed. In future could authors please come to the talk page FIRST to explain why a reference to the dispute is deleted from a specific section.

Thanks

LetsDoItRight (talk) 11:43, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

As I said, gaming the system. And, as I said, I will restructure the article in the future to ensure dispute references are limited to the right place. You, of course, are free to describe here why you make the edits you choose to make. But I note you never do.

Socialmedium (talk) 20:13, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Brief Introduction

Apart from being brief, the introduction should be accurate. Since IfL comprises anyone who has an interest in the FE sector, regardless of their profession, it is inaccurate to describe it as the body for teachers and trainers. This implies it consists exclusively of teachers and trainers, which is misleading, as it demonstrably does not. I have added a reference to the Grades of Membership section addresses this inaccuracy.

195.44.198.62 (talk) 12:22, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Most professional bodies have categories or grades of membership for non-professional members - these can vary from industrial members (companies), companion members (those with an active role/interest), through to less-defined description of affiliate or associate membership. There is nothing unique in IfL membership grades that means this needs to be highlighted in the introduction. It doesn't alter the fact that IfL is a professional body for teachers and trainers and it is wrong to edit the introduction from the point of bias described above. It is clear from the membership grades that non-professional members (either those working towards their initial qualification - Affiliates - and those who have an active interest - Companions) are not awarded professional status through the conferral of post-nominal letters. You may think, as you state above, that "since IfL comprises anyone who has an interest in the FE sector, regardless of their profession, it is inaccurate to describe it as the body for teachers and trainers. This implies it consists exclusively of teachers and trainers, which is misleading, as it demonstrably does not" but this is your opinion, not fact. The introduction makes no claims to IfL's membership being "exclusively of teachers and trainers", simply that IfL is a professional body for teachers and trainers. Your rationale (above) suggests you are making this point from a biased perspective and not using empirical sources of evidence. Please refrain from using your opinion to edit this article.

Socialmedium (talk) 12:51, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Membership and Company Law

LetsDoItRight you are using two different definitions of 'member' to bring uncertainty into this article. Membership bodies use the term 'member' to describe the relationship with individual subscribers. Some (usually those with no professional affiliation) use the term 'member' alone: you may be a member of the RAC, a member of a squash club, a member of the Tesco Clubcard scheme, etc. All of these 'memberships' bring a range of benefits. Professional bodies often adopt grades or categories of membership to differentiate between professional status or qualification - Associate, Member, Fellow, etc - all are members (small 'm' to differentiate from the 'Member' category of membership) and all will have access to a range of benefits, which may vary between the different grades.

Professional bodies have different legal identities: some are Chartered, some are charities, some are not-for-profit companies limited by guarantee. All require a board (Council, Committee, Non-Executive Board, etc) to satisfy the requirements for legal and financial probity. A charity will typically have a board of trustees overseeing governance and leadership of the professional body, only those serving on the board - through election - will have the status of a trustee and have what you seem to think should be the right of all members of the professional body. This is simply not the case. IfL is a not-for-profit company limited by guarantee. The Companies Act uses the term 'member' to describe those individuals in a company responsible for its liabilities; the company Directors, if you like. In membership bodies governed by the Companies Act there are many models of governance, from the IfL's where Directorship comes through election from the membership body, through numerous variations to those that have appointed boards.

There is, therefore, a distinction between the term 'member' to describe those in membership through subscription and 'member' to describe those who are a member of the Company as required by the Companies Act. IfL members can stand for election to the Advisory Council and Non-Executive Board. Rights are equal. Once a 'member of the Company' of course an individual takes on the additional responsibilities of Directorship. But no member has more legal rights than another and it is wrong for you to repeatedly edit this article to suggest otherwise.

Edit reverted

Socialmedium (talk) 07:04, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

GMC and other comparisons

What the GMC does or doesn't do with respect to lapsed membership is not relevant. This entry is about the Institute for Learning. Other comparisons, say the Law Society, Bar Council, etc, removal is after due process exactly the same as the IfL. Playing semantics with the word 'may' adds no value to the article. 'May' means 'we have the right or the ability to' - 'we may erase you from the register' = we are allowed to do this. Unless you can provide evidence of practitioners NOT removed from the register having a history of not paying subscriptions, please do not reinstate this point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Socialmedium (talk • contribs) 06:24, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Social medium. The entry is about the boycott over fees, it's origins and it's consequences so is therefore relevant. Your definition of the word 'may' is incorrect which means your assertation that 'playing semantics with the word 'may' adds no value to the article' is based on a false premise must therefore be discounted. 'May be' the phrase used by GMC and 'will be', the phrase used by IfL have totally different connotations so please it's plain English, as anyone can see. Unless you can provide evidence of practitioners who have been removed from the register without due process after not paying subscriptions I will reinstate this important distinction between IfL and other bodies mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.38.143.36 (talk) 18:08, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry? My definition of may is 'wrong'? This is the point where one rolls one eyes and gives up. Look up the definition yourself, I think you will find that the word 'may' is used to express permission or intent. Example: "can I have a slice of cake?" - "yes you may" ..... that doesn't mean 'possibly', it means you can. Semantics. Games. No place on wikipedia. Give examples of medical practitioners who remain on the register without paying GMC subscriptions, or concede the point. Please do not reinstate this point until you can properly evidence it. Socialmedium (talk) 23:03, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

"without due process" ..... please define 'due process' Socialmedium (talk) 23:25, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Social medium, I think you will find that according to the Oxford Dictionary the primary usage of the word 'may' is when expressing a possibility. Your example, as you illustrate, only applies when used in response to a request, not, as in GMC case, a statement of consequence.

Due process is the law of the land. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.38.143.36 (talk) 08:46, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Dear anonymous contributor known as '82.38.143.36', the Oxford English Dictionary cites "used to ask for or to give permission" as a primary usage. Not sure it is good form to only use the part of the definition which suits your argument. As I said, provide examples of medical practitioners who remain on the register despite not paying their subscriptions. I am not sure there is a law governing the treatment of non-payment of subscriptions by members of professional bodies. Could you provide a link to it please? Socialmedium (talk) 06:36, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Socialmedium. Since you have confirmed, for the second time, that your interpretation is only used when asking for and giving permission, do you accept that the phrase ‘If we do not receive your payment we may erase your name from the Medical Register, and remove your licence to practise should you hold one.' is not a question?

The point this article is making is not only did IfL they remove members from the register but that, unlike GMC, they did so without due process by making a statement that members would, not 'May', be removed, as is the case with the GMC. If you dispute this it is incumbent on you to provide evidence, not me. As for laws you are not sure of I suggest you either take notice of what stated experts in the field say or do some research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.38.143.36 (talk) 08:00, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Please do not delete large sections of the article because your intended edit is contentious. I am not prepared to enter into a semantic debate. If you wish to make the case that there are professional bodies who do not remove from a register any practitioner who refuses to pay any required subscription, you must provide clear evidence. Removing examples which counter your assertion is poor form. I am not sure which part of removal from a register following repeated requests for payment falls short of 'due process'.

It is not incumbent on me to provide any evidence at all. You wish to add a contentious claim to the article, the burden of proof is yours and yours alone.Socialmedium (talk) 21:31, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Socialmedium I deleted the section referred to because it was under discussion but am happy that it remains until a resolution is found. After making no progress on the addition you deleted I am content to accept the same and draw a line under this issue.

My case now is that your interpretation of the word 'May' is incorrect and therefore the claim of common practice is incorrect and should be deleted. I am challenging the validity of your statement on the grounds that it is inaccurate because it misinterprets the use of the word 'may', which conveys only a possibility, not a definite consequence of no-payment of annual subscription.

"It is common practice in professional membership bodies for membership to lapse following non-payment of any annual subscription.[54][55][56] The General Medical Council (GMC) states: ‘If we do not receive your payment we may erase your name from the Medical Register, and remove your licence to practise should you hold one." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.38.143.36 (talk) 08:47, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Joel, I suggest you, ahem, get a life.Socialmedium (talk) 01:53, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Closure {{request edit}}

On 17 July 2014, the Institute's Advisory Council, acting on the advice of its Non-Executive Board (NEB), voted to [replace] "close the organisation down" [with] "voted in favour of the board's recommendation that IfL should close and that its legacy and assets be passed to the Education and Training Foundation through a deed of gift." This was reported in the TES on 18 July 2014, "IfL members will have 'key role' to play after organisation's demise" . This, it was reported, was due to dwindling membership numbers and diminishing financial reserves.[8]

 Done CorporateM (Talk) 02:15, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

[Add] A small number of members expressed their concern a the apparent lack of consultation. FE Week reported on 21 July "IfL hits back at 'lack of rank-and-file consultation' claim on ETF transfer vote , that "IfL's elected chair Sue Crowley defended the process, saying members, who generally pay £63 annual fees, were democratically represented by the advisory board members who took the vote."

 Done can you please provide a source for the second half or is it the same one? CorporateM (Talk) 02:19, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

[Add]The final decision to close IfL and transfer its legacy to the Education and Training Foundation was the culmination of a democratic process as determined by IfL’s constitution . This meant that the board’s recommendation was subject to ratification by a majority of representatives on IfL’s Advisory Council. It was the membership who decided on the future of IfL and its legacy, through their elected representatives.

 Not done Primary source from the IFL's website - can't be used. We need independent sources. CorporateM (Talk) 02:19, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

In an email sent to all members, [delete as this is not factually correct or neutral], "none of whom were consulted on the proposal", the IfL stated:

 Done CorporateM (Talk) 02:20, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

The Advisory Council has voted in favour of the non-executive board's recommendation that IfL should close and that its legacy and assets should be passed to the Education and Training Foundation through a deed of gift.

[Delete, not NPOV] Somewhat ironically, [replace with] In an email to members, IfL urged individuals [delete, not NPOV] "who were not consulted on the proposal to close" to take the opportunity to influence the formation of their future professional body to ensure that the practitioner voice is heard, as we embark upon this new chapter for professionalism in the sector. We do hope that we can rely on your support to ensure the secure future of the IfL legacy in the form of the new professional membership body.

 Done? I think this is done. I deleted a chunk at a time and re-wrote some stuff. Let me know if this is not done. CorporateM (Talk) 02:20, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

There is also futher information about the detail of IfL's closure and transfer to the Foundation on the IfL website which you may wish to reference. . This covers the majority of member concerns including their future membership, the future of the professional status of Qualified Teacher Learning and Skills (QTLS) and member designations. As the transfer process is still a work in progress, this page will be updated as further details are confirmed.

 Not done Primary source. We generally can't get information from your website, except number of employees, revenue, HQ location, etc. We need independent sources, such as the news publications provided above. CorporateM (Talk) 02:20, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Institute for Learning. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121117044748/http://www.parnglobal.com:80/governance.htm to http://www.parnglobal.com/governance.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121018171225/http://www.zoominfo.com/ to http://www.zoominfo.com/#!search/profile/person?personId=1174010271&targetid=profile
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110226104803/http://www.ifl.ac.uk:80/membership/changes-to-membership to http://www.ifl.ac.uk/membership/changes-to-membership
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110826063000/http://www.ifl.ac.uk:80/about-ifl/ifl-council/the-directors-report to http://www.ifl.ac.uk/about-ifl/ifl-council/the-directors-report

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:52, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 10 external links on Institute for Learning. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140405181114/http://www.ifl.ac.uk:80/about-ifl/who-we-are/our-vision-and-mission/ to http://www.ifl.ac.uk/about-ifl/who-we-are/our-vision-and-mission/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121006235649/http://www.bis.gov.uk:80/assets/biscore/further-education-skills/docs/p/12-670-professionalism-in-further-education-interim to http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/biscore/further-education-skills/docs/p/12-670-professionalism-in-further-education-interim
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111002182214/http://www.ifl.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/17814/2010_11_ifl_response_to_wolf_review.ac.pdf to http://www.ifl.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/17814/2010_11_ifl_response_to_wolf_review.ac.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130626225748/http://www.ifl.ac.uk:80/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/28127/2012-05-29-IfL-AdvisoryCouncilMeeting.pdf to http://www.ifl.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/28127/2012-05-29-IfL-AdvisoryCouncilMeeting.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120714071815/http://www.ifl.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0014/1076/IfL2008SurveyReport.pdf to http://www.ifl.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0014/1076/IfL2008SurveyReport.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110610212129/http://www.bis.gov.uk:80/assets/biscore/further-education-skills/docs/s/10-1273-skills-for-sustainable-growth-strategy-summary to http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/biscore/further-education-skills/docs/s/10-1273-skills-for-sustainable-growth-strategy-summary
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140811163843/http://readingroom.skillsfundingagency.bis.gov.uk/sfa/2011_02_04_Letter_to_employers_SFA_letterhead.pdf to http://readingroom.skillsfundingagency.bis.gov.uk/sfa/2011_02_04_Letter_to_employers_SFA_letterhead.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110626073650/http://www.ifl.ac.uk/newsandevents/press-releases/ifl-makes-joint-statement-with-trade-unions-and-employers to http://www.ifl.ac.uk/newsandevents/press-releases/ifl-makes-joint-statement-with-trade-unions-and-employers
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140222212422/http://www.ifl.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0014/33611/2013-10-10-IfL-AdvisoryCouncilMeetingNotes.pdf to http://www.ifl.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0014/33611/2013-10-10-IfL-AdvisoryCouncilMeetingNotes.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120919225806/http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/biscore/corporate/migratedD/publications/E/equippingourteachersforthefuture-115-161 to http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/biscore/corporate/migratedD/publications/E/equippingourteachersforthefuture-115-161

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:44, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 20 external links on Institute for Learning. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130619200601/http://www.ifl.ac.uk/newsandevents/press-releases/ifl-strengthening-its-role-as-the-independent-professional-body?SQ_DESIGN_NAME=print_friendly& to http://www.ifl.ac.uk/newsandevents/press-releases/ifl-strengthening-its-role-as-the-independent-professional-body?SQ_DESIGN_NAME=print_friendly&
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130831185137/http://www.ifl.ac.uk/about-ifl/what-we-do to http://www.ifl.ac.uk/about-ifl/what-we-do
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130830055005/http://www.ifl.ac.uk/membership/why-join/member-grades to http://www.ifl.ac.uk/membership/why-join/member-grades
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130802124016/http://www.ifl.ac.uk/membership/why-join/conditions-of-ifl-membership to http://www.ifl.ac.uk/membership/why-join/conditions-of-ifl-membership
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130901051642/http://www.ifl.ac.uk/cpd/qtls-atls to http://www.ifl.ac.uk/cpd/qtls-atls
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130817024655/http://www.ifl.ac.uk/cpd/qtls-atls/how-to-apply to http://www.ifl.ac.uk/cpd/qtls-atls/how-to-apply
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130124185702/http://www.ifl.ac.uk/policy-and-campaigns/consultations/ifl-consultation-responses2 to http://www.ifl.ac.uk/policy-and-campaigns/consultations/ifl-consultation-responses2
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130822112450/http://www.ifl.ac.uk/about-ifl/ifl-council/ifl-governance-update to http://www.ifl.ac.uk/about-ifl/ifl-council/ifl-governance-update
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130507095903/http://www.ifl.ac.uk/newsandevents/press-releases/ifls-new-president-promises-positive-action-on-diversity to http://www.ifl.ac.uk/newsandevents/press-releases/ifls-new-president-promises-positive-action-on-diversity
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111002182307/http://www.ifl.ac.uk/newsandevents/press-releases/ifl-announces-four-patrons to http://www.ifl.ac.uk/newsandevents/press-releases/ifl-announces-four-patrons
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130508073236/http://www.ifl.ac.uk/newsandevents/press-releases/two-experienced-teachers-and-educationalists-become-ifl-patrons to http://www.ifl.ac.uk/newsandevents/press-releases/two-experienced-teachers-and-educationalists-become-ifl-patrons
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130507114550/http://www.ifl.ac.uk/newsandevents/press-releases/ifl-announces-four-patrons to http://www.ifl.ac.uk/newsandevents/press-releases/ifl-announces-four-patrons
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110326222825/http://www.ifl.ac.uk/newsandevents/press-releases/teachers-and-trainers-crucial-to-skills-for-growth-strategy to http://www.ifl.ac.uk/newsandevents/press-releases/teachers-and-trainers-crucial-to-skills-for-growth-strategy
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110324235713/http://www.ifl.ac.uk/newsandevents/press-releases/ifl-announces-self-funding-arrangements to http://www.ifl.ac.uk/newsandevents/press-releases/ifl-announces-self-funding-arrangements
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110308151412/http://www.ifl.ac.uk/membership/questions-and-answers to http://www.ifl.ac.uk/membership/questions-and-answers
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130507093158/http://www.ifl.ac.uk/newsandevents/press-releases/ifl-updates-eligibility-for-concessionary-fees to http://www.ifl.ac.uk/newsandevents/press-releases/ifl-updates-eligibility-for-concessionary-fees
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120714083929/http://www.ifl.ac.uk/membership/professional-standards/code-of-professional-practice?SQ_DESIGN_NAME=print_friendly& to http://www.ifl.ac.uk/membership/professional-standards/code-of-professional-practice?SQ_DESIGN_NAME=print_friendly&
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140222212417/http://www.ifl.ac.uk/employers/news-for-employers/ifl-supporing-teachers-23-september-2011 to http://www.ifl.ac.uk/employers/news-for-employers/ifl-supporing-teachers-23-september-2011
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110826052022/http://www.ifl.ac.uk/about-ifl/who-we-are/ifl-financial-information/reserves-policy to http://www.ifl.ac.uk/about-ifl/who-we-are/ifl-financial-information/reserves-policy
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130831233753/http://www.ifl.ac.uk/about-ifl/ifl-council to http://www.ifl.ac.uk/about-ifl/ifl-council

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:56, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Institute for Learning. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150224035553/http://www.niace.org.uk/news/strong-and-professional-ifl-will-benefit-adult-learners to http://www.niace.org.uk/news/strong-and-professional-ifl-will-benefit-adult-learners
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121020092755/http://www.tes.co.uk/topSection.aspx?navCode=507 to http://www.tes.co.uk/topsection.aspx?navcode=507
• Added {{dead link}} tag to https://www.ctp.org.uk/articles/associations-professional-benefits-of-joining-a/399704
• Added archive https://archive.is/20120915121525/http://www.ucu.org.uk/index.cfm?articleid=5276 to http://www.ucu.org.uk/index.cfm?articleid=5276
• Added archive https://archive.is/20120913184032/http://www.ucu.org.uk/index.cfm?articleid=5412 to http://www.ucu.org.uk/index.cfm?articleid=5412
• Added archive http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20050520043500/http://www.lifelonglearning.co.uk/dearing/ to http://www.lifelonglearning.co.uk/dearing/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:05, 14 November 2017 (UTC)