HOME NEWS & VIEWS MEETINGS COMMITTEE LAW REPORTS CONTACT LONDON INSTITUTE
Articles
Triple 'L' - CPD - or Euro Double 'L' - a paradox within a conundrum?
Recently, I have been researching/ reviewing the question of the difference between LLL and CPD - and indeed trying to establish - is there a difference?
The first action is to put the title of this article (Triple 'L' - CPD - or Euro Double 'L' - a paradox within a conundrum?) into context - if only by providing the following definition(s):
Triple L = Life Long Learning (LLL)
CPD = Continuing Professional Development (CPD)
Double L = Lifelong Learning (LLL):
1) The Term 'Lifelong Learning' as utilised/expressed to 'EU Heads of Government' at a meeting in Brussels during March 2005 - when a Paper was presented on a possible future European Qualifications Framework (EQF)
2) The Term 'Lifelong Learning' as also used in a Paper from Brussels dated 24 September 2004 entitled : European Credits Transfer System for Vocational Education and Training (ECVET) - Principles and reference framework for implementation - following the Copenhagen Declaration of 30 November 2002 - when the 'priority' of developing a credit transfer system(s) for VET was promulgated.
paradox - intended meaning(s) = "that which is contrary to received opinion; that which is apparently absurd but is or may be really true; a self-contradictory statement"
conundrum - intended meaning(s) = "a riddle turning on some odd or fanciful resemblance between things apparently quite unlike each other; any puzzling question"
In my efforts to come to some form of conclusion on this question (and along the way) I have met and discussed this Issue with some really interesting 'People from all walks of Business Life' - and read some very interesting articles on the subject of CPD and/or LLL. I
n common with all Professional and/or Technical and/or Vocational and/or Academic Bodies, many professional bodies have decided to review their Constitutions - with regard to this matter.
When casting my thoughts back in an historical perspective, the 'Industrial' and related 'Agricultural' revolution(s) in Great Britain - high-lighted the lack of support skills in the general population.
Development of such 'support skills' within the British Isles, was generally for use in the context of managing the 'estates and/or communities' of the Celtic Christian Church - once the needs of the Roman Empire to operate their British Province had expired.
With the City of London' being deserted from 500 AD until Alfred the Great re-occupied the walled City in circa 880 - the City had lost all such support skills.
Whilst the subsequent introduction and development of the City Guilds reintroduced a need for such support skills, it was the Industrial Revolution that created the mass demand throughout the British Isles - and the eventual formation of Professional Bodies for specific purposes.
With Globalisation - and how the UK PLC copes with Global Standardisation - whilst retaining their 'Patents and Intellectual Property Rights'- it is arguable that the UK is entering a 'second' phase of needing to develop 'support skills' that will suit the needs of business and trade in the context of living and operating in the global village!
There is always the threat that 'global standardisation' will involve a large measure of simplification by the use of a low level common denominator(s).
Everybody will be 'legally' enforced to comply - and that will lead to an apparent 'dumbing down' process being introduced.
So is 'dumbing down' the fate that professions and their professionals have to accept in terms of achieving equality & democracy across all levels of activity?
Of course there will be the emotionally justifiable demand for 'high standards' - so my first question is 'high standards at what level' and the second is 'will there only be one official level'?
Subsequently there is much research, debate and crystal ball gazing needed to attain the right 'definition(s)' as regards the stated objectives.
Should we let the force of the Global Market drive the pace of change - and not the distortion created by some artificial bonus payment scheme (using public money) tied to untested & subjective targeted criteria effect such change.
Whatever the process selected - change must not be undertaken as a form of 'WARFARE'
One must also ask the question of whether it is fair to predict that being able to read and understand a legal contract (relative to the 'Legal System' applicable) is not the same as being able to construct the brick wall (which is the object of the contract) in compliance with legally enforceable standards - as regards to whether to impose CPD or LLL - and to which level.
I am not suggesting a version of the closed shop. But let us always remember that the Guild concept certainly had much to commend it when it came to performance standards from the apprentice through to the expert level.
This in terms of monitoring and applying discipline to educational and practice standards. Of course the 'master' or expert levels were working to solve issues by going back to basics in order to 'pioneer' a viable solution to an unknown cause - whereas an apprentice was a pioneer in the attainment of understanding the effects of applying their labour efficiently.
This article is not intended as a nostalgic reprise as to how modern professional bodies are in part extensions of the Guilds at expert level.
But this article is intended to spark off the debate as to how to providing a better understand of how the definitions of Triple L, CPD and Double L can be correctly applied at the relevant and intended levels.
When addressing the issue of 'comparables' - one prime problem exists - namely:
1) that on the Continent of mainland Europe, the use of the term 'Engineer' must by Law be linked to registration open to Graduates achieving certain proscribed University Courses. The term surveyor is not recognised.
2) within the UK, the term(s) of engineer and surveyor are in common use - but the UK uses the prefix of 'Chartered' to denote high practice standards.
So if the trend expands - for employment suitability to be based upon possessing a University Degree continues - who will enforce 'CPD' upon those that do not proceed to attain status within a professional body?
Further, is 'in-house' training really only the equivalent to LLL - as LLL does not attain to the CPD standard - as is now being mooted for application by the Professional Bodies - with sanction if this is not properly recorded.
There is little doubt that this debate will prove divisive - and there is a lot more to review.
Ian Patterson Wilson MCIArb,
Chartered Insurer