Collaborative Approaches to 14-19 Provision - Communities and ...

14-19 PATHFINDERS: THE SECOND YEAR201. This aspiration to link electronic ILPs with wider e-learning developments was alsopart of a broader approach to see ILPs as part of an holistic programme of support forlearning and choice-making for students. In Hampshire, for example, ILPs were being seenin the context of the development of advice and guidance, PSHE, citizenship education andsubject-based reviews.202. While much activity was still at the levels of development and piloting the Doncasterand East Manchester Pathfinders had moved into larger scale implementation. In Doncasterall year 9 students in the eleven pathfinder schools (1,504 students) had completed an ILPand had an Individual Review (usually with the form tutor). This was seen as an integral partof the planning process for all young people and as key to ensuring that their individual needsare met. A substantial programme of staff development had taken place to support thesedevelopments. In East Manchester an electronic ILP had been developed and implementedfor Year 8 and complementary education cohorts. A further version had been developed foryears 9, 10 and 11 and a post-16 version was in development.203. DfES policy has been to enable the local development of ILPs. However, when askedabout the obstacles to development this policy was criticised by a few coordinators. Onecomplained about the lack of a national template and another of little guidance from DfES. Itwas clear that there was a proliferation of models, although there was some evidence ofsharing of practice across pathfinders. Whether this proliferation was evidence of healthydiversity and local responsiveness or muddle and confusion was a matter of somedisagreement.204. The development of electronic ILPs, while enthusiastically adopted by severalpathfinders, was affected by a range of local, technical IT issues. Several commercial ITcompanies were getting involved, but for one coordinator one of the obstacles was: “Beingpestered by numerous commercial IT companies to investigate their wonder products”.205. More fundamentally, there was also lack of consensus about the purposes, processesand products of ILPs. One respondent claimed that most ILPs were not ‘working documents’but somewhat inert tools for monitoring and recording. Questions about ‘ownership’ andstudent participation were also unresolved in some pathfinders. The debate about the relative67