Categories: uncategorized
Date: 21 June 2012 11:42:36
The Church of England yesterday announced that they are overhauling the validation of their ministerial training qualifications and that they are moving to using one provider - Durham University. It is an interesting decision on a number of levels which illustrates how changes in the educational funding landscape are developing how institutions - both educational and religious - are operating and interacting with each other. The timing of this announcement, a week and a half before the Fruitful Field recommendations go to Methodist Conference is also something to note. The CofE statement strongly indicates that Durham will be the chosen provider for Methodist validation (something hinted at as a possibility in the Fruitful Field report when they said that a relationship with Durham University may remain beyond the proposed closure of the Wesley Study Centre). I tried to find out via the Methodist Website if there had been official confirmation of this being their chosen provider and couldn't find any statement/ news release suggesting this - although I did discover they have changed the Connexional website so it now looks lovely but is much, much less user friendly.
So what do I observe happening here? A few interesting things - firstly the winning bid from Durham to be the chosen learning provider for ministerial training is based, according to the CofE report, on a model the university developed for use with KMPG. This is showing how inter-disiplinary sharing isn't simply about research. In the modern educational market there is an important place for inter-disciplinary co-operation in building models which are flexible and can adapt accordingly to customer need. In this case one assumes that the Theology Department was working closely with the Business School who already had the product to be adapted. This willingness to learn to do things differently is something that Durham is very good at and the Theology and Religion Department particularly seems to be very good at understanding getting the market advantage requires more than just wonderful, high class, academic research and teaching - which they also have. The reason they were judged to be top in the last RAE rankings relates in part to the understanding they have of the processes external judgements are made on.
Whilst the validation of courses offered at other centres is not new what inspires me about this announcement is the way a "red brick" university has embraced the type of thinking often more apparent in "new universities" relating to the value of vocational and distance learning. Now, I know enough about Durham to understand a few things about this and to know that there is a pecking order of sorts which exists within the bubble and there are a complex set of relationships at play. But it still needs applauding I think that this institution - in the face of an assault by the HEFCE on the humanities - have not retreated into an academic shell but rather have embraced reality full on and are creatively engaging with the new market place.
This brings me on to the churches. They have been forced into change and a read through the statements and documents provided by the different denominations indicates the pace is perhaps faster than they (and in some cases their procedures) would like. However, change is occurring and they too are seeking to embrace the reality of life as it is now. For institutions which often do find themselves counter-cultural or upholding tradition as much by a fear of change as anything else this embracing of change is encouraging. (Note here I actually believe alot of the tradition should be upheld but with a flexibility which allows for adaptation - something this demonstrates for once - the bathwater is being changed but the baby is being looked after in my view).
There has been much discussion in various spaces regarding the proposals of the Methodist Church via their Fruitful Fields report to restructure their learning and close Wesley House - Cambridge and Wesley Study Centre - Durham. WSC has this statement on their website which indicates that the Methodist recommendations have to get through their forthcoming conference and could still change.
Initially alot of the criticisms being made about the part of the Methodist report relating to ministerial training and the closure of the two colleges seemed to be based on little more than academic elitism (but yesterdays announcement has in many ways knocked that argument out of play). So it is encouraging to see that the lines of argument are changing and issues of "relationship" are coming into play. Whilst "the Durham bubble" is suffocating at times it does succeed in building a sense of relationship and belonging that does not exist in many other places. This element was somewhat lost in the reports considerations.
As to whether that alone is enough to justify saving the WSC as a centre of ministerial learning I am uncertain. My personal view is that the role of the "regional centres" proposed has not been fully explored yet and that there might be a special place within a North East regional centre - based in Durham - for facilitating something innovative and different.
I know alot of people who work/ have worked and study/ have studied at WSC and have a fondness of the place on that basis. It also means I know the faces of people who will have to make major choices as the changes go through and the Connexion seeks to implement them - but as somebody who has a degree of detachment as well as that knowledge of the place I am still undecided on the issue and am thankful I don't have to go to Conference and vote on this. I have yet to hear a clear line of argument, beyond emotional attachment, which honestly persuades me that it doesn't make sense to go with the report.
What does worry me following yesterdays announcement is that the Lindisfarne model (which is accredited by Durham) will become the dominant one in the future of planning and implementation of local preacher and worship leader training. My worries on this are primarily related to cost to the local circuit and I discussed all this in more detail in this post. I hope that in the mist of the inevitable discussion on the ministerial training parts of the report that this element of Fruitful Fields is not missed as it does need full Connexional discussion with an honest evaluation of the inevitable increased costs to circuits and their affordability or otherwise.