AOCM

Change is Coming to Ordination Training: Formation for Ministry within a Learning Church

Changes to Ordination Training: The Hind Report

On 14^th July 2003, General Synod carried a motion welcoming Formation for Ministry, also known as the Hind Report or The Structures and Funding of Ordination Training (SFOT). In the lengthy debate seven amendments to the proposals were made. Over the course of the next twelve months, the implementation of these proposals will begin.

We all owe a big thank you to the AOCM representatives who talked to me or wrote to me about the views of the students at their institution regarding these proposals. This enabled AOCM to publish a booklet that both summarises Formation for Ministry and aggregates the strengths and concerns felt by AOCM members. This booklet was sent to all members of Synod in advance of the debate and vote.

These changes will affect us all. Below follows the summary of Formation for Ministry from the AOCM booklet. The full booklet is available on the AOCM website, as is a link to the full report; you can read the AOCM critique of the proposals there. There are also a few paragraphs outlining how Formation for Ministry was amended by Synod, and how those amendments are significant. I hope this will make clear what the changes proposed by the Hind Report will mean. Do talk to your AOCM Representative if you have questions or further concerns.

A Summary of the Report

The report comprises 9 chapters. Chapters 1-3 provide background to the report: Chapter 1 gives the history of the developments in ministerial formation in the Church of England; Chapter 2 outlines the issues which catalysed the Working Party; Chapter 3 sketches a theology of ministry to provide a framework for considering practical proposals.

Chapters 4-8 give the rationale for 15 proposal statements. These proposals come throughout the chapters, but are listed again in chapter 9 by way of summary. Chapter 9 also contains the outlook for the future of the Church of England and its ministry, as envisioned by the Working Party. The proposals broadly fall into four categories: (i) Proposals for a new framework for learning [Chapters 4-5]; (ii) Proposals for training establishments [Chapter 6]; (iii) Financial proposals [Chapter 7]; (iv) A proposal for how candidates’ training pathways might be determined [Chapter 8].

There then follow 14 Appendices which include various illustrations of how things might work, and various scenarios worked through in some detail. There are also reference tables- current student numbers, current financial spending, lists of institutions, etc.

Background concerns - ‘Why the status quo is [not] an option we can recommend’ [1]

There are a number of concerns that meant it was considered time to review ordination training.

• There are presently a number of different types of training establishment, carrying out broadly similar functions. These include Colleges, Regional Courses, Ecumenical Partnerships, and Ordained Local Ministry (OLM) Schemes.
• ‘The fall in candidates in Colleges which was apparent in 2002 has raised again the question of the viability of the Colleges in their current form.’
• Historically, ‘our current training establishment has grown up through organic and piecemeal development. This has led to criticism of duplication of effort and a lack of co-ordination between the various parts of the system.’
• There are increasing pressures on the study to be carried out during Initial Ministerial Education (IME). ‘At times it feels that every review that is brought to Synod must make a bid to add something to the already crowded curriculum.’
• ‘There is a fault line between the pre-ordination training of the clergy and CME.’
• There is also a ‘second fault line between pre-ordination training and other forms of adult learning.’ This includes training for Readers, and formal lay education organised by the Dioceses.
• ‘There is currently no nationally agreed statement of expectations for a level of attainment in theological education and ministerial exploration before a candidate goes to a selection. … As a result, training institutions have to deal with a wide range of prior knowledge and understanding.’
• ‘The Church of England currently has 1360 candidates in training for ordained ministry and 1192 in training for Reader ministry.’ These are training in no fewer than 87 institutions - which has many disadvantages, not least in the staffing provision that can be made available to each institution.
• Finally, there is the background issue of finance: ‘Under our present arrangements, the Church of England spends about 45 per cent of its total expenditure on pre-ordination training on personal and family maintenance.’

Thus the main concerns are that training before and after ordination are not well co-ordinated, that those training for different ministries are often trained in separate institutions, which are running parallel courses. There is the further concern regarding the cost of providing family maintenance.

Proposals for a new framework for learning (proposals 1-4)

Out of a concern to encourage a climate of life-long learning, and to integrate IME with the training undertaken during the first training post (currently CME1-4), it is proposed that this nomenclature be changed. The proposal is that Initial Ministerial Education now covers all the training undertaken through to the end of the first training post.

The current Bishops’ regulations determine exactly how long a candidate is trained between selection and ordination. Candidates for ministry are getting older, and universities increasingly teach Religious Studies rather than Theology, so that ‘the current regulations appear to be a somewhat outdated framework’ It is proposed that these be replaced by a series of expectations of how a candidate should have developed by the key stages of selection, ordination, and finishing the first training post.

The Report recommends, further, that lay theological education programmes be set up, under the title of ‘Education for Discipleship.’ Candidates for selection could train on these before their selection conference. Specifically, they should all be encouraged to study on such courses to the level of 60-120 credits (60 credits being equivalent of one year’s full-time study) before the selection conference.

Once a candidate is selected, they would continue to be trained. They would reach Diploma level (typically 240 credits) by the time of ordination. After ordination, their study would continue at a level appropriate to their ability. In any eventuality, all clergy entering a ‘post of responsibility’ will reach degree level beforehand.

The advantage of using the credit system, now adopted by a significant number of Higher Education institutions in the UK, is that training taken before selection can be counted towards that required before ordination. Further, it a candidate needed to move elsewhere in the country during training, they could continue acquiring credits after they move.

Proposals for training establishments (proposals 5-6)

The background concerns highlight the need to review the establishments required for training. The tension to resolve is as follows: On the one hand, the Church of England’s Theological Colleges are a well-equipped historic resource. These need to be used as well as possible. On the other hand training is fragmented, lots of institutions are small, and there is little trust between the different parties offering training.

The suggestion is therefore made that partnerships are formed, whereby several Colleges, regional Courses, Reader training Courses and OLM Schemes work together to provide training for their joint constituency. Further, such partnerships will work best if they are organised regionally. An ideal of 8 regions for England is put forwards, each of which would ideally contain at least one College. The result is the formation of a number of Regional Training Partnerships (RTPs).

Initially, these could simply be formed through a covenant relationship between the various institutions. ‘Each RTP would be charged with the responsibility for agreeing a constitutional agreement whereby the [parties] establish both the legal entities … and a Memorandum of Agreement necessary for the smooth operating of the partnership.’ Ideally, over time, the partnership would strengthen as the various training institutions eventually merge into a single legal entity.

The result would be that ‘the House of Bishops grants its recognition for ordination training to these regional training partnerships,’ rather than to the individual institutions as at present. The institutions would also no longer be self-governing. Instead they would each be ‘equal partners’ with the others. Staff appointments and curriculum decisions would be taken with representation from the other partners in the RTP.

Financial proposals (proposals 7-13)

A number of these proposals simply reinforce some aspects of the current finance policy, stating explicitly that they should remain the same. Others are cost-neutral alterations to the way costs are allocated. There are three changes that have been significant in discussions amongst ordinands.

• The RTPs should be able to save costs by combining their administrative work, so that one administrative staff-team performs the necessary tasks for the whole RTP, and eventually sharing some of the academic staff, and making a saving of one staff member per region.
• There should be increasing accreditation from the Quality Assurance Agency (QAA), with a view to increasing funding being sought from the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE).
• There should be a reduction in the number of people requiring family support, to the order of about 75 people. It is estimated that this would save in the region of £1,000,000 per annum. This is recommended in the light of a trend, that candidates are increasingly choosing part-time Courses over full-time Colleges for their training.

A proposal for determining candidates’ training pathways (proposal 14)

This comes as part of a wider discussion regarding the value of residence for part or all of a candidate’s training. In essence, the candidate’s DDO will assess in general principles what training might best suit a candidate. Once selected, the DDO and Bishop will then submit a proposed training plan to the relevant RTP. The RTP will make (hopefully only minor) alterations to this and it will thereby be agreed between the RTP and the Bishop.

This training plan will cover mode and length of training, and the training programme (including what academic qualification to aim for.)

The Amendments following the General Synod debate

Proposal 1 was followed by ‘or the fourth year after ordination.’ This amendment was made with OLMs in mind. Proposal 1 says that Initial Ministerial Education (IME) is no longer just until ordination, but is until the end of the first training post. This amendment is to make sure OLMs are not ‘still in IME when they are 70.’ [2]

Proposal 4(iii) was omitted. This removes the requirement that all clergy to hold a ‘post of responsibility’ must attain degree level by the time they take such an appointment. This had been raised as a concern by members of AOCM, so is a welcome amendment.

Proposal 6(ii) was changed to read ‘that, after the process of rationalisation of institutions within the regions, the House of Bishops continues to grant its recognition for ordination training to Colleges within regional partnerships.’ That is - the individual Colleges are approved for training, rather than just the regional partnerships.

Formation for Ministry stresses the value of the individual Colleges, but foresees that any which cannot negotiate partnership terms within a given timeframe will have their recognition withdrawn. Members of AOCM were concerned at this possibility. This amendment does not address this concern, as only “Colleges within regional partnerships” attract their own recognition.

Proposal 10(ii) foresaw £1,000,000 per annum being saved as 75 people requiring family support train part-time on Courses rather than residentially. This had attracted widespread criticism, and was altered by three amendments. The Archbishops’ Council is to undertake research ‘into secular employment and retirement trends’ before reducing any residential training places. Alternative sources of funding are to be sought ‘with the aim of seeking to achieve a less drastic reduction than the 75 specified.’ The calculations are to be re-examined once the regions have formed. The July 2004 Synod is to debate a revised proposal 10(ii). Avoiding enforcing this transfer of 75 people is a very good thing, and will be welcomed by many, but this relies on finding of alternative.

Finally, proposal 14(iii) was amended to insert the following at the end: ‘save that the sponsoring Bishop, taking account of the respective strengths of different regional partnerships and of specific concerns presented by the ordinand, is entirely free to select a regional training partnership other than that of the region in which his diocese is located.’

There is a welcome change here. AOCM had expressed concern that freedom to train elsewhere in the country, as indicated in the report, could be severely limited in practice through various quotas. Now the Bishop is ‘entirely free’ to select any region for a candidate.

This proposal also starts to address the concern about the lack of involvement of the candidate when it comes to selecting a training pathway. The ordinand is now mentioned in the proposal; his or her ‘specific concerns’ are to be taken into account by the sponsoring Bishop. However the bottom line is still that ‘the sponsoring Bishop’ selects a partnership for the ordinand to train in. There is still ‘no reassurance that the present policy of agreement between Bishop and candidate will continue.’ [3]

Conclusion

These proposals have been passed by General Synod, moving them from points for debate to changes that will be implemented. Some of the safeguards AOCM was looking for in these proposals are now in place as a result of the amendments; others are not. Many individuals and committees will steer this implementation. Every College, Course and OLM Scheme will be involved. Let’s continue to pray for all involved that, under God, the best possible training for ordained ministry may result.

______________________________________________

[1] All quotations in this article are from the Hind Report or the official summary unless stated otherwise. For the complete references, please see the full AOCM booklet.

[2] Vivienne Goddard, General Synod Debate as reported in Church Times 18 July 2003

[3] Formation for Ministry within a learning church: The Views of AOCM, Page 12