Draft for general approval December 2006
Hind Choice of Pathways Group
A new approach to Bishops’ Regulations for Training for
ordinands
Summary
Formation for Ministry within a learning church (the Hind report, 2003) rightly criticized the
rigidity of the current Bishops’ Regulations for Training for ordinands that are based on age
and the former selection categories. In any case the current form of the regulations will
now be open to challenge under age discrimination legislation. In its place we are
proposing a framework of principles and a points system that will enable bishops and
DDOs, with candidates and trainers, to determine the appropriate form and length of the
pre-ordination phase of IME. Our aim has been to create a system that enables the vast
majority of cases to be determined in the sponsoring diocese within a national framework,
with a small number of exceptional cases being determined as now by the Candidates
Panel and the Research Degrees Panel. In line with the Hind report, our intention is to
open up the choice of full-time and part-time modes, and combinations of these, where this
is possible and appropriate. Our approach puts particular weight on the type of ministry to
be exercised, but also seeks to take proper account of prior learning and formation which a
candidate brings. We acknowledge that these decisions need to be made within the
parameters of our current levels of financial investment in pre-ordination training, in relation
to the number of candidates in training. Our hope is that these proposals will be a
creative and workable approach, which will enable the best decisions to be made to
prepare the ordained ministers of the future. Within all the factors, the key point
remains, which praying and learning community will best equip the candidate to serve the
Church in the future.
1. Introduction
1.1. One of the tasks recognized by the Hind report was the need to develop a
new approach to Bishops’ Regulations for Training for ordinands. The
current regulations, as set out in the Church of England Year Book, are
based on three main themes. However, all three of these themes are now
either outdated or open to serious criticism:
(i) The categories for sponsoring candidates for selection. The
General Synod requested the Ministry Division to eliminate,
wherever possible, reference to stipend as a category of ministry.
This work has now been carried through in the selection area and
the former selection categories of ‘stipendiary’, ‘stipendiary/non-
stipendiary’ or ‘permanent non-stipendiary’, etc, have been
replaced with a single category of sponsorship (ordained ministry)
and then a projected ‘focus’ of ministry. The focus could be as a
future incumbent or equivalent or some form of assistant ministry,
for nationally or locally deployable (the latter at parish, deanery or
diocesan level), plus of course OLM or pioneer ministry or other
specialist ministries. The current approach to selection is set out
in the DDO Handbook.
(ii) The candidate’s age at entry into training. In the past,
candidates under thirty have had to undertake three years training
in a theological college, while those over thirty could only train for
two years in a college or three years on a course. This has been
widely criticised for being an arbitrary cut-off point that does not
take account of a candidate’s individual needs or potential.
Further, with the rising age of candidates, 30 is no longer a
realistic boundary between younger and older candidates. Finally,
a system which is based on age is now vulnerable to the charge
that it discriminates on grounds of age (Employment Equality (Age)
Regulations 2006).
(iii) Reduction of training for theology graduates. With the great
diversity now to be found in theology and religious studies degrees
it is no longer appropriate to reduce training automatically for all
such graduates – each case needs to be assessed on its merits.
These three points make clear the need for a full revision of the current regulations.
1.2. In our work as a task group, we have worked towards:
Opening up the options for training, ie the option of college for
‘older’ candidates or of course for ‘younger’ candidates, or a
combinations of full-time and part-time modes of training;
Adopting two years full-time or three years part-time in the pre-
ordination phase as a basis for all but then negotiating a longer or
shorter time in training as is appropriate according to the needs,
potential and prior learning of the candidate;
all ministers being expected to continue formation and learning in a
post-ordination phase (IME 4-7)
raising the age of ‘younger candidates’ from being under 30 to
under 32, with the additional cost being offset by others doing less
training or less expensive training (because of prior learning or
ministry);
the overall cost to the Church to be the same, in relation to the
numbers of candidates in training.
These objectives will be discussed in more detail below, but first it is
important to look at some important contextual factors.
2
2. Contextual factors
Key contextual factors which need to be taken into account include:
2.1. There is today a broader range of types of ministry: the older
presumption about either parish ministry or chaplaincy has been
augmented by a range of types of self-supporting ministry, ministry in
secular employment, house for duty and pioneer ministry.
2.2. While college training continues to have many advocates, there has also
been a clear raising of standards in course type training. Course training
now is very well established, has a clear methodological base in adult
education theory, attracts highly qualified staff and large numbers of
ordinands and has trained candidates for stipendiary as well as self-
supporting ministry for many years.
2.3. Ordained local ministry and specific training for it are now part of the
Church’s training provision. Under the new selection categories ‘OLM’ is
no longer a category in its own right, but OLM will continue to be
recognized as a ‘focus’ of ministry. However, with the move towards
regional training partnerships, with collaboration between training
providers within them, and with the broader definition of local within the
new approach to selection, the next few years are likely to see new
developments in approaches to local ministry.
2.4. As patterns of training within colleges have become more flexible, some
older candidates have sought to train in a more concentrated way, eg by
one year at a theological college, rather than three years on a course.
2.5. Candidates today present with a far greater range of previous lay
ministerial experience, theological prior learning and types of
educational experience than in the past. Thus, there is a far greater
range of types of university/HE background, professional training and
distance learning including web-based and work based approaches.
These three factors make it inappropriate to assume that college or
various types of part-time training are automatically appropriate for a
certain type of ordinand. Equally, many of the general issues that we face,
such as accreditation of prior learning, apply as much to Reader training
as to ordination training. This will become increasingly the case as Reader
candidates have already undertaken some study through Education for
Discipleship programmes.
2.6. The partnership between ministerial training institutions and institutions of
higher education now means that Candidates and DDOs are presented
with a range of HE accredited awards. While HE awards have contributed
to a growing professionalism in training and motivate students and staff,
except fro the most flexible they also introduce a new set of parameters
that need to be negotiated.
2.7. Candidates and staff can learn from the parallel discussions about the
creation of pathways going on in other spheres of vocational training. As a
3
church we will want to gather the best from contemporary practice, while
being properly critical as appropriate and maintaining our primary concern
for ministerial formation.
2.8. In thinking about the training choices of candidates we have traditionally
thought in terms of choice of institution (college, course or OLM scheme)
and years of pre-ordination training (three years or two). The language of
‘pathway’ allows us to break out of these constraints and to think more
flexibly where this is appropriate. A pathway is the totality of a candidate’s
journey to ordination and beyond. It can include a validated award (a
degree or diploma) but is not limited to them. Thus, it includes the
communal life of prayer in college or course, placement and other
experience. For appropriate candidates it could include combinations of
‘college’ and ‘part-time’ modes of training. Further, it opens up the way
think about the length of training. Rather than just concentrating on two or
three years of pre-ordination training, it helps us to think through:
the candidate’s prior learning or experience;
what could be undertaken in the pre-training phase, for example
through Education for Discipleship;
what should be aimed for in the pre-ordination phase of training;
whether the pre-ordination phase is best undertaken in ‘college’ or
‘course/OLM’ mode, in some combination of these or on a mixed-
mode scheme;
what is best achieved in the first four years of ministry.
Thus, the language of ‘pathway’ signals a significant new way of thinking about
training possibilities.
2.9 An earlier draft of this report was circulated for comment to bishops,
diocesan secretaries, DDOs, principals of training institutions and
Association of Ordinands and Candidates for Ministry (AOCM). We are
grateful to all those who responded to this consultation. The main points
that came out of it were:
There was strong backing for our general approach. Respondents
welcomed the move away from rigid categories and dependence on age to
a more flexible approach. There was a welcome for the principle of a
points system. It was felt right to respond to the gifts of candidates and
their prior learning.
There was some concern, expressed by some bishops and some trainers,
that we had given inadequate attention to the time needed for formation,
even where candidates have prior theological learning and/or experience
of lay ministry. We have modified our proposals in this area and revised
the points system.
With regard to the points system we have clarified that Band 3 would
include the possibility of two years in a college that was implied rather than
stated in our draft report. Further, there was a concern that where
candidates had a number of relevant factors (e.g., a Reader who was also
a Theology Graduate), the cumulative reduction of their standard allocation
4
of training was too great. We have modified and simplified the points
system in this area.
The concern was expressed that well qualified theology graduates or older
candidates would not be able to access funds for training which would
include doing research degrees. We have now clarified that the Research
Degrees Panel would continue to operate as it does now so that these
training proposals can continue to be dealt with on merit at a national level.
We had requests for clarification on a number of smaller points that we
have now incorporated in the text.
In our consultation some have questioned whether we were trying to
reintroduce the theme of mandatory participation in Education for
Discipleship. We can only repeat that it is not mandatory but that we see
value in it being encouraged for appropriate candidates. It is fully
recognized that this is not an appropriate option for some – for example,
those in highly demanding jobs who do not have the time. But there are
many candidates who would benefit from this, giving them confidence in
the study of theology and an opportunity to explore issues in ministry in a
preliminary way.
Having reviewed some of the contextual factors, we now turn to the principles that should
underpin a new set of Bishops’ Regulations for Training.
3. Principles
Training for the Church’s ministry
3.1. We take our lead from the Hind report:
‘If decisions are to be reached which continue to command Church-wide
confidence, there will need to be a common set of criteria. The over
arching question is how can the Church best prepare the candidate for
his or her future service to the Church and world. Thus, ultimately
the Church should decide the form of training because the
preparation is for the Church’s ministry not career or personal
development. At the same time the Church needs to provide training that
will best equip the candidate and that will enable the candidate to engage
with training, taking into account the candidate’s abilities, needs and
personal circumstances.’ (Formation for ministry within a learning church,
para. 8.34, our emphasis)
Training to a national standard, with the cost shared by the Church
3.2. It has been a strong feature of our training establishment that it has
operated to national standards. This has been achieved through:
House of Bishops’ recognition of training institutions,
educational validation of training programmes by the Ministry
Division,
quinquennial Bishops’ Inspection
5
a national system for funding training through Vote 1
and, finally and most pertinently in this respect, a Church-wide
agreement on the choices of type of training available to candidates
and its length, as set out in the current Bishops’ Regulations for
Training.
These national standards have been a great benefit for the Church in terms
of the deployability of the clergy in that bishops can trust the general
standard of training received by all candidates, both those from their own
diocese and from other dioceses. Further, dioceses pay through the
apportionment formula for pre-ordination training, rather than being
subjected to the highs and lows of funding individual candidates from their
own dioceses. We believe these are all strengths of the current system we
should seek to maintain while promoting a more flexible approach to choice
of pathways for individual candidates.
Equipping the range of candidates who are being called
3.3. There is a widespread demand for a better tailoring of training to the
genuine needs and potential of candidates. This is not to put the
candidate’s wishes first but to respond to the range of candidates
presenting themselves. Theological educators are already very aware of
this need but our current regulations are not helpful in this regard. The
Hind report as amended and approved by the General Synod put down
some clear policy markers in this area which we comment on in the
following sections.
Lifelong learning, not just initial training
3.4. Within the theme of a learning Church, the report recommended promoting
patterns of lifelong learning. Specifically, it recommended that:
ordination candidates should be encouraged to start accredited
learning through the Education for Discipleship initiative before they
enter training. 60-120 credits at level 1 was suggested as a
benchmark. (Proposal 3)
IME should be reconfigured as the years before and the first four
years after ordination (see next main section)
After the fourth year of ministry, the clergy should continue with
CME
Reconfiguring IME as the period from entry into training to the fourth year after
ordination
3.5. In writing about initial training, we are not just concerned with current pre-
ordination training but the whole of IME 1-7, with pre-ordination and post-
6
ordination phases. Thus, in the planning process the potential of
continuing IME in the post-ordination phase of training will now be need to
be borne in mind. This would include:
The types of placement a candidate might do in the pre-ordination
phase in the light of the type of curacy the person might serve;
Whether a candidate who ought to complete training to degree level
should do so by the time of ordination or in the post-ordination
phase.
Thus, while our attention has inevitably been focused on the pre-ordination
phase of training pathways (because we have national agreements in this
area in terms of expectations and of finance), we would strongly
encourage planning from the earliest stages that takes into account the
whole of IME 1-7.
Learning Outcomes, rather than years of training
3.6. The report suggested a framework that sets out the qualities and learning
expected of candidates at key points in the new IME, rather than our
current practice of merely thinking in terms of years of training undertaken.
This has now been worked out in the Learning Outcomes, approved by the
House of Bishops. Thus, planning pathways can now be done against a
published set of desired outcomes at the point of ordination, at the end of
IME 7 and, where appropriate, for those going on to exercise ministry of
incumbent status or equivalent.
Flexible pathways drawing on a range of training institutions
3.7. The Hind report recommended that flexible pathways through training are
developed, drawing on college, course and OLM types of training and
other resources, in order to meet the training needs of candidates as
identified by the Church (Proposal 14). Thus, decisions about choices of
pathway through training are should be made with a range of possibilities
of full-time and part-time options in mind and the ability to combine full-
time and part-time elements.
Level of attainment
3.8. In terms of attainment in Higher Education terms, the Synod confirmed that
normally candidates should achieve a minimum of diploma level in
ministerial theology and practice before ordination and that ministers
should continue further learning at an agreed level according to ability in
the post-ordination phase of IME, while rejecting degree level attainment
for all future incumbents as had been originally proposed. (Proposal 4)
However, some pressure has been taken off the need to achieve a
designated level of attainment during the pre-ordination phase of training
as much greater use can now be made of Education for Discipleship and
of IME 4-7.
Overall aim
3.9. We start from the expectations set out fundamentally in the ordinals and
historic formularies of the Church of England and further detailed in a
contemporary way in the educational and formational terms in the Learning
7
Outcomes. Thus, in the light of the gifts, qualities, knowledge and skills
required for the envisaged ministry our aim is:
to enable good quality formation in order to equip candidates
for the Church’s ministry, a formation which will include the
spiritual, ministerial, intellectual and personal growth of the
candidate;
In this aim we have started with a positive emphasis, rather than the
negative signals that can be sent by regulations and rules. Further, we
have put first the ecclesial theme of participating in the Church’s ministry –
training is about much more than the personal learning or development of
the candidate, however much that may be necessary.
4. A new framework for decision making on choice of
pathways
In this section we review some of the key aspects of the new framework.
Selection: category and focus
4.1. We have taken the new thinking on selection categories as a given. This
has a single category for ordination candidates, ordained ministry.
4.2. As well as the single sponsorship category for ordained ministry, the
following further questions are asked to aid the work of those seeking to
discern the vocation of candidates. These questions help to determine the
projected focus of ministry:
i) Priest or Deacon (Distinctive)?
ii) Will the candidate be seeking a stipendiary post at the point of
ordination?
iii) Post of incumbent status or equivalent at some future date?
iv) National deployable or local (if the latter, parish, group of parishes,
deanery or diocese?)
v) Particular focus of ministry?
4.3. With regard to the choice of pathways, we believe that the most important
issues here relate to iii) and iv). Is the candidate called to a ministry that
will be that of incumbent status or equivalent or to an assistant ministry?
Given the greater level of responsibility and scope of ministry of the
former, it is right to make more training resources available to such
candidates. Similarly, the level of responsibility and scope of ministry in
nationally deployable candidates is greater than those whose ministry is
restricted to the local.
4.4. With regard to distinctive deacons, we do not think there needs to be a
national distinction in terms of allocation of training in contrast to those
who will be ‘transitional deacons’ but will seek to exercise a priestly
ministry. Current practice is to make minor adjustments to training for the
particular requirements for distinctive deacons, rather than varying the
length or mode of training and we continue to commend this.
8
4.5. The issue of the ‘focus’ of ministry is one that may well be important for
determining the choice of pathways of candidates. Thus, we believe that
the particular features of OLM ministry - with its emphasis on collaborative
ministry with particular parish/benefice/pastoral unit in mind and no
intention to deploy – will mean that candidates will normally train on the
diocese’s own OLM scheme. This can remain the case if the OLM
scheme becomes in effect a ‘pathway’ within a RTP. Nor does this
preclude aspects of college or course type provision where this can be
negotiated and financed within the RTP.
4.6. Equally, those called to a pioneer ministry will no doubt seek a training that
has strengths in this field. Current work with potential providers indicates
that there is likely to be such pathways in relation to college-type and
course-type training, as well as new forms of contextually-based mixed-
mode training.
Learning Outcomes
4.7. As noted in the section on principles, a key feature of the new framework
is the full set of Learning Outcomes that specify what is expected of a
candidate and minister at the point of ordination, by the end of the fourth
year of ministry and, where appropriate, before taking up a post of
responsibility (incumbent or equivalent). Those working with candidates
and minsters will need to judge what sort and length of training will best
enable them to fulfil the Learning Outcomes.
Parties with the decision making process
4.8. A new approach to Bishops’ regulations should enable bishops, DDOs,
training institutions and candidates to come to informed, transparent
decisions about training that can be respected throughout the Church.
One of the strengths of the current regulations is that they are widely
understood. Any new system needs to be robust, fair to all and capable of
being communicated to all parties.
4.9. It is important to locate the decision-making process clearly. Within our
church there are balances to be struck between the bishop, advised by his
officers, acting as the sponsor of the candidate, the parameters agreed
from time to time by the House of Bishops, the tasks given by the House to
the Ministry Division, the specialist role of training providers and the
interest of the candidates .
4.10. Within Anglican ecclesiology and for good practical reasons, it is right that
the process is located in the diocese:
In terms of ecclesiology and theology, within the Church of England
it is the diocese, led by the bishop, which is the ‘local church’ in that
the full range of ministries (from lay to episcopal) are present in it.
Practically it is the diocese that knows the candidate having guided
him or her through the discernment process.
It is the bishop who sponsors the candidate and ultimately makes
decisions about ordination.
9
From a financial point of view it is the diocese that will pay for its
share of the cost of training and the cost of any family maintenance
through the Vote 1 and through pooling arrangements.
The diocese within which the candidate is ordained will be
responsible for the provision of and cost of IME 4-7.
4.11. However, with regard to choice of pathways, the bishop also acts:
collegially - in respect of the regulations or agreements entered
into from time to time by the House of Bishops;
collaboratively - receiving the advice of the DDO and CME officer,
with the full participation of the candidate, in dialogue with the
training institutions.
4.12. On behalf of the House of Bishops, the Ministry Division
undertakes specific task best done at a national level (facilitating
Bishops’ Advisory Panels, curriculum validation, administering
central funds for training),
advises bishops on the cases of candidates which fall outside of
Bishops’ Regulations and, where the advice is positive, pays for
the training of such candidates.
4.13. Training providers contribute the specialist advice on the strengths of
different options within training and the interface with higher education.
4.14. Candidates will best be served by a system which is transparent and which
is clearly equitable across the dioceses.
A new approach to Bishops’ regulations needs to reflect these balances.
Financial issues
4.15. In our work we have sought to strike a good balance between, on the one
hand, the Church’s strategic priority of investing properly in high quality
training and, on the other, the vital importance of working within the
budgetary constraints of the Church. In the current financial situation of
the Church we have taken it that the future system should not in itself lead
to an increase in expenditure in comparison with our current system, in
relation to the number and type of candidates in training.
4.16. The flexibility of a pathway approach offers some real opportunity here.
There are good educational and formational reasons for adopting this
approach but it will also be important to make decisions in an informed
way with regard to the cost of training. While the costs vary between
institutions, in broad terms we can say the following:
Each year at a theological college for a single person including
maintenance costs on average £13,300.
Each year at a theological college for a married person with two
children and no other family income costs on average £24,900.
10
Each year on a regional course including travel and allowances
costs on average £5,400 plus any ‘hidden costs’ contributed by the
diocese (eg housing provided for staff and the time of stipendiary
clergy and others given as tutors).
Each year on a diocesan OLM scheme including travel and
allowances costs £4,100, of which approximately £1,700 comes
central church funds.
There are marked differences here and therefore in terms of being good stewards of our
resources, financial issues must play their proper part in the decision-making process.
4.17. As a general principal, we believe that it continues to be right to relate
national expenditure on training to the envisaged future ministry. In
practical terms this will mean equipping the following to the appropriate
level:
future incumbents or equivalents
assistant ministers, many of whom in practice will be non-
stipendiary
those with a particular focus of ministry. Examples include OLM,
pioneer ministers and ministers in secular employment.
We have made use of these categories in the points system we set out below.
5. Some individual issues
Opening up the options
5.1. We have noted above the rising confidence in the church in part-time
training and the desire to develop flexibility in our training system between
full-time and part-time modes. In the light of this we believe it is right to
open up course type training for such candidates under 30 for whom the
sponsoring diocese believes this is the most appropriate form of training.
Equally we want to enable some additional older candidates to train in
colleges.
5.2. One of the features of recent years has been the growth of training
packages that combine full-time and part-time modes of training. This is
very much in line with the Hind report’s themes of ‘pathways’ and of
colleges, courses and OLM schemes working together in Regional
Training Partnerships. In our points system we have specifically allowed
for combinations of full-time and part-time modes.
5.3. To give one example. The proposed Bishops’ Regulations allow some
candidates six terms in a college or nine terms on a course. However, it
might well be more appropriate for some, for example, to do an equivalent
combined course of one term in college and two years on a course.
Attention will need to be paid here to the continuity in learning and that the
combined training package does not exceed the cost of a standard
pathway. These costings should include the reduced costs of full-time
training where the candidate does not need a full maintenance package
but can train in a full-time mode.
11
5.4. Another form of flexibility we envisage is that there could be local
arrangements within a region whereby some aspects of training can be
opened up to a range of learners. However, it may well be possible for
college candidates to learn for part of the time through modules or
sessions previously only open to part-time candidates and vice versa.
This also would need to be done without raising additional cost for the
Vote 1 budget.
Younger candidates
5.5. There is a widespread conviction in the Church that it is important to
reverse the decline in numbers of younger ordinands in training. Work is
being done on this at a number of levels but we also need to give attention
to their training. In the past candidates under 30 have been allowed to
train for three years in a theological college, whereas older candidates
have had a smaller allocation of training. We believe that this
differentiation is important because of the particular training needs of
younger candidates. Given the pastoral nature of the ministry and the
value of life experience in preparing for it, and given the limited resources
available for training, we believe it is right to discriminate positively towards
younger candidates in terms of their access to training. Further, such
candidates are more likely to be asked to take up posts of responsibility as
incumbents or equivalent and therefore they need proper equipping for
these roles. The Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006 provide
that positive discrimination in providing access to training in favour of a
particular age group is lawful, if it reasonably appears to the person or
body facilitating such access that such action prevents or compensates for
disadvantages linked to age suffered by that age group in the context of
the work for which they are being trained. We believe that what we are
proposing will indeed serve that purpose in relation to younger candidates.
5.6. With regard to the definition of ‘younger candidates’ our current regulations
sets a limit whereby a candidate has to be less than 30. We propose
raising this to be under 32 (ie raising it by two years) to reflect the profile of
ordinands today, with an aspiration to raise it to 35. We would have liked
to raise it to 35 now but this would add considerably to the cost of training
(Vote 1 and maintenance) and we are not convinced that this is feasible in
the current financial climate. [We will be trialling the new system of
guidance with DDOs in order to be confident that the overall cost of the
new approach is broadly similar to the current approach. In the light of that
evidence we will need to ask whether a cap on the total amount available
for types of training needs to be introduced or whether we can continue to
use the existing mechanism of the Bishops’ Agreed Maximum.]
Older candidates
5.7. There is a particular issue about candidates offering for ministry in mid to
later life. Historically, these were a very small group but this is no longer
the case: Whereas the largest group of candidates used to be the under
30s, now the largest group of ordinands is the 40-49 year olds (30%), with
the next largest the 50-59 year olds (28%; 2004 figures). Equally
importantly, life expectation and standards of health have risen markedly,
as have expectations of the clergy in the church and in society. All these
12
points mean that our current regulations, which regard those who are over
50 as exceptional, are no long defensible. Further, candidates who are
ordained in their 50s may well move to another diocese. Consequently, as
they are deployable, it is important that bishops know that they have been
trained to a national standard. In terms of a practical approach, we
recommend that the new regulations, which in any case are more flexible
than the old, should apply to all those who are under 60. For those who
are 60 and over at the point of entry into training, we suggest that, as now,
a similar approach to choice of pathways should be taken as for all
candidates but that the final form of the training should be at the discretion
of the ordaining bishop. However, where a bishop wishes to exercise his
discretion by reducing training, he will need to bear in mind that this could
later be challenged under age discrimination legislation.
Funding for candidates ordained early?
5.8. One question that has been raised from time to time is whether money
could be available to fund the continuing studies of those who a bishop
wishes to ordain early, ie before they have completed normal pre-
ordination studies. The current situation is that money is only available
from central church funds for pre-ordination training. However, two main
reasons point against a change to this rule. First, the House of Bishops
recently agreed a comprehensive set of Learning Outcomes which
distinguish between the qualities sought in those at the time of ordination
and those at the end of the fourth year of ministry. These Outcomes were
built around the assumption that candidates would fulfil these Outcomes
before being ordained. These statements are a helpful contribution to
common approaches across the dioceses. Further, Vote 1, the Central
Fund for Ministerial Training, is a restricted fund which was set up by the
General Synod. A change in its terms of reference to allow payments from
it for post-ordination training would require the full Synodical process,
which is not a current priority.
Levels of attainment
5.9. There is a normal minimum expectation of diploma level by the time of
ordination, but many candidates will achieve Foundation degree, ordinary
or honours degree, MA, etc, either by the time of ordination or by the end
of IME. With regard to these levels of attainment, the normal expectation
will be that candidates will make the maximum use of Education for
Discipleship (where appropriate), and of both the pre- and post-ordination
phases of the new IME to ensure they reach the highest appropriate level
of attainment appropriate for them.
5.10. This approach will impact particularly on the question of whether, as a part
of ministerial formation, a candidate should be enabled to reach degree-
level in ministerial theology and practice in the pre-ordination phase or by
the end of IME (where this level of attainment is appropriate to the
candidate). There are at least three scenarios here:
i) a number of candidates who should be enabled to complete
ministerial theology degrees offered by training institutions by the
end of IME 4-7. Diploma level can be completed in the pre-
ordination phase and degree level on a part-time basis after
13
ordination. This can be achieved by either part-time or full-time
pre-ordination training and part-time study in the post-ordination
phase;
ii) a number of candidates who should be enabled to take the
ministerial theology degrees offered by training institutions by the
time of ordination. Some of these candidates will require three
years full-time in pre-ordination training while others will only need
either two full-time years or three years part-time because of their
prior learning or because they can be offered a compressed two
year degree programme.
iii) a small number of candidates with high academic potential who
should be enabled to complete departmental theology degrees in
strong university theology departments to be complemented by
ministerial formation and studies in a theological college.
In our thinking about the proposed points system, we believe that we have
made provision for this range of candidates. While recourse may be made
to the Candidates Panel for genuine exceptions, we need to do more detail
work to see whether we will need the gathered field for ‘first degrees
outside Bishops’ Regulations’, as happens at the moment. As with the
new system in general, this area will need to be monitored carefully and
reviewed in the light of experience if necessary.
Giving credit for prior learning and ministry
5.11. We proceed from the expectation will that normally all candidates of all
ages will be undertake training and formation before ordination and will
continue that in IME 4-7 and in CME thereafter. However, there is a clear
demand from bishops, DDOs and candidates for prior learning to be
acknowledged, either by offering higher level study or by shortening the
period of pre-ordination training. This is a complex area as the needs in
formation of the candidate for ordained ministry are just as important as
their prior learning or formation for another ministry. Further, it is widely
recognized that these formational needs are more difficult to assess than
other types of learning. We set out some principles to guide the debate:
Accreditation of Prior Learning (APL): we expect candidates with
prior accredited learning or formation to be given credit for that
learning so that they either start their training at higher level or
where appropriate have a shortened form of training;
Accreditation of Prior Experiential Learning (APEL): we look to
RTPs in the future to develop expertise in the accreditation of prior
experiential learning so that the same procedures can be applied to
those with prior experience of substantial and acknowledged lay
ministry or clearly transferable skills;
we think that these procedures should be applied particularly in the
case where Readers have undergone ministerial training in the
past five years before entering ordination training. Reader training
has been moderated for more than 15 years, with a consequent
14
rise in standards of training, and the ministry that has been
exercised is a public ministry under canon. This does not mean
that Readers now offering themselves for ordained ministry do not
have further training or formational needs but that these should be
carefully assessed in each case.
Time for formation
5.12. While we wish to acknowledge and build on candidates’ prior theological
learning and experience of ministry, we believe that this should not be at
the expense of time needed for formation for ordained ministry. This is
clearly essential precisely in the pre-ordination phase of IME, however
much formation continues in ministry. In this context, by ‘formation’ we
mean:
The pattern of prayer and the living of the Christian life as
appropriate to the ordained;
Preparation for the expectations on the ordained which come with
public ministry, from Church and community;
The need to work on personality and relationship issues in the light
of the collaborative and leadership qualities required in the
ordained;
The need to integrate and interiorise theological learning, reflection
on self and other, and the new role to be taken on.
In the light of this, in practical terms we have sought to ensure that
candidates have adequate time for formation. In particular, we have set a
limit on the number of points that can be deducted for prior learning or lay
ministry from a candidate’s allocation of training. We believe that the
points system will now be appropriate for the great majority of candidates.
If however candidates present with either exceptional formational
requirements or less requirement for training in the pre-ordination phases,
a case can be made to the Candidates Panel.
Research degrees
5.13. For the last fifteen years the Church has enabled a small number of
candidates to include research degrees (PhDs, Masters level degrees
which are primarily research focussed) in their pre-ordination training and
for this to be paid for through Ministry Division funds. This has been with
aim of ensuring a group of appropriately qualified candidates who might be
among the theological educators of the future. This work is carried out
through the Research Degrees Panel who review the applications made
on merit each year, within the discipline of a budget. Given the specialised
nature of the work, we believe that it should continue in the same way in
the future.
6 A points system to guide access to types of training
6.1 In the light of these principles, the framework we have set out and the
individual issues we have discussed, we now introduce a simple points
system that should help bishops, DDOs, trainers and candidates negotiate
the best training for individual candidates.
15
6.2 We have sought to draw up a system that seeks to promote the needs of
the Church in allocating training and to deal with candidates fairly and
transparently. It is designed around clear underlying principles that are set
out briefly here and seeks to be permissive, rather than prescriptive. The
system is based on allocating points in relation to factors such as the
scope of the envisaged ministry and to take account of the candidate’s
prior learning or ministry and then set these within broad bands for types
and lengths of training.
6.3. The system is intended to be a tool which tells its user what normally will
happen to ordinands who are about to enter training. It should be used in
an open manner that demonstrates the reasoning behind decisions that
are made about training. It is not intended to indicate an absolute
entitlement to a particular form of training, but to set the boundaries within
which decisions can be made locally. Further it seeks to yield clear
decisions by a method which is simple to use and readily intelligible to
others. Finally, the system should cover virtually all decisions. However,
as now, recourse can be made to the Candidates Panel and the Research
Degrees Panel for exceptional cases, though it is our intention that this will
only be necessary in a relatively small number of cases and as the new
system is being bedded in.
6.4. In the consultation on our proposals some expressed reservations about a
points system on the grounds that it gave the impression that spiritual
formation can be ‘quantified’ in this way. We would want to respond that
this is not its purpose. The points system indicates what length and mode
of training will normally be appropriate in the light of the candidate’s likely
ministry and prior learning. It seeks to enables those planning training
think about the serious engagement with a praying community which is the
foundation of all formation for ordained ministry, whether that is in full-time,
part-time mode or a combination of these.
6.5. One of the advantages of a points system is that it is easy to alter in the
light of experience. Bishops and DDOs will be encouraged to give
feedback on it and the Ministry Division can then bring forward proposals
for modifications of the system in the light of that feedback.
6.6. It is to be expected that some individuals will disagree with the decision
about appropriate training. Dioceses are urged to plan a simple and open
appeals process, perhaps involving the sponsoring bishop. There needs
to be a clear location for decisions. Similarly, where dioceses are unhappy
with the result of the application of the points system, they should continue
to appeal in the usual way for a decision of the Candidates’ Panel.
6.7. While the results that are yielded by the use of the tool and its
accompanying bands are not absolutely binding, any training proposal that
falls outside the appropriate band will need to be agreed by the
Candidates’ Panel if it is to receive central funding.
6.8. Although the points system has been the subject of a dummy run, there is
concern that it could prove costly as it is introduced. For this reason, in the
first three years of use, it is proposed that a cap is set on central funding
which represents the expected national level of funding had the system
remained unchanged. Allowance will be made for inflation in the usual
16
way. There will be an annual review of the working of the points system.
In a similar way, dioceses may wish to cap the level of funding that they
have available for maintenance in the first three years, so that the
commitment to training routes does not leave sensitive budgets over-
extended. The pooling system will continue to operate for the foreseeable
future.
The principles
6.9. The main principles of the system are as follows:
i) Every candidate sent into training has an entitlement to training.
Within our proposal this is quantified as 60 points, which falls within Band
3.
ii) Because of limited resources we wish to privilege younger
candidates. Given the pastoral nature of the ministry, such candidates will
not have the life experience to draw on and therefore there is a proper and
objective rationale for giving them greater access to training, as required
by equal opportunities legislation. For the purposes of this framework, we
have defined ‘younger’ as ‘under 32’, though if finances allowed we would
have preferred 35.
iii) Those who are being deployed nationally need more extensive
training because they need to be equipped to respond to a wider variety of
situations in ministry.
iv) Those who are going to take posts of additional responsibility (e.g.
incumbents) need extra training to equip them for this role.
v) Specialist ministries may need additional training.
vi) Relevant previous study, experience, prior learning and
transferable skills are acknowledged as valuable and should be
counted towards ministerial training.
vii) Candidates should offer reasonable service before retirement if
they are to be given access to the standard allocation of training.
In the consultation on this report, several people made the point that it is
not always clear what sort of ministry a candidate is heading towards
during the discernment phase and that candidates grow in training. We
recognize this point but believe that these distinctions are sufficiently well
founded for the majority of candidates for the purpose of allocating
training. If the candidate does develop significantly in training, then their
training needs should be reviewed at the time and the necessary
adjustments made. Our investigation of other possible models of
allocation led us to the conclusion that they lack the necessary qualities of
transparency, fairness to candidates across the dioceses and avoiding
large increases in the cost of training. The details of the points system
with the bands that correspond to the allocation of training are given in the
proposed Bishops’ Regulations set out below.
17
Decision making and assessment
6.10. We indicated above (4.8-14) that a balance needs to be struck between
the roles of the various parties involved in decision-making. The points
system which we are proposing, gives the bishop, advised by his officers
and informed by training institutions, an increased scope to make
decisions about training while maintaining a transparent national
framework which will serve the needs of candidates. Thus, when the
‘band’ for the candidate has been worked out there are significant choices
within it for the bishop. For candidates who fall within Band 3 there is the
choice of college or course, or a combination of them. Candidates up to
the age of 32, rather than 30 can go to college for three years. Candidates
under 30 can now train on a course where this is appropriate. Bishops will
want to consider which praying and learning community will best form the
candidate for the envisaged ministry. Thus, there is greater choice for the
bishop within the bands. If a bishop believes that training outside of the
band is appropriate, a case should be made to the Candidates Panel.
6.11. As at present, training institutions will recommend candidates for
ordination to bishops on the basis of being suitable candidates for ministry
in the light of the ordinals and the historic formularies and having fulfilled
the Learning Outcomes for the appropriate stage of training. Similarly, in
all cases bishops will continue to have the final say on whether and when
to ordain. In coming to a decision they will normally seek the considered
and evidence-based advice of their officers and of principals of training
institutions, conveyed to them through the reporting process. The
reporting process should become a part of the ‘pathways’ approach as it
specifically allows for comment on the candidate’s journey thus far and on
suitable goals for the next phase of formation and learning.
18
Draft Choice of Pathways Framework and
Bishops’ Regulations for Training for ordained
ministry
In the following sections, the framework is in ordinary type and the Bishops’ Regulations
are in bold.
1. As a Church we seek to enable good quality formation in order to equip candidates
for the Church’s ministry, a formation which will include the spiritual, ministerial,
intellectual and personal growth of the candidate;
2. Decisions about the choice of pathways through Initial Ministerial Education 1-7
(with pre-ordination and a post-ordination phases) will be led by the candidate’s
diocese following discussion with the candidate and with the relevant training
institutions. In most cases, decisions will be made be the diocese within the
parameters set out in these regulations.
3. Candidates for ordained ministry will be sponsored for a Bishops’ Advisory
Panel under the single category of ‘ordained ministry’.
4. In addition the following questions will be asked in the sponsoring papers with
regard to the focus of ordained ministry:
i) Priest or Deacon (Distinctive)?
ii) Will the candidate be seeking a stipendiary post at the point of ordination?
iii) Post of incumbent status or equivalent at some future date or assistant
ministry?
iv) National deployable or local (if the latter, parish, group of parishes,
deanery or diocese?)
v) Particular focus of ministry?
5. Central Church funds for pre-ordination/licensing training will be available
for the pre-ordination phase of training:
i) to those candidates who have attended a Bishops’ Advisory Panel
ii) where the training pathway lies within the parameters of these
regulations
iii) where the pathway comprises either (a) a validated route or
combinations of routes validated by the Ministry Division or (b) where
an individual training plan for a candidate which has been approved
by the Ministry Division, through the Candidates Panel or the
Research Degrees Panel.
19
Mode of training
6. Overall, decisions about the mode of training should take in to account the
candidate’s potential for learning and formation, envisaged ministry, educational
record, preferred styles of learning and personal and family circumstances.
7. If sponsoring papers envisage an incumbent status post in the future then
the candidate’s training may include access to college, course or a
combination of these.
8. Decisions about college or course for ‘future incumbent’ candidates should
be taken in the light of training type most likely to give the candidate the best
training (college-type, course-type, combination of these), as well as the
general factors listed in 6 above.
9. If an assistant ministry is envisaged then the candidate’s training will
normally be in course type training. In addition there will be the option for
the negotiation for elements of college-type or OLM-type training where this
can be negotiated and financed within the RTP.
10. If the envisaged focus of ministry is OLM, then normally the candidate will
train on the diocese’s OLM scheme or local ministry pathway. In addition
there will be an option for the negotiation for elements of college-type or
course-type training where this can be negotiated and financed within the
RTP.
Level of starting training
11.
i) While it is not mandatory, all candidates, as appropriate, are encouraged
to engage in aspects of theological study and the exploration of the
practice of ministry during the period of the discernment of vocation.
Under the Education for Discipleship initiative or equivalent, we encourage
all suitable candidates to seek to achieve between 60 and 120 credits at
Level 1 or higher.
ii) All candidates are encouraged to present their HE accredited prior learning
with a currency of five years and less from a range of possibilities: Reader
training, Education for Discipleship, independent study, etc
iii) Training institutions/RTPs are requested to recognize this prior learning
and to offer the appropriate level of continuing formation and learning.
iv) Training institutions/RTPs are requested to develop formal systems for
granting recognition for prior experiential learning and the exercise of lay
ministry.
v) Where candidates can demonstrate a high level of academic aptitude
(normally through having a 2.1 in a first degree or equivalent), the pathway
can include the departmental theology degrees in theological faculties
where these are part of validated routes approved by the Ministry Division.
20
12. Length of training
i) The expected levels of attainment are set out in the Learning
Outcomes at the point of ordination, on completion of IME and, where
appropriate, for those seeking a post of incumbent status or
equivalent. These outcomes are couched in broad vocational,
ministerial and educational terms.
ii) In Higher Education terms, the normal minimum level of attainment at
the point of ordination is diploma level. In this context ‘diploma level’
means attainment in both ministerial formation and theological
learning, ie not just academic achievement.
iii) The achievement of the Learning Outcomes and of diploma level in
ministerial theology and practice implies either two years full time or three
years part time training (or an equivalent combination of these) in order to
fulfil the Learning Outcomes specified for the point of ordination. Two
years full-time and three years part-time for formation and education
will act as a starting point in terms of expectation about training in
the pre-ordination phase. However, this can be modified by a
number of considerations.
iv) The normal expectation will be that candidates will make the
maximum use of both EFD and IME4-7 to ensure they reach the
highest appropriate level of attainment appropriate for them (normal
minimum of diploma level but also higher levels as appropriate).
v) This approach to choice of pathways applies to all candidates irrespective
of age. However, where candidates are 60 or over at the point of entry
into training, the ordaining bishop has discretion over the final form of the
training.
vi) As at present, the Ministry Division, through its various panels, will
exercise a national role in the following areas:
a. Approving and where satisfied funding individual training plans for
candidates which fall outside Bishops’ Regulations
b. Offering advice on change of focus of ministry during training – this
issue is currently under review at the moment with a view to giving
this work to diocesan discernment panels
c. Offering advice on the suitability of research degrees as part of a
pathway to ordination and funding research degrees within a
budget.
vii) Access to types and length of training should normally fall within the
bands set out in the points system in this framework.
viii) Where a diocese wishes for a candidate to train outside Bishops’
Regulations, it should make a case to the Ministry Division.
21
13. Principles of the points system
i) Every candidate sent into training has an entitlement to training. Within
our proposal this is quantified as 60 points, which falls within Band 3.
ii) Because of limited resources we wish to privilege younger candidates.
Given the pastoral nature of the ministry, such candidates will not have the
life experience to draw on and therefore there is a proper rationale for
giving them greater access to training. For the purposes of this
framework, we are defining ‘younger’ as ‘under 32’, though if finances
allowed we would have preferred 35.
iii) Those who are being deployed nationally need more extensive training
because they need to be equipped to respond to a wider variety of
situations in ministry.
iv) Those who are going to take posts of additional responsibility (e.g.
incumbents) need extra training to equip them for this role.
v) Specialist ministries may need additional training.
vi) Relevant previous study, experience, prior learning and transferable skills
are acknowledged as valuable and should be counted towards ministerial
training.
vii) Candidates should offer reasonable service before retirement if they are to
be given access to the standard allocation of training.
14. Points system
Step One: every candidate receives 60 points
Step Two: if national deployment, add 20
Step Three: if the expectation is of a post of responsibility (incumbent status or
equivalent), add 30
Step Four: if a young candidate (under 32 by the time of entry into training), add 30
Step Five: if a specialist ministry is expected,
add 30 for potential theological educator
add 15 for pioneer minister
Total Steps 1-5
Step Six: take away points for the following. The maximum deduction is 40
points.
Previous study First degree in Theology (or Theology and Religions Studies)
where more than 50% of modules equate to the coverage of
modules expected in the ministerial curriculum, normally taken
within the last ten years), subtract 40
22
First degree in Theology (or Theology and Religions Studies or
modules from such programmes) where between 25 and 50% of
modules equate to the coverage of modules expected in the
ministerial curriculum, normally taken in within the last ten years),
subtract 30
Reader training within last five years, subtract 30
EFD at 60 credit points at level 1 or above, subtract 10
Ministerial Experience of five years or more with evidence of reflective practice, subtract
10-20
Substantial Transferable Skills (e.g. significant counselling qualifications), subtract 10-20.
This step yields the final total.
Step Seven: compare final total to bands on the scale.
Band 1 fewer than 20, limited programme
Band 2 fewer than 60, 6 terms on a course or its equivalent combination of course
and college
Band 3 60 or more and fewer than 130, 6 terms in college or 9 terms on a course
or equivalent combination of these
Band 4 130 or more, 9 terms in college or combination of college and course
Band 5 160 or more points, significant indicator of the potential for extra
investment in training. Candidates’ Panel or Research Degree Panel
(though the cases of candidates with fewer points can also be put).
23
POINTS SYSTEM DUMMY RUN FORM
(Name of Ordinand—not required but may help DDO as working):
Points
Step One: All receive 60 points 60
Step Two: national deployment? If yes, add 20 _____
Step Three: post of responsibility? If yes, add 30 _____
Step Four: if under 32 at entry into training, add 30 _____
Step Five: if specialist ministry, _____
Potential Theological Educator add 30
Pioneer Minister add 15
Sub-total Steps One to Five: =====
Step Six: Take away points for the following (maximum deduction 40):
Previous Study
Education for Discipleship at 60 credit points
at Level 1 or above, subtract 10 _____
First Degree in Theology (more than 50%
in areas for ministerial preparation
within last 10 years), subtract 40 _____
Degree in Religions and Theology,
subtract 30 _____
Reader Training within the last five years,
subtract 30 _____
24
Substantial Ministerial Experience of 5 or more years, with
evidence of reflective practice, subtract
10-20 points _____
Substantial transferable skills (e.g. significant
Counselling qualifications), subtract 10-20 _____
Sub-total Step Six only (maximum deduction 40) =====
Now subtract the sub-total at Step Six from the
sub-total at Step Five:
TOTAL
Now compare the total to the Bands
Band ____________
What training would this person have received under the present Bishops’ Regulations?
25