Some responses to the "Initial teacher training market review"
A 'market' review
The UK Government's Department for Education (responsible for the school system in England) is currently undertaking what it called a 'market review' of initial teacher education (ITE) or initial teacher 'training' as it prefers to describe ite. (Arguably, 'education' suggests broad professional preparation for someone who will need to make informed decisions in complex situations, whereas 'training' implies learning the skills needed for a craft.)
The aims of the review are certainly unobjectionable:
The review has aimed to make well informed, evidence-based recommendations on how to make sure:
• all trainees receive high-quality training
• the ITT market maintains the capacity to deliver enough trainees and is accessible to candidates
• the ITT system benefits all schools1
Despite such intentions clearly being laudable, the actual proposals (which, inter alia, can be seen as looking to further increase central government control over the professional preparation of teachers) raised concerns among many of those actually involved in teacher education.
The consultation
There was a public consultation to which all interested were invited to respond. Since the consultation closed, the Secretary of State (i.e., senior minister) for Education has changed, so we await to see whether this will derail the review.
The review is wide ranging, but there is a widespread view that once again government is seeking to reduce the influence of academic education experts (see for example, 'Valuing the gold standard in teacher education'), and my colleagues still working in university-school based ITE partnerships certainly felt that if all the proposals were brought to fruition such partnership would be at risk. Not that Universities would not be able to contribute, but they would not be able to do so in a way that allowed full quality control and proper planning and sustainable commitment.
My own University, Cambridge, has suggested
We cannot, in all conscience, envisage our continuing involvement with ITT should the proposals be implemented in their current format.
Government ITT market review consultation, Faculty of Education website
Some discussion on one teachers' email list I subscribe to, provoked me me decide to look back at my own consultation responses.
A selective response – and a generic default hole-filler
I have not worked in I.T.E. for some years, and so did not feel qualified to comment on all aspects of the review. However, there were some aspects of the plans (or at least my interpretation of what was intended) that I felt would put at risk some of the strongest and most important aspects of high quality teacher preparation.
As being able to submit a response to the consultation required providing a response at every section (a cynic might suggest that expecting full completion of such a long consultation document is a disincentive for most people to contribute), I used a generic statement to cover those questions where I did not feel I had anything informed and useful to say:
I am aware of concerns raised in responses by the Russell group of Universities, the University of Cambridge (of which I am an emeritus officer), and Homerton College, Cambridge (of which I am a senior member). I concur with these concerns, and rather than seek to reproduce or mirror all of their comments (already available to you), I refer you to those responses. Further, I am offering some specific comments on particular issues where I have strong concerns based on my past experiences as a PGCE student teacher; as a teacher in comprehensive secondary schools; as a school/college-based mentor supporting graduates preparing for teaching in schools and also in a further education context; as a researcher exploring aspects of student learning and the teaching that supports it; as a lecturer and supervisor on initial teacher education courses as part of University-School training partnerships; as a supervisor for teachers in post undertaking school-based research; as an advisor to schools undertaking context-directed research; and as a lecturer teaching graduates how to undertake research into educational contexts.
Here are my more specific responses highlighting my particular concerns:
Individual differences
Having worked in initial teacher education as well as having been a school teacher, I am well aware that one of the most important things anyone working in the education sector has to appreciate is individual differences – between pupils, between teachers, between classes, between schools, and between new-entrants. Too much focus on uniformity is therefore unwelcome and likely to reduce the quality of the highest provision which takes this into diversity into account, Similarly, genuinely 'rigorous' sequencing of the educational experience will be responsive to individual needs and that would be welcome. However, uniform and inflexible sequencing, which would be far from rigorous, would be damaging.
Being equipped to engage with research
I am aware that the diversity in routes for new entrants now available has reduced the quality of training experience available to some new teachers. In particular, the fully professional teacher has to be a critical reader of research, and to have the tools and confidence to undertake their own small-scale context based enquiry to develop their own practice.
This is essential because the research shows clearly that whilst it is sometimes possible to identify some features of best practice that generalise across most teaching contexts, this is by no means always the case. Teaching and learning are highly complex phenomena and are strongly influenced by contextual factors. So, what has been found to 'normally' work best will not be the best approach in all teaching contexts. Teachers needs to be able to read research claims critically
(there are always provisos
- most studies are small-scale where strict generalisation is simply not possible,
- few studies are sufficiently supported with the resources to test ideas across a wide range of contexts; and
- experimental studies which are the gold standard in the natural sciences are usually problematic in education
- as randomisation {a critical aspect of true experimental research} is seldom possible, and
- there is seldom the information or means to characterise populations sufficiently to build representative samples;
- moreover the complexity of educational contexts does not allow the identification (let alone control) of all relevant variable, and
- there are some key known factors which influence results when double-blind methods are not viable
- – a situation that is very common when testing innovations in educational practices as teachers and learners are usually well aware of deviations from normal practice)
and identify the most promising recommendations when taking into account their own teaching context (i.e., what is referred to as reader or naturalistic generalisation) and test out ideas in their own classrooms, and iteratively develop their own practice.
Sadly, whilst the M-level PGCE type programmes usually support new teachers in introducing these skills, this does not seem to necessarily be the case on some other routes.
On 'intensive' practice placements
I consider this is a misguided notion based on a flawed conceptualisation of teaching and teacher skills. It is certainly the case that generally speaking teachers develop their skills over time with greater teaching experience, and that all other things being equal, the more direct teaching experience a new entrant has during the period of initial teacher education the better, as long as this is productive experience.
However, teaching is a highly complex activity that requires making myriad in the moment decisions in response to interactions with unique classes of unique people. The quality of those decisions tends to increase over time with experience, but only if the teacher is well prepared for the teaching in terms of subject knowledge, general and specialist pedagogic knowledge, and knowledge of the particular learners.
This requires that the teacher has extensive preparation time especially when new to teaching a topic, age, group or pedagogic approach, and opportunities for productive debrief and reflection. Given the intensity of teaching as an experience, it is much better for new entrants to initially focus on parts of lessons with plenty of opportunity for preparation and reflection than to too quickly progress to whole lessons where much of the experience will not be fully processed before moving on. Similarly, it is better that new teachers have sufficient time between classes to focus intensely on those classes rather than be moving directly from class to class.
In the same way, the programmes that allow regular movements between the teaching context and an HEI or similar context offer an ideal context for effective learning. The intense focus on the school is broken up by time in faculty (still focused, but as a student without the intense scrutiny in school), where there are extensive opportunities for peer support (especially important given the extreme highs and lows often experienced by new teachers).
This is also critical for developing teaching that is informed by research-informed and evidence-based theories and constructs. Being taught 'theory' in an academic context, and expecting such content to be automatically applied in a teaching context is unrealistic – rather the new teacher has to learn to conceptualise actual classroom experience in terms of the theory, and to see how to apply the theory in terms of actual teaching experience. 2
This learning is best supported by an iterative process – where there are plenty of opportunities to reflect on and analyse experience, and compare and discuss experiences with peers, as well as with mentors, other experienced teachers, and with academic staff. Over time, as new teachers build experiences, especially ones they recognise as productive and successful, they will come to automatically apply ideas and skills and techniques, and will be able to 'chunk' component teaching moves into longer sequences – being able to work effectively for sequences of whole classes, with less reflection time, and less explicit support. 3
The aim is for the new teachers to be able to prepare, teach, assess, on something approaching a teaching timetable whilst working in school full-time. However, efforts to move to such a state too quickly will [be counter-productive] for many potentially excellent teachers, and will likely increase drop-out rates.
Ultimately, the quality of the teaching experience, and the ability to manage increasing workload according to individual needs, is what is important. Any attempts to increase the intensity of the teaching placements, or to accelerate the rate at which new teachers take on responsibility without recourse to individual circumstances is likely to be counterproductive in terms of retention, and the quality of the 'training' experience in supporting the development of excellent teachers.
I am very pleased that I would not be 'training' nor still working in teacher education under such expectations as I think the incidents of crises, mental health issues, and drop-out, would be likely to increase.
On common timetables for progress
As suggested above, any attempt to tightly quantify these things would be misplaced as it removes the ability of providers to manage the process to seek the best outcomes for individual trainees, and it ignores the responsibilities of teachers and schools to ensure that trainees are only given responsibilities as and when they are ready.
Please remember that every class taught by a trainee contains children or young people who are required to be in school and are entitled to be taught by someone who
- is prepared for class,
- confident they are ready to teach that class, and
- is not under such intense stress that they cannot perform to their potential.
You have a responsibility to consider the pupils as well as to your 'market'.
On applying research evidence
A postgraduate award is meant to include a strong research component. As suggested in earlier comments, it is essential for the fully professional teacher who will need to make informed decisions about her own classroom practice to be be provided with the skills to access research (including understanding strengths and weaknesses of methodology), critique it, evaluate its potential relevance to the immediate teaching and learning contexts, and to evaluate it in the context. Many PGCE-MEd and PGCE-MA programmes already support this.
I totally agree that this should be provided to all new trainees, and would have thought there are enough HEIs with expertise in educational research for this to be possible (as it is on the PGCE-M route already). However, it is not enough to simply provide teachers the skills, they also have to have
- access to research publications,
- time to
- read them and
- undertake small-scale context-directed enquiry, and
- to give them the confidence that this aspect of professional practice is recognised and appreciated.
For example, a teacher has to know that if they are doing something differently to some government advice because they have looked at the research, considered it in relation to their specific context, and evaluated approaches in their own teaching context and concluded that for a particular class/course/students some approach other than that generally recommended is indicated, THEN this would be recognised (e.g., in Inspections) as praiseworthy.
On 'incentives that could encourage schools and trusts to participate in ITT'
I would think it is dangerous and perhaps foolish to add to schools' expected responsibilities where they do not welcome this.
On proposed reforms on the recruitment and selection process
To me, this seems to complicate matters for a PGCE applicant who at the moment has to only select a university-schools partnership.
Potential equality impacts
As discussed above, in my experience current arrangements, at least for the PGCE route, offer flexibility to meet the individual needs of a range of new entrants. My sense is the proposals would be unhelpful in this regard.
Comments on 'any aspect'
I was lucky enough to undertake my PGCE at a university that at the time was recognised as one with excellent provision in my teaching subjects (chemistry and physics, at Nottingham Trent). At that time the structure of the teaching placement (two isolated blocks, one of 4 weeks, one of 8 weeks) did not allow the kind of incredibly valuable iterative experience of moving between the university and school contexts I discuss above, and the teachers in the schools did not act as mentors, but merely handed over their classes for a period of time.
Otherwise I was very happy with my 'training' experience.
I was also privileged to work for about 10 years in initial teacher education in a PGCE university-schools partnership that has consistently been awarded the very top inspection grades across categories. I have therefore seen much excellent initial teacher education practice in a stable partnership with many committed (if diverse) schools. We were also able to be pretty selective in recruitment, so were working with incredibly keen and committed new teachers.
Despite this, I know some of our excellent new recruits went through serious periods of doubt and crises in their teaching due to the intense and highly skilled nature of the work. In the context where I was lucky enough to work, the structure of the training year and the responsive and interactive nature of managing the graduates in their work meant that nearly always these setbacks were temporary, and so could be overcome.
I am concerned that some of this good practice may not continue if some of the proposals in the review are carried through – and that consequently a significant number of potentially excellent new teachers will not get the support they need to develop at the pace that best matches their needs. This will lead to drop-out, and early burn-out – or potentially candidates doing enough to cope, without meeting the high standards they wish to set for themselves to the benefit of their pupils.
Keith S. Taber
1 It strikes me that the third bullet point might seem a little superfluous – after all, surely a system of initial teacher education that both maintains the supply of new teachers at the level needed (which in some subjects would be a definite improvement on the existing system) and ensures they all receive high quality preparation should inherently benefit all schools by making sure there was always a pool of suitably qualified and well-prepared teachers to fill teaching vacancies across the school curriculum.
Perhaps, however, this means something else – such as (in view of the reference to 'incentives that could encourage schools and trusts to participate in ITT' in the consultation) making sure all schools receive funding for contributing to the preparation of new teachers (by making sure all schools make a substantial contribution to the preparation of new teachers).
2 It strikes me that the way in which teachers in preparation are able to move back and forth between a study context and a practitioner context, giving opportunities to apply learning in practice, and to 'stand back' and reflect on and conceptualise that practice, reflects the way science proceeds – where theory motivates new practical investigations, and experience of undertaking the empirical enquiry informs new theoretical refinements and insights (which then…).
3 That is, the pedagogic principles which teachers are expected to apply when working with their students are, in general terms, just as relevant in their own professional education.
Work cited:
- Taber, K. S. (2010). Preparing teachers for a research-based profession. In M. V. Zuljan & J. Vogrinc (Eds.), Facilitating effective student learning through teacher research and innovation (pp. 19-47). Ljubljana: Faculty of Education, University of Ljubljana.
- Taber, K. S. (2017) Working to meet the needs of school pupils who are gifted in science through school-university initial teacher education partnerships, in Sumida, M., & Taber, K. S. (Eds.). Policy and Practice in Science Education for the Gifted: A.pproaches from diverse national contexts. Abingdon, Oxon.: Routledge. pp.1-14.
