Memorandum submitted by the Universities
Council for the Education of Teachers
SUMMARY
1. UCET represents 94 Faculties, Departments
and Schools of Education in universities and university sector
colleges in all parts of the UK, including all of those in England.
Since these are the most heavily inspected institutions in the
educational system UCET believes it is well placed to offer an
authoritative statement on Ofsted.
2. UCET welcomes the following recent changes
in Ofsted's mode of operation with regard to teacher education
institutions:
(a) the decision to reduce the frequency
of inspections (Paragraph 5 below);
(b) the intention to provide institutions
with a three-year schedule of inspections (Paragraph 6);
(c) the adjustment in the inspection
methodology to include self-assessment and thereby indicate a
measure of confidence in the capacity of institutions to highlight
for themselves their own strengths and weaknesses (Paragraph 7);
(d) the recognition that continuing professional
development is a means of enabling teachers to re-kindle their
enthusiasm for their work and to familiarise themselves with perspectives
and analytical tools which challenge their current approaches
to teaching, and is not to be seen simply as a mechanism for securing
immediate improvements in pupils' achievements, important though
these are (Paragraph 8);
(e) the intention to consult on an inspection
framework for FE and related provision which reflects the different
character of that sector (Paragraph 9).
3. However, UCET maintains that the following
further changes are required in Ofsted's relationship with teacher
education institutions:
(a) a further refinement in the inspection
methodology is required so that inspection is more closely related
to risk, allowing a lighter approach to institutions of proven
and well established quality (Paragraph 11);
(b) in inspection the emphasis should
be more on the assessment of quality than the testing of compliance
(Paragraph 12);
(c) to strengthen the participation of
schools in teacher education Ofsted should include in its inspection
of schools framework an assessment of a school's contribution
to the preparation and induction of new teachers (Paragraph 13);
(d) to strengthen still further the quality
of teacher education Ofsted should assess the extent to which
programmes are underpinned by research and research findings (Paragraph
14);
(e) since Ofsted has no monopoly of intellectual
robustness or of professional integrity, and could never claim
to have cornered the truth market on quality and standards in
education, it should adopt a more collaborative approach to inspection
(Paragraph 15);
(f) Ofsted should be encouraged to explore
with the sector how the tone and climate of inspections might
be improved (Paragraph 16).
RECENT OFSTED
CHANGES ENDORSED
BY UCET
4. UCET is the body which represents 94
universities and university-sector colleges in all parts of the
UK, including all of those in England. These institutions have
undergone more inspections than any other group of institutions,
many having experience of inspection on an annual basis and some
being inspected, for different aspects of provision, several times
in the course of a single year. UCET therefore claims to be in
a position to offer an authoritative statement on the work of
Ofsted as it relates to these institutions.
5. UCET welcomes a number of recent changes
in Ofsted's relationship with the teacher education institutions.
The first of these concerns the frequency of inspections. It is
no exaggeration to claim that some institutions have been subjected
to an extremely heavy programme of inspection, reflecting a particular
strategy for inspection rather than the need to pursue perceived
deficiencies of provision. Consequently, institutions have been
required to devote a wholly disproportionate amount of time and
resources to preparing for inspection and undertaking necessary
follow-up work. Over-inspection, like over-assessment of students'
work, can itself distract attention from the proper business of
an educational institution.
6. Secondly, we endorse Ofsted's decision
to provide institutions with a three-year schedule of inspections,
although the time-scale of the schedule very clearly implies that
the frequency of inspections is likely to remain high, certainly
compared with the frequency of inspection for schools, and with
external quality audit in higher education. Nevertheless, the
existence of a schedule will permit institutions to plan how inspections
can be accommodated within a structured programme of review and
course development, and possibly also to co-ordinate inspection
with internal university quality assurance arrangements.
7. Thirdly, we are gratified that Ofsted
has decided to allow teacher education institutions' self-evaluation
of their work to feature more prominently in the inspection process.
In our view, just as the hallmark of the effective teacher is
the commitment to self-evaluation with a view to enhanced performance,
so the effective teacher education institution is one in which
self-evaluation is embedded and internalised. The purpose of inspection
should be to interrogate an institution's self-evaluation and
through that to confirm that an institution is overseeing a programme
of continuous enhancement of quality and standards. Ofsted's purpose,
we maintain, is to reinforce institutions and their partner schools
as self-monitoring professional communities committed to still
more effective teacher education. That is, Ofsted might have more
regard to the old adage that we should "design quality in,
rather than inspect faults out".
8. Fourthly, we detect a welcome shift in
Ofsted's approach to teachers' continuing professional development.
There now appears to be a recognition that CPD is not to be restricted
to the furthering of government policy or to achieving immediate
gains in pupils' achievements. CPD is a powerful way of re-kindling
teachers' enthusiasm for their specialism, of challenging teachers
intellectually, and of equipping them with insights and analytical
tools for revitalising their work in the school and the classroom.
In this connection, we have been much encouraged by recent Ofsted
reports on the award-bearing programmes offered by our institutions.
9. Fifthly, UCET is pleased to note that
Ofsted intends to consult on the inspection framework for FE.
Recent inspections appeared to rely on the framework used in school
inspection and therefore did not fully recognise the distinctive
characteristics of the sector, particularly the relative emphasis
given to subject teaching and generic teaching skills.
UCET RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR OFSTED
10. While applauding these changes in Ofsted's
relationship with UCET institutions, we wish to highlight five
ways in which that relationship might be still further developed.
11. The first of these concerns the methodology
of inspection. We maintain that there is a strong case for relating
inspection more closely to risk. For those institutions that have
consistently demonstrated a high quality of work the demands of
inspection might be reduced so that time and effort could be targeted
to support the development and dissemination of good as well as
innovative practice. Ofsted's resources might then be re-configured
and the role of Link Inspector re-introduced to support those
institutions whose quality of work justifies closer attention.
It is just silly, and a misuse of resources, to assume that a
uniform diet of inspection should be rigidly dispensed to all,
regardless of the evidence available.
12. Secondly, many of our institutions perceive
the inspection process as a tool of compliance rather than a professional
engagement about the quality and standard of provision. Of course,
a national system of teacher education must be attuned to the
changing needs of the schools and institutions must shape their
provision in accordance with national standards. However, assessing
the extent to which institutions comply with the minutiae of national
expectations is not an adequate measure of quality, unless that
term is defined to mean the avoidance of risk playing safe, and
eschewing innovation, all in the interests of demonstrating a
capacity to jump through the familiar hoops.
13. Thirdly, it is universally acknowledged
that effective teacher education requires strong partnership between
institutions and schools, where students have the opportunity
to practise as teachers under skilled and experienced supervision.
We are becoming extremely concerned at the difficulty of involving
a sufficient number of schools to partner us in our work, notwithstanding
the financial incentives that exist. In our view there are immediate
and long-term benefits to schools of having keen and eager students
to assist in teaching their pupils and of having a highly trained
and well-educated pool of newly qualified teachers to draw from
in revitalising our schools. Besides, teachers surely have a professional
obligation to support the induction of new members of the profession,
just as beginning teachers have an entitlement to support from
their senior colleagues-to-be. We maintain that schools' commitment
to working with at least one teacher education institution should
no longer be optional but a required part of belonging to the
same profession. If Government resiles from making that a requirement
then Ofsted should include a school's contribution to HE-based
teacher education part of its school inspection framework, so
that when schools are asked by Ofsted at the time of inspection
to detail their contribution they would be made to feel very uncomfortable
if they said they made none.
14. Fourthly, there is a widely held view,
shared by Government, that teaching should be seen as a researching
profession and that teacher education should be set in an environment
in which research and critical enquiry flourish. We believe it
would further strengthen teacher education if the Ofsted framework
for inspecting teacher education institutions included an assessment
of the extent to which programmes were underpinned by research,
particularly practice-based research developed in collaboration
with partner schools.
15. Fifthly, we would like to see Ofsted
adopting a more collaborative approach to the inspection of teacher
education. Ofsted does not have a monopoly of intellectual rigour
or of professional integrity and it could never claim to have
cornered the truth market in regard to quality and standards.
For their part, the teacher education institutions represent a
huge repository of expertise on these matters. We therefore believe
a more collaborative approach would be justified. That, of course,
is possible without any diminution in the incisiveness or candour
that characterises inspection at its best.
16. The point we are making here relates
to the tone and climate in which inspection takes place. There
certainly was a time when teacher education institutions perceived
the inspection regime to be rigidly prescriptive and coercive.
These days have passed. There is nevertheless evidence of continuing
distrust. Thus, for example, requests for supplementary documentation
once an inspection has begun are considered to be unreasonable
and a source of irritation. Another example concerns the recent
Ofsted reports on Teacher Training: Development and Supply
and An Evaluation of the Training School Programme. These
reports commended training schools and their achievements. Neither
of them, however, acknowledged the positive role teacher education
institutions have played by working in partnership with these
schools and contributing significantly to their achievements.
What does it say about the relationship between Ofsted and UCET
institutions when what might have been an oversight is perceived
by so many to be a calculated snub?
February 2004
| 
