|
Memorandum submitted by National Association of School-Based Teacher Trainers (NASBTT)
1. Introduction and summary of the main points 1.1. This submission presents information to show that school-based initial teacher training[1] offers a form of ITT that is different to that offered by higher education institutions (HEIs) and of no less quality or importance. Four key advantages of school-based training are evident: · Professional learning that is personalized not just to the trainee's needs but also to the context, locality and networks within which the trainee will be working. This is a contributory factor in the high retention rates of ex-school-based trained teachers · Highly networked, mini-federations of schools in who's collective interests it is to monitor and extend the quality of learning for all · Smaller than most HEIs, the school-based ITT organizations maintain rigor and manage quality assurance through human-scale structures and systems backed up by accredited external verifiers. · The specially selected ITT expert tutors, are constantly at the chalk-face and therefore in a truly dynamic relationship with those who are at the centre of what we do - the pupils. This currency and credibility is highly valued by participants in ITT and applicants to the profession. 1.2. School-based training provides trainees with a whole school picture of the school year from the initial establishment of learning and behaviour management routines, ethos's and cultures, through the stages of pupils' learning developments to the period of transition to the next stage. Thus the trainees are well-placed to observe and experience the wider roles and responsibilities of teachers in the school setting and beyond. These trainees can experience the principles that underpin the processes of Assessment for Learning (AfL), Assessing Pupil Progress (APP) and target setting, with sufficient time to observe and measure pupils' progress in order to inform progress and attainment. Strategically, the school-based training context allows trainees to take on and develop a role within a school and so commit to and contribute to, the school's aims and objectives and, most importantly, perceive themselves as integral to school improvement. All these opportunities are important and less likely with trainees on other routes who are guests of the school for brief placement periods. 1.3. Additionally, the school-based mentors perceive their role as extending beyond hosting a trainee for classroom and subject teaching and see their work as part of a whole school process of CPD.
2. Measuring quality in ITT 2.1. NASBTT fully agrees with the Ofsted's perception of good quality teaching as described in its framework for Grade 1 ITT providers[2]. 2.2. We perceive the characteristics of high quality school-based training as clearly linked to high standards in the school. This would include working to a core purpose known by all, a thorough knowledge of the ITT and school curricula, strong and meaningful partnerships and links between different aspects of learning and professional development and the modeling of best practice. 2.3. School-based ITT is inextricably linked to and informed by, the teaching and learning strategies and innovations in schools. 2.4. The quality of trainees' teaching is constantly measured on the school site in three ways; Trainees' on-going professional practice, their broader and deeper pedagogical understanding as assessed orally in mentor feedback and in written assignments by school-based ITT specialist tutors and the process and outcome of the trainees' action research. 2.5. School-based training in schools inevitably includes what HEIs provide at their centres. However the tuition is arguably more authentic because schools are resourced for school-based learning and for a higher education level of study of pedagogy. The tuition and outcomes are both moderated by both ITT-specialist tutors and the schools' own performance management processes. 2.6. Suggestions that school-based ITT offers a dumbed-down form of training are not supported by evidence. Ofsted have graded a significant number of school-based Providers as Outstanding, the Training & Development Agency (TDA) has categorized many as Grade A Providers and the Universities have willingly validated school-based PGCEs at H and M levels.
3. Entry into the teaching profession 3.1. School-based ITT admissions tutors are aware of the need to consider the full experiences and broader qualifications of ITT applicants when considering the characteristics of those who are most likely to become good teachers. This arises from prior ITT experiences and also an awareness that class of degree and course completion quality are not clearly correlated. Admissions tutors are primarily concerned with the applicant's potential to teach in schools and their greater awareness of education in the community. Older applicants to ITT, more typically found in school-based ITT programmes[3], tend to have a rich variety of valuable non-academic qualifications gained subsequent to their first degree graduation. Using the same perspective as they have for their pupils, school-based tutors think 'is the applicant a good learner (at this point in their life)?' As opposed to giving the priority to an applicant's past learning. 3.2. School-based ITT trainees tend to have a slightly lower class of degree on entry compared to their HEI-based counterparts[4]. NASBTT's experience is that this is due to older applicant's constraint of their undergraduate studies by other commitments and responsibilities; in contrast to the relatively unconstrained younger students. 3.3. There is some anecdotal evidence that lower class degree holders do less well in ITT, however an adherence to that as a rule might result in a lost opportunity to produce a teacher of quality on exit from the programme. 3.4. School-based routes into teaching are effective in attracting those with the qualifications, skills and attributes to become good teachers. However one needs to recognise that 'skills and attributes' suggest so much more than class of degree. Indeed SCITT and EBITT trainees in the primary sector, including those Category A Providers, often do not have degrees directly related to National Curriculum subjects. Overall, school-based training comprises approximately 7% of the ITT provision however they are training more than 7% of the priority subject trainees. Inevitably, if one is seeking to attract to a shortage subject then you have to dig deeper! 3.5. School-based routes into teaching are effective in developing those with the qualifications, skills and attributes to become good teachers. The Annual Report of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector 2007/08 clearly states 'There is little difference in the judgements made about school-centred training schemes and those led by higher education institutions. This is a similar position to that reported by HMI in 2006/7. 3.6. NASBTT is not convinced that the current national prioritization is appropriate for the school-based training allocations. We do not feel that it reflects the national agenda for schools since most school-based training allocations are only in the priority subjects. If we were recruiting and training for the schools' futures we would be considering broader curricula, learning and inclusivity features than the very subject and related degree-specific strategy now used. For example school-based ITT is very well placed to produce excellent teachers of early reading, PLTs, SEAL and community languages but how are these recruits acquired? This point being particularly identified recently by HMIs in this regard[5] 3.7. Recent Ofsted's reports on the numerous outstanding school-based programmes refer to strengths in the leadership and management of the ITT programmes, consistently high quality and well resourced training, rigorous assessment of progress, selection processes that inform the very effective support and differentiated training for individual needs and most importantly the commitment, involvement, communication and support from the staff[6]. 3.8. Head teachers (employers) have praised the process of and outcomes from, school-based ITT[7]. 3.9. School-based training enriches the teaching profession with a broader diversity of recruitment. School-based providers generally do not recruit the school-to-university-to-ITT applicant typical of many university ITT Providers. School-based providers are reaching a broader age and type profile[8]; perhaps attracting people that the HEIs are not. Some NASBTT members consider that the breadth of ethnic diversity for some, urban, school-based training providers may be the result of some applicants wishing to stay nearer to their local community centres rather than travel to the less familiar context of a university. 3.10. School-based ITT is an effective means to improve innovation in the teaching profession most noticeably because its structures and systems enable it to be faster to respond to changes in the schools' sector and the education environment in general. By being immersed in schools, the providers' ITT management decisions are more school-focused and indeed ITT strategies and innovations inform school practice. Schools know the current and next agenda and have taken steps to fund and resource it, with the inevitable impact on their ITT programmes. This contrasts with the important and rigorous university management and validation procedures that operate over longer time-spans. 3.11. The applicants for the early years, primary and secondary schools' sectors are selected, interviewed and recruited with the Professional Standards for Teachers (Q & C) in mind. Pre-training school visits and tasks are framed around how children learn, how children are managed and subject pedagogy and demonstrate continuity with the training. Indeed school-based trainees are better placed than ever before as a result of Curriculum 2008 which focuses much attention on the Key Stage transitions and the 14-19 Diploma developments which necessitate strong school - further education partnerships; Trainees do not study these developments from afar but are immersed in them! 3.12. School-based trained Newly Qualified Teachers consistently confirm the quality of their preparation for working with SEN pupils. A recent key finding by the TDA[9] was that for primary and secondary sectors, school-based ITT provision for work with SEN pupils received the highest ratings (92% of Very Goods and Goods for primary and 87% of the same for secondary). This exceeds the ratings offered by trainees on other programmes. This difference between the providers was illustrated further in a recent Ofsted Report[10]. 3.13. The challenge of working with minority ethnic and multi-lingual learners is met via the school-based providers' close relationship with Local Authority EMAGs specialists. The input from these advisors has enabled ITT tutors to tailor their training in this area to the actual, immediate and predicted needs for the local context.
4. The delivery of ITT 4.1. School-based providers encourage innovation and diversity in approaches to ITT because it is in their 'Accreditation Agreement' with the TDA and therefore they are held to account for that. Furthermore, ITT management is integral to school managements and they are encouraged to innovate through the various initiatives promoted by the DCSF, the Specialist Schools Trust and The National College for School Leadership. 4.2. However the many versions of the PGCE, the academic element of most ITT programmes, causes concern for many NASBTT members. In addition to the traditional (legacy), Professional and Post Graduate forms, there is also a variety of credit values being awarded by the universities that validate them. Similarly the requirements of the current PGCEs vary enormously in terms of the trainee study loads and writing demands. School-based providers often have the extra tension that it may be their local competitor for training allocations that validates their PGCE qualification. 4.3. School-based Providers make a distinctive contribution to teacher training by engaging with an access issue, offering an unrivalled breadth and depth of partnerships, managing ITT more cost effectively and by maintaining rigorous quality assurance at a human scale. 4.3.1. NASBTT members are aware of socio-economic factors that may deter some otherwise excellent recruits to teaching via an HEI-centred route. Such factors are financial, home, responsibility and self-esteem factors. These applicants are more likely to perceive a school-based route to QTS as more affordable and therefore more attainable. This may become a more significant factor as the current economic down-turn develops. By being local, SCITTs and EBITTs are perceived to offer a more individual and personalised training, especially in the period between interview and course induction. As one school-based tutor expressed it "SCITTs do it with the trainees and not to them". This pre-course personalised preparation is evident in many Ofsted reports on Grade 1 SCITTs. 4.3.2. Genuinely collaborative and small-scale partnerships underpin all aspects of the schools' sector in the 21st century. The schools and Local Authorities cooperate to be proactive with and responsive to, pupils' learning needs whereas, and understandably, HEIs tend to respond to students or trainee's needs. An emerging success is the school-based Training Managers' Networks whereby school-based ITT managers in the regions share best practice and enable each other to respond quickly to national initiatives and changes. 4.3.3. School-based training is particularly cost efficient because it usually has full control over all of its funds and this allows them to forward plan with much greater certainty. Funds intended for ITT are less likely to be lost through 'top slicing'. 4.3.4. Quality Assurance is also more affordable because of location factors but also because the institutions and partnerships are generally small and therefore of a human scale. For instance, ITT staff development training can involve all the ITT tutors mentors together in one place at the same time, thereby improving be consistency of provision. Size also makes individual personnel and schools more accountable, with fewer boards, panels and committees to refer to. Draconian but essential decisions under-pinning the selection and de-selection of schools, are more richly informed by an immersion in that school community as opposed to solely responding to data. 4.4. Even if the school-based provision was less distinct from HEI-based provision than described then it is worth remembering that school-based and HEI-based training seem to be equal in quality of outcomes[11] and therefore the 5-7% of provision that SCITTs and EBITTs offer is no less important. 4.5. The current nature of partnership working between schools and SCITTs and EBITTs in the delivery of ITT is sustainable as it provides CPD for whole school workforce. 4.6. A recent government report and a recent BERA paper, on HEI trainees' retention in teaching after 3 years, shows a 40% retention. NASBTT evidence is that school-based training retention is better than 80%[12]. Training in the locality, typical of school-based ITT applicants, may not lead to as mobile a workforce as national shortage areas might require, however it is more likely that such new entrants to the profession are better aware of the wider contextual factors about schools that often influence an early departure from teaching. 4.7. School-based training offers development opportunities for the whole school workforce and not just those with centre-based responsibilities. Programme Managers and other leaders of school-based ITT programmes have gained significant development opportunities through the work of the TDA Improvement Team, the Training Managers' Conferences, regional network workshops and the Matched Providers network; all of which have helped to give the smaller school-based training providers an on-going national perspective. Indeed such providers need to network and benchmark to get the Ofsted Grade 1s that they do! 4.8. The Masters in Teaching & learning (MTL) seems to offer an excellent opportunity for ITT staff development, perhaps as future students but mostly as school-based coaches and specialists. This reminds us that school-based training is not entirely separated from Higher Education since most SCITTs are delivering an HE-validated PGCE and will deliver the MTL in partnership with HEIs. Of course schools already offer a plethora of non-award bearing CPD courses to its teaching and support staff. 4.9. School-based ITT tutors are actively involved in research and this is evidenced in presentations to BERA and papers in a variety of academic journals[13]. We expect the quality and quantity of such contributions to increase as school-based tutors' confidence grows. 4.10. NASBTT is aware that the action research carried out by school-based trainees and their tutors is very specific to the contexts of their training schools because of the different role that these schools have with ITT. The research may not be peer-reviewed nationally and be less generalisable; however it has meaning for the immediate stakeholders and links directly to improvements in pupils' learning.
5. CPD Provision 5.1. Current CPD provision for all partners in the delivery of improved pupils' learning is clearly integral to and coherent with, school-based ITT programmes. Each informs the other. SCITT and EBITT school managers have a whole school community perspective and so manage resources and budgets to keep in line with and at the same pace as, schools' development, enhance provision and reduce overlap; often releasing funds for novel projects. ITT spending and investment in staff and resources can be combined with CPD funds to support resourcing for rapid changes and pro-active strategies. Training can therefore involve a larger number of staff, beyond immediate CPD and ITT needs. 5.2. Head-teachers (employers) report a real sense of ownership during and after the ITT process. They frequently and positively refer to the impact of school-based training on their schools. The school-based training raises the schools' profiles and this lifts institutional self-esteem and so performance. 5.3. NASBTT members are cautious about the appropriateness of introducing the MTL in the Induction (NQT) year. It is not so much the additional workload at an already busy time but that a Masters in Education should arise from a critical reflection on a substantial body of evidence arising from professional practice. 5.4. Schools can save a lot of money and make much more informed decisions about recruitment if they have 'home-grown' teachers. Furthermore, whole-school and linked CPD and ITT programmes provide great recruiting opportunities as support staff and fringe participants are encouraged to enter the teaching profession via a familiar route.
6. Recommendations NASBTT
recommends that those managing teacher education in · the quality of ITT in the school-based training school partnerships · that 'learning for all' is at the centre of school-based ITT. We are not distracted by other pressures. The whole school community is involved in ITT and all its spin-offs and this is fed back into recruitment drives, emphases and strategies. Parents and the wider school staff see ITT in their context and are attracted to it. It may be local and small-scale but Ofsted, the TDA and validating HEIs all ensure that this form of ITT is rigorously quality assured. January 2009
[1] In this text, school-based initial teacher training (ITT) refers only to that training that is delivered largely on the school site (Early Years, Primary and Secondary) by School Centred Initial Teacher Training (SCITT) or Employment Based Initial Teacher Training (EBITT) organisations [2] Ofsted 2007 [3] TDA 'Newly Qualified Teacher Survey: 5 Year analysis' (TDA 2008) [4] TDA ITT Providers database 2008 [5] The Annual Report of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector 2007/08 [6] Ofsted reports in the period 2007-8 [7] Features singled out for praise were effective management, clarity about roles and, significantly, that the process ensures an evaluation of individual's own practice in school and so improves overall performance [8] TDA ITT Providers database 2008 [9] TDA (2008) Newly Qualified Teacher Survey: 5 Year analysis [10] Ofsted Survey Report, 'Are HEIs and school-based training programmes preparing trainees to work with SEN? December 2008. [11] The Annual Report of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector 2007/08 [12] Evidence
from many SCITTs and EBITTs across [13] At one time this was HEI-generated and supported, however an increasing number of school-based ITT trainers are contributing to GTC's 'Research of the Month' and the DCSF's 'School's Research News' to name but two of the many well-read sources of research evidence. |