|
Memorandum submitted by The Association for Physical Education (afPE)
The Association for Physical Education (afPE)[1] welcomes the opportunity to submit information to the Select Committee's New Inquiry into Teacher Training. As a major provider of services and products for continuing professional development (CPD); and having identified systemic weaknesses in initial teacher training (ITT) which are currently not being addressed, afPE believes that this inquiry is timely and necessary. The information which follows relates mainly to physical education; but issues which we are aware are shared by other subject associations and educational providers are highlighted as they arise.
afPE requests that Select Committee Members also refer to afPE's recent Manifesto for Physical Education, Appendix I.[2]
SUMMARY: i. Measuring quality: There are differences between the guidance issued by Ofsted, QCA, DCSF, TDA, regarding criteria for high quality learning and teaching. Some subject Associations have supported their membership by interpreting and mediating criteria. Such service is less easy to achieve for primary teachers.
ii. Entry into the teaching profession: afPE recommends that the TDA work with subject associations to clarify and strengthen subject-related criteria for secondary specialist ITT entry; and ensures compliance among all ITT providers.
afPE recommends reflection by TDA of its remit in allocating ITT numbers between HEI and GTP providers; and review of the use and application of quality criteria by ITT providers, especially relating to compliance.
The TDA position on increasing diversity in teacher recruitment focuses only on shortage subjects. This means that non-shortage subjects remain less diverse and children lack a wide range of role models; and there are less opportunities for BME applicants. afPE recommends review of this policy.
iii Delivery of ITT: Incremental changes to ITT have resulted in shortage of time for preparation of trainees, which has particular implications for ITT provision for "technical" subjects, including physical education. The funding parameters for ITT have added further pressures for those engaged in delivery, both within HEIs and for GTPs.
There needs to be commitment to ensure compliance from providers of initial teacher training, to ensure that all newly qualified primary teachers have adequate preparation to teach physical education. afPE's evidence shows that the poor level of preparation of some primary trainees is the most serious systemic weakness in the delivery system.
afPE recommends that TDA acknowledge this systemic weakness, and address it, either through insisting on compliance by all ITT providers; or by primary and secondary subject "booster" courses.
iv. CPD Provision: In the case of physical education, the need for significantly increased investment into CPD is emphasised by its major distinctive contributions to two further policy areas beyond education - health and sport/participation in physical activity.
afPE recommends an audit of current provision and collaborative discussion with major providers, which would inform decisions about national strategies for CPD provision. A coordinated approach to building capacity in impact measurement would also be of benefit.
SELECT COMMITTEE QUESTIONS: 1. Measuring quality: a. The extent to which there is an evidence base for and shared sense of what makes for good quality teaching; and b. The ways in which the quality of teaching can be measured. · Criteria for high quality teaching and learning tend to be embedded in a range of guidance materials by different agencies. Three years ago, afPE responded to teacher confusion in this area, and produced a poster which aimed to calibrate three separate sets of criteria for quality which had emanated from the Quality and Curriculum Agency for the Physical Education School Sport Club Links programme, the (then) DfES Secondary Strategy and Ofsted. The challenge seems to stem from the somewhat different objectives of the various agencies, and the lack of synergy between them.
· afPE believes that the current QCA model for curriculum development and evaluation of learning provides an improved basis for the profession to arrive at shared criteria, against which performance can be recognised and measured for learners with different learning styles - not only in so-called "theoretical" subjects, but also subjects like physical education which depend heavily on experiential and kinaesthetic learning. afPE has appreciated the collaborative approach adopted by QCA in scoping and implementing curriculum reform, which has been aided materially by the active involvement of subject associations. DCSF has also recently engaged subject associations in the process of dissemination of the new secondary curriculum, which has further contributed to shared understanding of purposes and criteria for good practice.
· However, such shared understanding will take considerable time and sustained effort to spread throughout the teaching profession, which has serious implications for CPD requirements (see CPD section). ITT providers tend to be excluded from dissemination programmes for curriculum innovation and afPE strongly recommends their inclusion in planned programmes in future innovation and development.
· afPE's links with the Physical Education Special Interest Group of the British Educational Research Association, and the work of afPE's own Research Committee enable frequent exposure through afPE's own publications - "Physical Education Matters" and "Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy".
2. Entry into the teaching profession: a. The characteristics of those who are most likely to be good teachers and the extent to which they are reflected in current entry requirements for ITT; · The published criteria for entry to ITT are generally accessible and well understood. However, afPE has observed significant variation in both the levels of commitment to some of the most robust criteria related to "relevant" first degree subject; and in the meeting of criteria by candidates to ITT offered by different ITT providers. In physical education specialist training, there have been cases of candidates being refused entry on the grounds of lack of relevance of first degree (eg media studies) by one provider, yet being accepted for physical education specialist training by another provider. Such laxity seems to be more common among some GTP ITT providers, where subject specialism sometimes appears to be paid lip service.
· afPE recommends that the TDA work with subject associations to clarify and strengthen subject-related criteria for secondary specialist ITT entry; and ensures compliance among all ITT providers.
b. The appropriateness of the way in which trainee numbers and trainee quality are prioritised in the management of training places at national level; · afPE, along with other subject associations, is concerned about the ways in which some decisions are taken on ITT numbers across subjects and providers; and about how the allocation process is managed and updated. There seems to be little accountability or transparency. While some of the decisions can be tracked for secondary specialist places, it is almost impossible to identify, from TDA data, which ITT providers offer what levels of subject-based provision for primary trainees, or what the outcomes are for quality. For example, although afPE is aware that some ITT providers are offering "subject leadership" preparation, and hence an enriched ITT in that subject, the TDA does not collect or manage data in such a way that this information can be found or acted upon.
· It seems that control of demand/supply takes precedence over quality issues. afPE also believes that decisions relating to physical education ITT numbers have been taken, without full regard for changing contexts which directly affect teacher supply, eg leakage from the profession via the large number of opportunities for physical education secondary specialist teachers, for career progression in sport development, which have emanated from the investment in school sport infrastructure through the national strategy for physical education and school sport (PESSYP). It is vital that decision affecting the workforce are informed by good understanding of the strategic context in which subjects operate: in the case of physical education, it does seem that the impact of the PESSYP strategy, and of physical education's role in health promotion and sport development, should be used, as well as knowledge of educational policy/strategy.
· afPE's leadership of the national Physical Education ITT Network, along with its associated communication structures, allows it to gather information quickly and effectively from ITT providers, about potential policy decisions and concerns for quality. One recurrent concern is the lack of consistency of application of criteria for quality, in the process of allocating ITT places. In particular, there is little early information for HEI providers, about the implications of the ways in which GTP places in some subjects have been allowed to mushroom, often at the expense of high quality HEI providers.
· The following case outlines possibly the most glaring. An HEI provider, A-rated by Ofsted, requested additional places from TDA, in good time for allocation for the subsequent year's intake (2009/10). The initial enquiry received no response and a reminder had to be sent, eventually receiving the following response from TDA:
"We have now had the opportunity to look at the ITT recruitment census data. It shows that PE recruitment was extremely strong with virtually all mainstream providers managing to recruit all their allocated places, and in a number of cases over-recruit.
Overall, based on allocations of 1150 places, 1213 postgraduate and undergraduate places were recruited. Additionally, we have seen 364 places recruited so far in 2008/09 by employment-based providers to GTP courses in PE from their non-priority secondary allocations. Overall we try to maintain a ratio of 85%:15% between mainstream and employment-based provision. For PE this is nearer a quarter of places.[3] This does not include any GTP trainees who will be recruited to start later in the 2008/09 academic year (estimated to be around 180 more based on previous years' figures).
This means that recruitment is in excess of the DCSF's target for ITT places for PE. Given this, we are not in a position to allocate any additional places for the subject. I realise that this is not the response you would have wanted, especially given that the provision that (your HEI) is offering is high quality (recognised by your Ofsted re-grading to an A-rated secondary provider), but unfortunately we are severely restricted." · This TDA response is an indication of lack of adherence to policy, and of absence of priority for ensuring high standards, since the HEI provider is A-rated by Ofsted. Most important from the HEI provider's perspective, is that the quotas of high quality PE ITT providers (evidenced by the outcomes of a series of Ofsted inspections) have been drastically cut, whilst the proportion of GTP trained PE teachers has been allowed to increase. Given that the quality of GTP courses is currently unknown, having not yet been rigorously inspected, this seems a perverse action to take by TDA. Secondly, it is difficult to understand why TDA has permitted the GTP proportion to have increased, significantly beyond the ratio it is claiming to maintain. It is also surprising that TDA would permit any further GTP places for this intake, given that 1213 postgraduate and undergraduate places were recruited, based on allocations of 1150 places. This suggests that 63 extra secondary PE teachers were recruited beyond quotas. Yet, on top of this, over 500 secondary PE teachers were trained via GTP courses. It certainly is an indication of serious failure in scrutiny and planning by TDA. Yet in afPE's experience, and that of our ITT provider members and fellow subject associations, TDA seems unaccountable for its decisions, of for the effects of those decisions on ITT providers and on subject associations.
· afPE (along with other subject associations) is disappointed with TDA's apparent failure to ensure that ITT providers comply with standards, and even more by TDA's refusal to acknowledge that some ITT providers simply are unsatisfactory. There is a severe lack of information about how and whether GTP providers comply with minimum standards. Any procedures by which TDA satisfies itself that ITT providers do comply are opaque; and TDA has never responded to any requests for evidence that criteria have been met by ITT providers. There seems to be no means of comparing adequately or rigorously, the effectiveness of different kinds of provision, eg between GTP and HEI providers
· afPE would record that currently, two very well respected and highly experienced afPE members are GTP assessors and are very concerned about the poor standard of provision by some GTP providers. afPE is supporting one member who has refused to pass some trainees, with the result that the Head is threatening legal action against him.
afPE recommends reflection by TDA of its remit in allocating ITT numbers between HEI and GTP providers; and review of the use and application of quality criteria by ITT providers, especially relating to compliance.
c. Whether the current range of routes into teaching is effective in attracting and developing those with the qualifications, skills and attributes to become good teachers; · See above, afPE's concerns about the lack of parity in information about the means of evaluation between GTP and HEI providers in physical education. While afPE provides help and support for physical education ITT providers through its ITT Network, the late collection of data during the intake year, about which GTP providers are being deployed, means that it is very difficult to provide subject-based support for GTP providers, hence support for those mentoring and supporting trainees.
· While the DfES measures for workforce reform in teaching have changed the nature of recruitment to some degree, afPE believes that it has resulted in some serious unforeseen problems related to quality and appropriateness of deployment. afPE is aware that some non-QTS providers, with poor credentials as providers of national curriculum physical education, are claiming to be able to deliver programmes; and some primary head teachers are deploying them without being fully aware of the very real threats to quality and child safety of such provision. afPE has produced Guidelines on the deployment of non-teachers, which have been commended by the Secretary of State. But wider dissemination of this Guidance is required to sustain quality of curriculum delivery, and ensure children's safety and well being.
· At
the same time, more radical exploration of sources of expertise for potential
teachers has not been encouraged, especially relating to people with excellent
"technical" qualifications. In the case
of physical education, the current Coaching Review is providing a welcome
opportunity to develop a shared pedagogy for all people working in sport and
physical activity with children, and afPE is working closely with sportscoach
d. The adequacy of current measures to improve the diversity of the teaching profession; · afPE is committed to inclusion and equity in the delivery of and opportunities provided by physical education. We have benefited from a partnership with the Ethnic Minorities Foundation (EMF), whereby we have explored some of the structural, cultural and institutional reasons for this situation. TDA data was surprisingly difficult to obtain and use, since it is not collected in ways which are conducive to critical research. However, we secured sufficient data to be able to express concern to TDA, during 2005/6, about the fact that physical education attracts less BME recruits than any other national curriculum subject; and through the EMF's policy department, secured sufficient funding from "Capacitybuilders" for a project exploring contributory factors, whose outcomes were reported to the TDA officer in charge of diversity.
· The TDA response was disappointing; and, to an organisation committed to increasing diversity and equity of opportunity in its subject workforce, quite a shock. TDA said that it would only intervene or allocate resources, for a subject which was failing to recruit to meet teacher supply. Since physical education enjoys buoyant demand for ITT places, this means that TDA was uninterested in afPE's commitment to explore the reasons for the current lack of racial diversity in the physical education workforce and among candidates for ITT. Despite our questions about how this stance related to TDA's own strategic objective to increase diversity in the workforce, and to the desirability of a wider range or role models for children, and of opportunities in teaching physical education for a wider range of candidates, the response remained the same. In effect, TDA is interested in diversity, only if it increases the likelihood that TDA can meet its supply targets in shortage subjects. This will further entrench the lack of diversity in non-shortage subjects, since ITT providers have little incentive to change current practice. Subsequently, one of the HEI members of afPE's ITT Network did secure a modest research grant from TDA to address some of the patterns of dropout which the EMF/afPE project had identified, working with four other HEI providers; but there has been no sustained interest in afPE's work in this area from TDA.
e. The extent to which existing ITT provision adequately prepares trainees for entry into the teaching profession, whether they intend to teach in primary schools, secondary schools, early years settings or further education settings. (Comments welcome on whether provision meets the needs of new teachers working with pupils with special educational needs and new teachers based in schools operating in more challenging circumstances.)
· Incremental
changes in initial teacher training have, over the last 2 decades, reduced the
time available for preparation of trainees.
The preference for post-graduate routes rather than BEd/BA with QTS, by
successive governments, despite the HMI evidence that the 3 or 4 year
integrated training was more effective, has led to a situation where even
subjects like physical education, which require certain levels of engagement in
and mastery of technical skills, have significantly less time in ITT provision
than they did, 25 years ago. The
· A further factor is that levels of funding for ITT provision in HEIs frequently are seen by HEI senior managers, to be inadequate for the expectations associated with it. This has meant that in some HEIs which lack a "critical mass" of ITT, teacher trainers find themselves as marginalised professionals within marginalised departments, often without direct support from non-ITT courses in the parent disciplines, because of the fractures between subject-based ITT and first degree provision in many HEIs. The capacity of some departments to meet the whole range of needs of trainees, especially for primary provision, can be severely restricted by such circumstances.
· Four years ago, responding to concern about standards of ITT in physical education, TDA funded a 3 year project, led by Liverpool John Moore's University, afPE and the Youth Sport Trust, whose aim was to provide support and a strategic improvement programme for physical education ITT. The final report, presented in 2007, demonstrated significant improvement and success among secondary specialist providers; and made a series of recommendations, especially on how primary ITT for physical education could be improved. Sadly, these recommendations have not been acted upon.
· afPE's major concern, which is shared by several other subject associations, and by the NUT, is the very restricted amount of time available, especially in post graduate ITT provision, for subject preparation for primary trainees, which includes understanding the whole range of learners' needs.
· afPE's evidence shows that at least 40% of newly qualified primary teachers begin their careers, having received only 6 hours or less preparation for physical education, which is clearly inadequate for safe and confident teaching. The 2007 national survey of parents of primary-aged children, conducted by Sports Marketing Surveys for afPE, demonstrated clearly that more than 97% of parents felt this to be unacceptable.
· This is a systemic weakness which can be addressed and resolved, since there are structures which should be able to deal with it, ie all ITT providers should be complying with standards of competence for trainees, set by TDA. afPE is aware that many ITT providers do manage to offer quality ITT preparation for primary physical education, despite the shortage of time available, especially in PGCE courses. It is axiomatic that other providers should be able to do the same, whether GTP or HEI-based. But the patterns described above continue, to the detriment of both trainees' and children's experiences. There are clear issues about the safety and well-being of children here; but also of the quality of provision. afPE has raised this issue many times during the last two years with TDA, and several Parliamentary Questions have been placed on this issue.
· Sadly, the TDA response appears to reflect an unwillingness even to acknowledge that there is a problem, let alone that any action should be taken to address it. A recurrent TDA response is that afPE has not taken into account, the school training hours which might have been allocated. Yet our information is that when head teachers receive a trainee with inadequate preparation, they will not allocate a trainee, any hours teaching that subject, for fear of accident and litigation. TDA also claims that all ITT providers are meeting the criteria to comply with the standards required. afPE would ask how this can possibly be the case, when we know from our own data that many newly qualified teachers (NQTs) either avoid delivery of physical education, or revert to their own experience. Those of our members who support the development of NQTs in local authorities report exactly the same challenges, and pressing need for compensatory CPD. This is clearly an unsatisfactory situation, given concerns about child health and obesity.
· A systemic weakness should be capable of resolution, given the will to address it. afPE is confident that, with adequate initial training, primary teachers can (and many already do) provide excellent, imaginative, enjoyable programmes of physical education. Poor ITT providers should not be in the position of preventing this to be a universal expectation across the system. afPE has been disappointed that TDA has excluded physical education from subject "booster" course provision for NQTs, preferring rather to invest only in shortage subjects.
· For physical education, there are expectations of physical education, far beyond educational strategy and school improvement, reflected in its contributions to a range of PSA Delivery Agreements on health, sport and children's well being.
· afPE has been attempting to secure funding from sources beyond the education budget, to support its work in health and sport. It is disappointing that the lack of integrated thinking between government departments and agencies appears to impede progress in this area.
f. The extent to which the current ITT system encourages innovation and diversity in approaches to ITT; · The challenges of the restricted time available in ITT courses, especially in PGCE, militates against full exploration of alternative approaches. The issues caused by funding levels also have an effect, including widening gaps in HEIs, between ITT staff and HEI staff who see their role predominantly as researchers. The criteria of (for example) the Research Assessment Exercise have exacerbated these divisions between ITT and research staff.
· However, afPE has been able to use its leadership of the national Physical Education ITT Network to provide regular updates and information to ITT providers, both primary and secondary; and to encourage the sharing of good practice. Twice-yearly conferences, a networked website with free resources and a super-regional peer support structure also provide support and development services for ITT providers. The Network is wholly funded by afPE and the ITT providers who participate. Network Conferences have provided the context in which collaborative work between ITT providers, eg on increasing diversity in recruitment, has emerged; and links between critical research on ITT approaches and ITT provision have been encouraged.
· However, the lack of accessible information about GTP provision; and the fact that providers change every year, means that it is difficult to maintain accurate contact details, and hence provide full, sustained development support for GTP providers in any ITT learning community.
g. The role of higher education institutions in relation to ITT and the extent to which they make a distinctive contribution to provision; · See above response. HEIs' provision tends to be longer-term, sustained over longer periods than GTP provision. But the lack of accessible data about GTP provision, especially its contribution in the longer term, mean that it is quite difficult to ensure accurate observation.
· The capacity of some HEIs to recruit and maintain strong teams of staff and school networks to deliver and support ITT, demonstrate good practice, and significant contribution to sharing innovation and successful approaches. HEIs which have been able to sustain effective links between ITT provision and research; and to encourage staff to develop skills and track record in both, represent distinctive contributions to ITT which could not be replicated in any other way. In many cases, these contributions are due to committed senior leadership; a critical mass of ITT provision; and a history of ITT provision which defines the culture of some HEIs. It is also the case that such HEIs have good relationships with, and contribute to and benefit from, subject and professional organisations.
· It is much less easy (possible) for ITT staff in HEIs where ITT is marginal within the course portfolio; and afPE is aware that there are often conflicting and multiple pressures on ITT staff which are difficult to meet; and within which career progression or even job satisfaction is frequently impeded.
afPE recommends that TDA and DCSF suggest criteria relating to links between research and ITT provision, for the RAE Education unit of assessment, which could help to reduce the pressure on young ITT lecturers for research output which is often unrelated to their working practices and to ITT quality criteria.
h. Whether the current nature of partnership working between schools and higher education institutions in the delivery of ITT is sustainable; · See comments above, regarding critical mass, which influences the capacity of HEIs to maintain viable partnerships with schools. It is remarkable in some cases, how much commitment has been shown by ITT providers to sustain structures and working practices which are inherently expensive in staff time and travel.
· There is some evidence that the shortage of appropriately qualified and committed school-based mentors is a barrier to effective provision.
i. The adequacy of development opportunities for those involved in the delivery of ITT, including those based in HEIs, schools and other settings; · There has been little research on this issue, hence there is little available data. However, as mentioned above, afPE is aware that in some HEIs, staff experience pressure from multiple sources, including pressure to publish and raise income, as well as satisfying development criteria for quality ITT. On the other hand, such staff are likely to benefit from mentoring from more experienced ITT colleagues, except in the case of HEIs whose ITT provision is very small. GTP ITT providers are likely to suffer in the same way from lack of support from an established learning/professional community. As mentioned above, it is more difficult for subject associations to provide effective support and development for a constituency which constantly is shifting, and for which contact details are often difficult to identify.
· afPE's position as a member of the National Consortium for CPD for the PESSYP programme has enabled commissioning of independent research which has focused on the effectiveness of learning communities emanating from the national infrastructure for CPD which the PESSYP programme has developed, which consists of Local Delivery Agencies. It is clear from the findings of the independent research that sustained effectiveness, especially for school personnel, is heavily dependent on school and local authority leadership ensuring that staff benefit from time to reflect on and implement what they have learned.
j. The role of educational research in informing ITT provision. · See response to previous Committee questions. Where there are established links within HEIs and across subject communities, systematic dialogue between practice and research is more likely. afPE is committed to practice informed by research; and to research which is grounded in practice. Hence, its Research Committee is embarking upon an ambitious research programme, in partnership with HEIs and research institutes, whose agenda is informed by workforce planning, quality definition and improvement and the effectiveness of ITT and CPD. This will be facilitated by afPE's direct links with the Physical Education SIG of the British Educational Research Association; and by its leadership of the national ITT Network, whose recent conferences have included presentations on current research projects.
· afPE is disappointed that some sources of research funding, eg those operated by TDA and some of those offered by DCSF, are not available for bidding from subject associations. This prevents strategic approaches to critical work on subject-based pedagogy and workforce development, which could inform both ITT and CPD strategy.
3. CPD provision: a. Whether current CPD provision for new teachers, experienced teachers and head teachers supports and enhances their practice in school and if so, to what extent;
· In the case of physical education, the need for significantly increased investment into CPD is further emphasised by its major distinctive contributions to two further policy areas beyond education - health and sport/participation in physical activity.
· There is a lack of comprehensive information about CPD provision - its sources, strategic context and effects; and it is clear from recent government agencies' tenders for information on this issue, that there is poor awareness of the range and scale of CPD provision by some subject associations. For example, afPE is a major provider of CPD, both through its delivery role in the National Consortium for CPD in the PESSYP programme, which involves support for between 30,000 and 34,000 teachers each year; and through its own CPD provision through its National College for CPD in physical education, which provides accredited, quality-controlled CPD (1,477 delegates in 2007/8). afPE's quality assurance mechanisms are well developed and rigorous, and delivery is based on needs audits, hence the accreditation at Master's Level provided for delegates.
· But there is wide variation in the quality and relevance of CPD for teachers of physical education, both within education and from sport and health. It is desirable that a more strategic approach is adopted, which provides a framework for provision and recognises and embraces existing high quality provision. It is also desirable that any such strategy takes account of the impact of free access to CPD, which emanates from budgets in some national strategies, but which seriously undermine the primary business of long-term CPD providers. More collaboration and coordinated planning are urgently needed. This could also help head teachers, especially in primary schools, prioritise the CPD which is most desirable for their schools and staff.
· Recent innovations in the curriculum and the need to relate learning and teaching to a range of desired strategic outcomes demonstrate clear need for sustained investment into continuing professional development, including encouragement of reflective practice through specific investment into capacity building for monitoring, evaluation and impact measurement.
· In many respects for physical education, the impact of the education National Strategies has been less than that of the PESSCL (now PESSYP) programme and the cumulative effects of sport and health policies. However, afPE has worked hard to ensure that teachers of physical education have been provided with resources and materials which have demonstrated calibration between the various aspects of improvement, across the primary and secondary strategies, the PESS improvement agenda and Ofsted's criteria. As a result, physical education benefits from posters and support materials which help teachers and head teachers understand the relationships between sets of criteria which have emanated centrally from DCSF; those which have been born largely within sports policy; and those promoted by Ofsted and QCA. This would not have happened, but for the initiative and expertise of the subject association, which has sometimes appeared to be the only agency with knowledge of the effects on physical education, of the whole range of policies and strategies, both from within education and beyond.
· While the proportion of the PESSCL budget devoted to CPD has been relatively small, with far greater percentages allocated to school sport and national elite competitions, nevertheless the impact of the PESSYP (formerly PESSCL) CPD programme has been, not only to offer teachers of physical education rolling programmes of CPD related to emerging national strategies as well as the PESSCL objectives, but also to establish an infrastructure of Local Delivery Agencies, which are beginning to serve as a means of rolling out proposals and innovation, as was shown during the dissemination of the Key Stage 3 proposals; and more recently, in the construction of proposals for the new primary curriculum. In some areas, too, effective "learning communities" in physical education have been developed, although there is, regrettably, patchy use of local authority strategic leaders with valuable experience, expertise and capacity for strategic innovation.
· The objective for all teachers to achieve Master's level professional development qualifications is of some concern. afPE and several other subject associations are concerned that the proposals as currently framed, seem to lack acknowledgement of existing Master's schemes, with the flexibility to serve both subject knowledge and teaching and learning, which have already been developed by subject associations, in collaboration with universities, on the basis of accreditation of a range of means of learning. It would be detrimental and regressive, were a centralised qualification to displace the innovative schemes which are already proving popular with teachers and their employers, and sustainable in terms of cost and mobility.
b. The adequacy of current arrangements for tracking the impact of and spending on CPD provision. · Lack of synergy between different agencies in education has, as described above, led to the need for subject associations to attempt to provide a synthesis and guidance for members.
afPE recommends an audit of current provision and collaborative discussion with major providers, which would inform decisions about national strategies for CPD provision. A coordinated approach to building capacity in impact measurement would also be of benefit.
· The PESSYP Consortium is currently developing proposals for an approach which focuses upon the impact of CPD, not only on teachers' own practices; but also upon learners' experiences. afPE's team of consultants with expertise in this area are leading thinking and development for measuring impact on learning, relating also to the deployment and understanding of Ofsted criteria for good practice.
· afPE welcomes the opportunities for teachers to be at the centre of assessment, a key element of their professional role. It is worth calling attention to the good practice which already exists in physical education (and other "practical" subjects) in assessment for learning (AFL). The subject associations can provide a wealth of experience and expertise for further development.
February 2009
[1] The Association for Physical Education is committed to being the representative UK organisation of choice for people and agencies delivering or supporting the delivery of physical education in schools and in the wider community. Its corporate objectives are to: 1. Demonstrate the distinctive role of physical education in children's and young people's development and achievements; 2. Establish and sustain physical education at the heart of school life and whole-school development, through support for high quality learning and teaching; research; ethical leadership; and politically informed advocacy and representation; 3. Raise awareness of physical education's contributions to public health and well-being; 4. Play a leading role in the development of a workforce with the skills and qualities required to assure high quality physical education and sport in schools and in the wider community. 5. Provide high quality, professional, sustainable services for its members and partners.
[2] Not published on CSF Committee website. [3] afPE emphasis.
|