Education CommitteeWritten evidence submitted by the Council for Subject Associations

Introduction

1. The CfSA for Subject Associations (CfSA) has 32 subject association members and represents the subjects taught in schools and colleges in the United Kingdom. The CfSA is committed to promoting the best quality in subject ITE training for all new teachers. It is vitally important that new teachers joining the profession are well trained to teach their subjects.

2. Following the allocation of secondary ITE places for 2013–14 the subject associations have serious concerns about the quality and supply of good subject teachers for our schools. The rapid expansion of School Direct and the reduction in “core” places for PGCE training has put ITT secondary subject training in universities at risk. Several well-established university courses that have been providing high quality subject training for decades are struggling to survive; some have already closed. This is a crisis: in subject capacity for ITE and the supply of high quality subject teachers for schools.

Key Concerns

3. The key concerns of subject associations arising from the introduction of School Direct are:

The impact of School Direct places on the subject capacity of ITE. As PGCE core places in universities are lost, subject capacity is threatened.

The contradiction between the DfE’s Teachers’ Standards 2012 and a method of training which does not give trainees access to subject experts and scholarship. A high proportion of those training in School Direct schemes will not have access to an expert subject tutor.

Reduction in subject capacity in universities will have a serious impact on education beyond ITE—on curriculum development, CPD, higher degree provision and research.

School-led training is less effective in training new teachers to teach their subjects well. Ofsted has repeatedly reported this. School Direct is more likely to lower than raise the quality of ITE.

Mentors are expected to take a major responsibility for subject training within School Direct; but they do not have the resources, particularly time, and are not being trained for the role.

There is no strategy to manage the regional allocation of teacher training places. The market-driven approach is likely to result in teacher shortages in specific subjects and in particular parts of the country.

Comment

4. It is easy to dismantle an ITE system—it is not easy to build one. Good ITE partnerships between schools and universities have developed since 1992. These have been praised by Ofsted, who has reported in recent years that we are training the best teachers ever. ITE in the university sector has been the flagship of subject training in England1—and one much admired by other countries. So why is it being dismantled? The introduction of School Direct is causing irreparable damage. The government must consider the implications of their current implementation of School Direct on the quality of subject teaching and ITE capacity before it is too late.

5. While the best schools and subject teachers can train new teachers well, a major flaw in the School Direct model is that there are not enough outstanding teachers in each subject to train new teachers on a one-to-one basis. Moreover, there are significant implications for schools to release their best and most experienced subject teachers to act as mentors and manage teacher training. The focus for schools is the education of pupils and the training of new teachers may not always receive the attention it deserves.

6. A common weakness in school-based subject training is to focus on craft skills and generic teaching strategies and to pay insufficient attention effective subject learning. Schools are not best placed to train new teachers to “demonstrate a critical understanding of developments in the subject and curriculum areas, and promote the value of scholarship” as required by the Teachers’ Standards. Too often trainees are encouraged to copy the teaching they observe without exploring a range of different teaching strategies or discussing subject pedagogy. This happens when subject mentors have limited subject expertise, ITT experience or time, and where they do not have the support of an expert subject tutor. With a large number of new mentors being brought into training teachers for the first time in September 2013, these shortcomings are likely to be replicated.

7. New collaborations between schools and HE (or other accredited ITE providers) for School Direct have been put together hastily. Often no subject specialist tutor is in place, especially in subjects outside the core, to support schools. Nor is there proper marketing; prospective trainees are signing up to School Direct without sufficient information about what training to expect, or even what qualification they will receive. Our members report that in some “worst case scenarios” trainees are being trained in schools where there is no specialist teacher in their subject.

A Way Forward

8. The CfSA believes that the best subject training requires contributions from both universities and schools.

Trainee teachers need to learn about subject teaching from those who have the proven ability to develop their subject pedagogy rigorously. University tutors are these experts and often run courses at Masters and Doctoral Level.

Trainees also need the advice and guidance of skilled subject practitioners in schools where they can observe excellent teaching in their subject and work within outstanding subject departments. It is very important that they spend significant time working with teachers and departments in more than one school to gain broad experience of different practices and teaching approaches in their subject.

9. Good ITE partnerships of HE and schools should be allowed to flourish and develop. Best practice, where all parties work to their strengths, takes time to evolve. The development of Schools Direct should be managed so that schools move into the scheme when it is right for them to do so and the support structures are fully in place. Forced partnerships are likely to be poor partnerships.

10. ITT partnerships are seriously at risk when one partner suddenly loses their training places. If a university course closes, the schools lose their partner for School Direct. Our members report instances where schools in partnership with a university applied for School Direct places, intending to work in the same partnership—only to find the university lost its core places and they have been effectively “cast adrift”. The implication of allocations policies need to be considered much more carefully by the National College for Teaching and Leadership.

11. Ofsted should monitor the current situation with respect to subject training. More recent Ofsted reports have not been based on subject-based inspection. They report only on the quality of providers in terms of generic teaching. The providers who are training new teachers well in their subjects should be identified by Ofsted, and these providers should be encouraged to expand.

July 2013