Education CommitteeWritten evidence submitted by the University of Cambridge: Faculty of Education
School Direct
1. The Cambridge Faculty of Education is in its second year of exploring what it means to be involved in School Direct (SD). Involvement in SD enables both the Faculty and schools to evaluate its strengths and weaknesses from an informed position. The Faculty is working with three Teaching Alliances, the only ones so far formed by schools working as key players within the Cambridge PGCE partnerships. Once recruited, SD trainees follow the same PGCE programme as the rest of the Faculty’s trainees ie length/timing of school placements, Faculty- and school-based training sessions, and PGCE assessment leading to 50% accreditation towards a Masters in Education. The Faculty has not been approached by any other current Cambridge PGCE partnership schools that wish to become involved in SD.
2. The Faculty has not agreed to participate in SD with other institutions from more distant parts of England. The main reason is quality assurance. The Cambridge PGCE has a longstanding system of mentor/professional tutor/school co-ordinator training and professional development (PD) which forms an integral part of its school-university partnership. This work is developed and taught by school mentors/professional tutors/school co-ordinators and lecturers. Its content is determined both by course development planning priorities and more immediate issues, for example how Faculty- and school-based professional studies sessions complement one another and are differentiated to play to individual schools’ particular strengths and address trainees’ breadth of needs. Initial training is also undertaken by all new mentors/professional tutors/school co-ordinators, and is supported by in-school development from more experienced peers or visiting Faculty lecturers. The Faculty would not wish to quality assure schools and alliances that are unable to participate in this vital, rich and integrated PD.
3. Another high quality feature of the Cambridge PGCE is Faculty-based subject studies work and the way it is very closely and critically integrated with trainees’ ongoing school experience. It is taught by tightly-knit groups of lecturers, teaching associates and mentors seconded from schools whose work is constantly reviewed, developed and quality assured through team meetings, course evaluation, improvement planning and ongoing professional development. In addition to the expertise brought to the PGCE course by practising classroom teachers and senior leaders, trainees benefit from being taught by lecturers who also teach and supervise on other education courses within the Faculty, such as Masters, EdD and PhD, and are actively involved in research, publication and in-service training both nationally and internationally. They thus contribute a wealth of additional knowledge and understanding to trainees’ critical understanding of subject teaching, pedagogy and cutting edge scholarship. Many also hold office in subject associations at high levels, adding yet another dimension to the scope and nature of subject studies teaching.
4. SD has thrown up a number of practical problems requiring extra work to resolve; for example, timing of interviews, low interview turn-out, candidates offered places in different schools simultaneously, and schools not able to stand by original placement offers. Within the PGCE, such issues are unproblematic: economies of scale allow more than enough flexibility. Furthermore, it is not only difficult for schools to predict their future staffing needs or guarantee employment to SD trainees, but trainees themselves may decide during the course of the year that they wish to seek a post elsewhere.
5. The 2011 inspection report for the Cambridge Early Years/Primary and Secondary PGCE courses, stated that two particular features of the provider and its initial teacher training programmes were:
the outstanding well-established and collegial partnership based on positive relationships, mutual respect, high expectations, a pursuit for excellence and a detailed and up-to-date knowledge and understanding of the theory and practice of teaching; and
the university’s national and international reputation and its place at the forefront of many educational initiatives which ensure high quality training is immersed in research and current practice enabling trainees to become critically reflective practitioners and employable classroom teachers (Ofsted, 2011, p. 4).
Initiatives such as SD must not jeopardise these aspects and levels of quality.
Proposals for a College of Teaching
6. Cambridge Faculty of Education endorses the proposal for a college. With regard to whether this college should be a college of teaching (as suggested) or of teachers, there are two points. “Teachers” refers to a specific occupation—persons who are employed in schools, whereas “Teaching” captures the function or activity performed by people who teach, but who, of course, are not employed solely in schools. The preference is for a College of Teachers (CoT), because this title more closely identifies a group with a specific professional identity and skill-set.
7. A CoT (as proposed, for example, in the circulating PTI Discussion Paper) is needed because currently, there isn’t a body or agency which can articulate, and represent, the interests of teachers as a profession. Other groups perform legitimate and complementary roles on behalf of teachers: unions, for example, oversee the terms and conditions of teachers’ employment and salaries; subject associations provide affiliation and guidance in respect of PD. These groups would continue alongside a CoT. The role played by a CoT, however, would be to oversee and monitor the classroom practice of teachers. A CoT would not be a regulatory or registration body, it would not provide PD and it would not undertake research.
8. In respect of the recognition of teachers’ classroom practice, a CoT could take a number of forms. One possibility might be to create a membership body which institutionalizes a ladder of upwards-graded esteem, through to Fellow. A difficulty here is the potential lack of appeal to teachers of yet another body for them to join (in addition to payments for union and subject association membership). A more productive alternative would be to institutionalize recognition in a system that acknowledges accomplished classroom performance. This would be achieved through a regime of evidence-based standards of teaching, with standards determined by, and for, teachers. Rather than (annual) payment for CoT membership, teachers would pay a fee to be assessed (voluntarily) against the standards of accomplishment in their subject area or for their school level (ie, primary or secondary). The number of accomplishment levels (and designations) would be for discussion, but following “initial” teacher certification, a CoT might accredit (say) “highly skilled” teachers and then “exemplary” teachers.
9. Standards setting and assessment of standards are the two key functions to be undertaken by a CoT. An existing prototype along these lines is the National Board of Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS) in the USA. Since its formation in 1987, the NBPTS has provided recognition against standards for 100,000+ US teachers as part of an advanced certification system. In respect of standards of teaching and assessment of standards, a CoT would commission teams of teachers to draft, and regularly update, teaching standards that are linked to an evidence base; establish a rigorous system of assessment and provide for the training of assessors; liaise with HEI providers of ITE, teacher education researchers and research groups (eg, BERA) in respect of the currency and revision of the evidence base for teaching; commission standards-validation studies and meta-analyses; disseminate various examples of evidence of outstanding classroom practice; negotiate with governments the acceptance of recognition standards.
10. Standards of teaching accomplishment are a means of articulating what it is that teachers have to know, and be able to do, to improve the learning of children. The justification for the emphasis of the CoT on standards is twofold. First, members of the general public and the politicians who represent them are (rightly) concerned about enhancement of the quality of learning for children. Evidence-based standards are the most appropriate means of enshrining these legitimate expectations of learning quality. Second, if the premise is accepted that three-year trained graduates, and experienced, classroom teachers are the experts in respect of subject learning and children’s learning, then teachers should determine and maintain such standards. Likewise, teachers should act as rigorous CoT-trained assessors of their peers.
11. CoT guardianship of teaching of standards is not synonymous with teacher autonomy devoid of accountability. Public trust in professions requires their willingness not only to accredit, but also to discipline, their members as part of a recognition system. For the time being, while “initial” teacher certification is controlled by government, the recognition system proposed here would be advanced (ie post-initial) and voluntary. Were “initial” in future to come within the CoT remit, along with “highly skilled” and “exemplary”, then membership discipline would parallel that of the other professions.
July 2013