Education CommitteeWritten evidence submitted by Newcastle University, School of Education, Communication and Language Sciences

Summary

Newcastle University has many years experience providing training for Primary and Secondary teachers by means of its successful PGCE programmes.

We have recruited students from across the country but have built up a particularly well respected relationship with schools in the NE of England.

Our PGCE programmes are provided in the context of a highly rated research active department.

School Direct is having an adverse effect on our ability to maintain research active staffing levels across PGCE subject areas. This has consequences for the quality of the programme and the quality of teachers.

The impact to date has been more noticeable in relation to the secondary teachers’ training programme.

We envisage particular difficulties for schools and ourselves in relation to the development of viable Primary programmes.

We have grave concerns about the underlying rationale and long term consequences for the School Direct model.

1. Overview

1.1 To date Newcastle University has been involved in the delivery of School Direct in a relatively small way at Secondary level. We have concentrated on those Secondary subjects for which we already had allocated numbers from the Teaching Agency. For pragmatic reasons we plan to develop this in the forthcoming academic year, largely at Secondary level but also for the Primary phase. We have been successful in building on the very positive relationships we already have with our partnership schools in order to co-design a programme which is both flexible and rigorous. There is no doubt, however, that the greater emphasis on provision being “school led” has entailed reconfiguration of governance agreements and a tension between the role of the provider (the HEI) as the recipient of Ofsted inspections regarding the quality of training and that of the Lead schools for SD who have a dominant role in deciding the content of the training. The involvement in the selection process, administration and design of the future programme has been resource intensive and taxing for the HEI consisting of unpredictable demands and engagements. This pressure has also coincided with a reduction in staffing due to the decline in allocated places for Secondary subjects in particular.

2. Impact

2.1 So far, to date, the impact on our “traditional” Primary PGCE provision has been relatively small with SD trainees joining many of the core sessions and largely following the same overall programme. However, due to the significantly reduced allocation of students for PGCE programmes at Secondary level the effect has been much more profound and necessitated a radical overall of the Secondary PGCE provision. This has been accomplished to enable the delivery of a common central programme integrated with subject specific training. It is worth pointing out that the new range of secondary subjects within our “menu” has meant the buying in of expertise from other HEIs which has serious repercussions for future planning, viability and economies of scale.

2.2 We also foresee that the School Direct model faces much more considerable organisational difficulties in the Primary sector. The range of subject areas to be covered vis à vis the size of schools that might in principle recruit students make forward planning and delivery highly problematic.

3. Future Planning

3.1 The unpredictability of the numbers and subject composition of any future School Direct involvement will make it difficult to plan and staff such programmes consistently. Any business case for the appointment of new staff will depend upon short term predictions rather than more solid assurance. This means that in some HEI’s the staffing of any programmes will shrink until they become unviable in any meaningful or high quality fashion. There are also collateral risks to research and evidence informed teaching and thus, ultimately, to the quality of the teaching workforce.

3.2 The greater role for subject pedagogy “training” within schools themselves has the danger of merely repeating what is known rather than engaging with the broader and more fundamental issues of which HEI staff have knowledge and expertise derived from their own scholarship and research. The loss of allocated numbers for some secondary subjects in particular together with the “moveable feast” of School Direct subject involvement from year to year means that valuable, knowledgeable and experienced HEI staff may be lost forever to teacher training.

4. Effects for Students

4.1 The requirement for Teaching Schools to expand their involvement in teacher training may have some advantages but the current uncertainty about the nature of the “offer” that is being made to applicants may result in individual disappointment and dissatisfaction. The link between the “reasonable expectation of employment” and the desire to expand numbers almost willy-nilly seem to be potentially contradictory aims. We are concerned that there will be longer-term adverse effects for students trained in the context of one school. The knowledge and skill acquired in that context may not provide sufficient range and depth to enable them to generalise practice and to develop their professional expertise in moving on to other posts and responsibilities in schools across the country.

5. Long-term Consequences

5.1 The role of the HEI provider as being the “gatekeeper” of the profession has become a more contested area and one which is difficult to maintain given that the Lead Schools for SD are very aware that in the market place they are the purchasers of available services. Unsurprisingly much discussion can focus on “price” rather than sustained quality of provision and lasting partnership. We remain unconvinced that the influence of economic thinking and models is compatible with educational and social development. While the “outputs” of the developing models may be more easily measured, the quality of “outcomes” for children and teachers are more doubtful. The increased commodification of education is likely to lead to reduced trust, teacher commitment and morale.

July 2013