Does the NCTL and DfE really value teacher training and the role played by universities? I think not. Every time I hear platitudes about universities being important in the process I think back to what Nick Gibb, the current Schools Minister said in 2014: who is to blame for our education system slipping down the international rankings? The answer is the academics in the education faculties of universities … It is challenging the hegemony of the education departments of the universities that must be the focus of any serious education reformer. This appears to be driven by ideology rather than facts and current government policy is wrecking university involvement in teacher education, in an act of, Warwick Mansell has called, ‘ideological vandalism’ – it seems that Gibb is getting his way. The NCTL recently trumpeted that over half of all trainee teachers are on School Direct routes (which supposedly allow more time to be spent learning ‘on the job’). However this does not reflect a popular demand for School Direct places, instead it is the result of the way the government has distorted the way teacher training places are allocated. There is supposed to be choice for applicants wanting to be teachers based around market forces, but the reality is the government has skewed the market, placing caps on how many students universities are allowed to recruit, whilst setting minimum targets for schools and encouraging them to recruit above this target. This year has also been farcical. Instead of setting individual allocations for universities there was a national limit set on how many trainee teachers could be recruited in each subject/phase. This has meant instead of selecting the best candidates universities have been forced into the situation of trying to recruit as many trainee teachers as possible before the national limit was met, at which point all universities were instructed to halt all recruitment. This has proved ridiculous in many ways – if we look at the case of recruitment to history teacher training courses there are a number of issues:
Comments
Many of these non-traditional, non-university routes are backed by charitable giving from foundations linked to very successful businesses (eg Microsoft). Diane Ravitch asked this question about the Gates Foundation in 2013:
'Can anyone speak honestly to Bill Gates before he turns American higher education into a giant industry committed to building skills and competencies instead of fostering intelligence, ambition, and innovation? Does he have any idea of what he is doing? How can a democracy function when one man with $36 billion assumes the right and the power to reshape key institutions?'
When all University Teacher Training Departments have closed.
Following 2020, when all schools (we are promised) will be Academies or Free Schools, and Academies and Free Schools are free to employ un qualified Teachers, then the Government obligation to ensure there are enough qualified teachers will come to an end. Consequently all Government funding of Teacher Training can, and in my view will, cease.
Consequently it is to be expected all Teacher Training Departments will close.
Allowing schools to 'grow their own' may sound laudable but it leaves trainee teachers with experience of only one type of school and ill-equipped to move to another. This is no way to run a national teaching service.
Then there's the threat posed by the growing suggestion that teachers use pre-prepared lesson plans to save time. In theory, these could be delivered (horrible word) by untrained personnel. But there's a difference between sharing suggestions for lessons (and I've used many during my teaching career) and taking something off-the-shelf and delivering it (ughh) without considering the pupils on the receiving end (eg prior knowledge, depth of understanding. ability).
http://www.oph.fi/english/education_system/teacher_education
But what all the notable PISA nations have in common is that the PGCE is university based and reflect Janet's observation that the theory of teaching and learning is included and carries academic rigour, which is the opposite both of Gove's assertions and the government's strategy. For me the latter is about reducing teaching to the cheapest budget impact and wholly ignores the folly of 'you get what you pay for'.
http://nancyebailey.com/2015/12/08/teachingworks-or-doesnt-at-the-univer...
‘The government’s misguided recruitment policy promotes an anti-intellectual view of teacher training’
Written evidence to Education Select Committee by John Manning, co-ordinator of NQT recruitment, Teaching School Alliance Luton.
Add new comment