ASSOCIATION OF TEACHERS AND LECTURERS

RESPONSE TO CONSULTATION ON "TRAINING CURRICULUM AND STANDARDS FOR NEW TEACHERS"

------

1.The Association of Teachers and Lecturers (ATL) is a teachers' professional association and trade union with 150,000 members, who are teachers in maintained and independent schools, lecturers in further education and student teachers.

Introduction

2.The Association’s response is composed of four elements, general commentary, comments on Paper 1, ‘Revised Requirements for All Courses of Initial Teacher Training, comments on Paper 2, ‘Standards for the Award of Qualified Teacher Status’, and an independent critique of this National Curriculum for Initial Teacher Training (ITT), ‘A Key Stage 6 Core Curriculum?’ commissioned by ATL from Professor Colin Richards, Paul Harling and David Webb. The latter is intended both as a critical contribution to these proposals and as a published paper to be made more widely available to ATL’s members and others. The views expressed in ‘A Key Stage 6 Core Curriculum?’ are those of the authors. However, ATL is pleased to be able to submit this critique as a contribution to this consultation on behalf of its members, particularly in relation to Papers 3 and 4.

General commentary

The context

3.ATL’s opposition to the direction for initial teacher education, presaged under Secretary of State, John Patten, was set out in ‘ATL Response to the ‘’Government’s Proposals for the Reform of Initial Teacher Training”: The Education of a Profession’, October, 1993, an extract from which is attached as Annex A. Here ATL emphasised that teaching is a critically important social function. The task of the teacher is to nurture the human capacity to learn and it is underpinned by a wide range of theoretical understandings, including an understanding of children, human motivation, development and learning. Teaching is not a series of skills and strategies acquired once for all time. It will change as the understandings upon which it is based change. This is why we support a curriculum for teacher education which draws on research and gives priority to teaching methods which have been shown to work in the classrooms in our country and across the world and why we support national programmes for improving the skills of serving teachers based on such research.

4.ATL accepted that the teaching profession has the collective responsibility for maintaining the competence and integrity of the profession but it did not accept that this would be achievable if teachers themselves were unable to question current orthodoxies or scrutinise established practices or ideas. Such freedoms, we argued, are central to the methodologies underlying the major disciplines, are essential to the attitudes of mind respected by employers and demonstrated in curiosity, problem-solving ability and flexibility, are essential if each child is to be prepared to take up responsibilities in adult life as a citizen in a democracy and must be guaranteed to the teaching profession. We have not seen this conception of teaching reflected in the developments since then, which have culminated in a set of standards which focus of subject knowledge at the expense of understanding the learning process and on a ‘national curriculum’ for initial teacher training, which does not even offer to teachers the rationale upon which it is based or the details of the research findings upon which it must surely be assumed it is derived.

5.Such a position can surely not be acceptable. As we said in our submission to the Education and Employment Committee what kind of teaching profession is being presented to potential recruits when the emphasis suggests low-trust, tight control and a centrally and even ideologically defined environment for teaching, when other employers are valuing autonomy, creativity, intrinsic motivation towards quality and improvement and high employee self-esteem. Too much of these consultation papers has emerged from this context for this Association to feel that we have here a positive way forward to meet the dynamic and exciting challenges for what must be a learning profession.

6.ATL’s contention has been, and is, that Britain needs ‘a profession of imaginative creative teachers whose informed professional judgement leads to intelligent action’, as ‘A Key Stage 6 Core Curriculum?’ puts it. We share its conclusion that ‘the proposed training curriculum will not suffice as it stands. It lacks imagination and vision; it embodies rather than opens up to scrutiny, a straight-forward, value-free common sense view of education’ and teaching; its approach ‘belies the complexity of the educational enterprise’ and it will fail to provide students ‘with the understanding, or to develop with them the necessary attitudes and values, which they need to make educational judgements and undertake intelligent action to foster their children’s learning’.

.

7.This response also has to be read in conjunction with ATL's previous 'Responseto the Secretary of State's Proposals for a National Curriculum for Initial Teacher Training", which is Annex B. As we said, there no issue is more central to a profession than the nature and quality of its pre-service training and we are less than content with not only the concept of a ‘national’ curriculum but also the terminology ‘national curriculum’. We should like to emphasise again the need for particular sensitivity over this issue from the Teacher Training Agency (TTA) because of the impact on teacher's sense of professionalism (see paragraph 1); that such proposals emphasise the need for a General Teaching Council (paragraphs 3-4); the case for increased professional involvement in these issues by, for example, the Professional Core Subject Councils proposed by ATL (see paragraphs 10 - 11); the serious implications for the professional development of teachers in those schools involved in initial teacher training, most particularly the implication for resources to make time available for those teachers acting as mentors both to be trained and to properly undertake their role as mentors; and the recommendation set out in paragraph 16 the Government and the TTA explore ways in which:-

i) all those involved in teacher training whether in HE or schools, have increased access to professional development for their role; and

ii) more resources can be put into independent research into the process of learning to teach and into teaching teachers so that quality development receives a greater priority than quality assessment and professional autonomy is restored, and seen to be restored, as the basis for professional accountability.

8.What must be made clear is that these consultation documents cannot, as they assert, ‘guarantee, for all those training to be teachers, high quality professional preparation which equips them with the professional and subject knowledge, understanding and skills they need to become effective teachers.’ It cannot be taken as a given that the developments in initial teacher training since 1984, particularly the nature and adequacy of the competences required in teaching upon which these standards are so firmly based, are a means of enhancing the quality of initial teacher training and ALT continues to call this assumption into question has it has done on many previous occasions. We should like to draw attention to the comments in ‘A Key Stage 6 Core Curriculum? that ‘competences provide reasonable clear goals for the training process, emphasise the important practical skills of teaching and provide a framework for performance assessment but they fail to recognise the crucial importance of professional understanding and judgement....teaching is seen in terms of ‘performance’ rather than in terms of informed professional judgement leading to intelligent execution.’ (our emphasis). Furthermore, as Professor Michael Eraut emphasises, professional learning relies on three main sources, publications, practical experience and people, who are prepared (both willing and able) to give appropriate support. This consultation exercise is entirely divorced from the planning to provide this infrastructure for professional learning. Further developments must create innovative partnerships to effect such a guarantee.

9.It is ATL’s view that the important issues of how a novice professional develops proficiency and the sources of professional learning have received only the most superficial consideration in the last thirteen years, despite repeated interventions. Similarly, the teacher’s understanding of the learning process, of the nature of intelligence and cognition, of the place of the emotions in learning and of the nature and purpose of education itself have been unreasonably neglected, despite radical developments which have even impinged upon a public outside teaching. As ‘A Key Stage 6 Core Curriculum? puts it so strikingly we do not have a core curriculum for teacher education which ‘promotes the spiritual, moral, cultural and physical development’ of future teachers’ .

10.This why it is ATL’s view that the highest priority of a General Teaching Council should be an investigation of what, if any, should be the prior requirements, as to the necessary skills, understanding and competences of persons to be employed in maintained schools as teachers and the nature of the professional training and education of teachers both prior to their appointment in a remunerated capacity and in the first three years of teaching, which should build on this work and that of the Literacy Task Force to rapidly raise core teaching skills and knowledge of literacy and numeracy.

The following comments can only be read in the light of our considerable reservations set out above.

REVISED REQUIREMENTS FOR ALL COURSES OF INITIAL TEACHER TRAINING

1. Timetable for implementation

1.1It is the Association's view that the intention to apply these new requirements to courses from 1 September 1997 is wrong in principle, in relation to the effective implementation of the proposals, and unrealistic. We should also like to point out that to plan implementation for September 1997 would mean that providers would be unable to meet one of the proposed requirements set out in 3.1.1, which states that it should be ensured that schools are fully and actively involved in the planning and delivery of ITT. ATL has supported the role of schools as equal partners in initial teacher training, and the principle of partnership cannot be sustained if the intended timetable here means that higher education institutions (HEIs) have unintentionally to appear to schools as dominating that partnership.

1.2It has also been a principle of ATL's approach to the implementation of change that changes of this kind should be preceded by the appropriate professional development. It is our firm belief that mentors in schools will need to familiarise themselves with both the new standards and the very new requirements setting out the initial teacher training curriculum in Mathematics and English. This view is further substantiated in ‘A Key Stage 6 Core Curriculum?’ which refers to research that scant attention is paid to subject learning in dialogues between teacher-mentors and student teachers and states that a proper focus on subject knowledge ‘requires as an essential pre-condition: that mentors in schools get more support in their subject mentoring role’ and that: ‘The proposed curriculum can only be welcomed if money is found to release teachers from school and to set up extensive (and expensive!) CPD for mentors where they can work with HE tutors towards a shared understanding of the contents and they may be taught to intending teachers. Otherwise the new curriculum will destabilise partnerships and foster that dangerous and delusive snare, "we do the practice in school and they learn the theory in college”’.

1.3We would also suggest that careful consideration should be given to the necessity to provide transitional funding, particularly in relation to the implementation of a national curriculum for initial teacher training. We are very attracted to the idea that the introduction of these proposals allows an opportunity for the systematic and joint training of student teachers and practising teachers in areas of the National Curriculum where this is appropriate. It is our view that HEIs are able to play a significant and important continuing professional development role as they introduce these new requirements. We, therefore, propose that implementation is delayed until 1998 and that funding is made available for HEIs to raise awareness and develop skills related to the new curricula for the National Curriculum for ITT in their partnership schools. We greatly welcome the Labour Government's commitment to a cohesive programme of mentor training, with such a focus, enabling mentors to be able to consult and support students as well as helping them to understand basic pedagogical principles, and to strengthened partnerships to ensure that expertise is shared in a co-operative way. The present challenge in relation to literacy and numeracy provides an opportunity for these proposals to make a difference in the teaching skills, not only of student teachers but across schools.

2. Trainee Entry and Selection Requirements

1.4Although we are conscious that in combination 1.1.7, 1.1.8 and 3.1.1 logically suggest that the requirement that a candidate for a course must be interviewed is unnecessary, we have been persuaded by comments during consultation that it is advisable to keep this as a requirement in order to indicate that this is best practice, and in order that teachers from schools can be fully involved in the selection process. It is also valuable for students to meet those who will take responsibility for their training.

1.5Where we are concerned is that there is possibly insufficient understanding of what the personal, intellectual and presentational qualities suitable for teaching are. We note that the word "presentation" is used elsewhere in this paper and we do not understand what a presentational quality is in this context or where it is used later.

1.6We had thought that the basic academic entry requirements as set out in 1.1.3 had been settled satisfactorily during previous consultations. We see no need for an alteration in the GCSE requirements at this stage, although we accept that they should be kept under active consideration. ATL is firmly of the belief that the academic requirement for entry into teaching should be a graduate or graduate-equivalent qualification. For this reason we continue to oppose non-graduate routes into teaching, particularly the revised Registered Teacher Scheme. We do not think that the implications of achieving these standards in relation to subject content for a non-graduate entrant, where on-the-job training is proposed, have been thought through. We would be opposed to the extrapolation of these General qualifications for entry routes to employment based teacher training. Our members are also seriously concerned that these proposals do not signal unequivocally that the route into primary school teaching is to continue to be based on a graduate qualification.

3. Course Length and Coverage

1.7Weare not opposed in any way, on principle, to the provision of courses of different length and coverage. However, we have raised the issue before of the implications of diverse routes into teacher training on the deployment and later professional development of teachers. In relation to the introduction of courses spanning Key Stage 2 and 3, we queried whether specialist courses would provide the kind of teachers being looked for in the primary sector, and whether teachers trained in this way would not face problems in relation to their deployment in a school environment. However, above all, our concern, as it was then, is that there is an unstated assumption that where teachers trained for routes which do not entirely cover either Key Stage 1 and 2, or Key Stage 3 and Key Stage 4, there are immediate induction training implications for a school that wishes to employ such a teacher across the age and ability range in the traditional school structure. We are also concerned that differentiating courses first in this way may later lead to arguments that there are requirements that are accepted as important now, but need in the future no longer apply to teachers entering some of these potential routes. We have yet to be convinced that primary schools are looking for subject specialists or that training in a specialised manner is consistent with the requisite mobility and deployment of teachers.

1.8We consider that the new proposals for 14-19 courses produce particular and pertinent problems and because the present standards are inapplicable for the teaching of GNVQs are unlikely to be easily comprehended within these course requirements, should receive careful consideration. We would advise that 14-19 courses are not established on the basis of this Consultation, but that a most careful and considered approach is made to further developments in this area where subjects outside the National Curriculum are of much greater significance.. We are particularly conscious that subjects such as economics and psychology, popular at the post-14 level, cannot currently be easily drawn within this framework, which we consider is a disadvantage.

4. Partnership Requirements

1.9We remain opposed to the suggestion in 3.1.3 that the criteria for partnership schools should be based on the examples set out there. It is our belief that, for example, a school's commitment to Investors in People, or an outstanding OfSTED Report on school management and its relation to continuing professional development or potentially, in the future, a headteacher with the NPQH would have more relevance. We believe that the quality of a school's approach to initial teacher training, which is likely to be reflected in its approach to its own teachers' professional development, is more important than these stated educational outcomes. In any event, it is widely appreciated that in many HE partnerships to think in terms of selecting schools is utterly unrealistic since in order to place students all schools willing to be involved must be used by the HE institution.

5. Quality Assurance Requirements

1.10We are not convinced that these Quality Assurance Requirements meet the aim related to mechanisms in place to monitor and improve provision. In one sense we had understood the Quality Assurance Mechanism to be the OfSTED inspection process and the quality provisions being developed by the TTA. In all instances, therefore, these requirements should meet those criteria. We do not believe that they do so. We are inclined to consider that 4.1.3 is also a partnership requirement. As on so many occasions, the aspirations of these requirements cannot be called into question. However, we believe that their achievement is unrealistic given the resources now available to initial teacher training institutions. The role of the initial teacher training institution in relation to quality assurance, in our view, remains absolutely vital, and it should be appreciated that, for example, in 4.1.6 and 4.1.3 the HE institution is contributing to the quality of the professional development available in the school, and to school improvement itself. We believe that this should be understood and recognised with a more generous resource framework.