Current ITE provision – what aspects should we retain? and develop?

1. A Framework for collaborative relationships Summary and reflections from the 8th February discussions

2. Current ITE provision – what aspects should we retain? and develop? • Need for trainees to: • have time for reflection away from school, to develop as thoughtful teachers who have deep knowledge of how children learn (– limitations of model whereby trainees are ‘thrown in at the deep end’) • be supported in developing their subject knowledge • be exposed to different schools, cultures and practices – so that they are versatile and not afraid to move on to other schools and develop their career. (This would mean, for example, adding a longer second placement to the GTP model)

3. Importance of having a variety of routes into teaching – the GTP would not suit all applicants • Recognition that the PGCE model reduces the administrative and support burden on schools (e.g. re CRB checks, organisation of placements, mentoring), and brings new ideas to a school • Concern that training badged by an individual school or cluster of schools might not have the longer-term currency of training badged by a university • The value of centralised recruitment in terms of managing teacher supply – especially in the context of higher undergraduate fees, which could lead to a reduction in the number of applicants to ITE

4. The differences between the various routes into teaching are now partly a matter of emphasis (as opposed to substance). How far could we break down the structures between the different routes to create more tailored options? • What scope might there be for ‘passporting’ ‘instructors’/teaching assistants through school-based training?

5. Current CPD provision – what aspects should we retain? and develop? • Interest in how ITE, the NQT year and CPD could form a seamless continuum • Support for pursuing the objective of a Masters-level profession – as a means of promoting reflective practice, and of facilitating a smoother transition from initial training to early career development and career-long learning • Call for the NQT year to be 3-4 years, incorporating a Masters-level qualification

6. Support for a cluster model for CPD (in terms of enabling teachers to move across schools), and of having an HEI partner for such cluster working – ‘to provide a grit in the oyster’ • Interest in school-based Masters programmes that are more tailored to school/cluster needs

7. Issues specific to cluster models • Collaboration between schools is hard work – especially for the lead school; not all schools felt they had benefited from it as much as they would have liked • Capacity in schools for supporting ITE and CPD is precarious – a member of staff moving on or taking parental leave can in themselves create real problems in this regard • There is also the issue of within-school variation – some departments may be very able to offer high quality training, others less so • Particular value of clusters that incorporate very different kinds of schools

8. Ways in which HEIs could support cluster models • Overseeing and co-ordinating the work of clusters; developing the programme of ITE/CPD activity that the cluster offer • Developing the PGCE model so that it adds value to a school/department beyond supporting the individual trainee(s) • Co-ordinating HEI ITE/CPD activity within London to ensure that schools have access to support across all subject areas • Some schools work with a number of HEIs, even in a single subject. Greater co-ordination between those partners could add value • Providing a clearer overview of what they can offer to schools

9. Developing distance learning ‘PGCEs’ (e.g. as an option for unqualified instructors to train as teachers) • Deploying ITE staff in schools – to teach pupils, support trainee teachers and run CPD provision • Paying for school staff to be released to support development • Providing accreditation for school-based provision – ITE or CPD