1 / 24

ACTS Conference February 2010

ACTS Conference February 2010. Joe McGeer University of the West of Scotland Research On The Chartered Teacher Scheme. Chartered Teacher Definition?. Know your stuff Know whom you are stuffing Then stuff them elegantly (Lola May). Origins of the CT.

lynda
Download Presentation

ACTS Conference February 2010

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. ACTS ConferenceFebruary 2010 Joe McGeer University of the West of Scotland Research On The Chartered Teacher Scheme

  2. Chartered Teacher Definition? • Know your stuff • Know whom you are stuffing • Then stuff them elegantly (Lola May)

  3. Origins of the CT. • ‘Framework…to encourage thebestteachers to develop their careers in the classroom’ (1998 consultation on CPD) • ‘There should be opportunities for career advancement for those teachers who wish to remain in the classroom, especially teachers of acknowledged excellence’ (1999 McCrone Inquiry principle 3)

  4. Positive features from the survey of teachers • It is showing initial signs of success • Especially if the respondent knows the work of a Chartered Teacher • Chartered Teacher status will improve pupil attainment • The professional development and status of the Chartered Teacher will be enhanced. • The majority of young teachers, under 34 years of age, intend to undertake the Scheme in the future.

  5. The CT Scheme has shown initial signs of being successful.

  6. All CT’s should be subject to reappraisal at regular intervals in order to retain status and additional salary.

  7. Concerns • The structure does not meet the requirements of teachers, not being seen as good alternative career path • It did not make the best use of available funding. • Most teachers did not have a good knowledge of the Scheme. • Most teachers eligible will not undertake the Scheme

  8. Suggestions for improvement 1 • Classroom observation should be part of the assessment process. • Regular reappraisal should take place. • It should be operated along the lines of the current Scottish Qualification for Headship Scheme. • Academic study should be part of it. (A point strongly supported by headteachers)

  9. Suggestions for improvement 2 • The success should be measured in terms of teacher retention and recruitment and pupil attainment • The quality of teaching in the classroom should be the critical measure of success. • Some assistance with the cost of the courses should be provided.

  10. Written comments • Costs. • Excellence - a large majority stating that CTs should be clearly seen to be excellent teachers. • Future role not clear. • Reduction of promoted posts in secondary schools • Lack of knowledge of the Scheme • Workload an issue • Some confusion over routes available • Positive experience.

  11. The Scheme • A pay rise of 22% • Achieved by APL from GTCS or MEd • No classroom observation • No headteacher endorsement • No additional duties. • Max cost circa 7500 – max return circa 165000 • Trusted to be an ‘enhanced professional’. • Review introduced some limited accountability

  12. An outside view • GTCS General Secretary recalled speaking at a conference in Australia where:- • “they absolutely refused to believe that any government was actually doing that……that any government was putting that kind of public money in”

  13. The Interviewees • Peter Peacock. Education Minister • Dougie Mackie. EIS President • Ronnie Smith. General Secretary of the EIS • Matt McIver. The General Registrar of the GTCS • Gordon Jeyes. ADES Adviser to COSLA • Michael O’Neil. Chair of the Review group • Keir Bloomer. Chief Exec of Clackmannan

  14. The landscape in 2000/2002 • Availability of large sums of new money. • Newly devolved government in Scotland wishing to be seen to be different. • Pressure to come to a very quick deal. • The low priority attached to the Scheme in a very wide ranging deal. Not a deal breaker. • The underlying philosophy of valuing, and investing in, education and its teachers held by key individuals at the time, notably ministers.

  15. Funding available • £400m available in 2001. £135m in 1998 • “Obtaining the money was important to break the log jam and…..we have got to try to make this deal work. If this one breaks down where are we collectively going?” DougieMackie • “ministers were prepared for it”. Peter Peacock

  16. Scottish Parliament • ‘Scottish Education has been ...a mark of national identity... and its supposed superiority has been a point of national pride’. Robert Anderson (1999) • “Since May 2007 the Scottish Government has attempted to tap into the importance of education to national identity in order to produce a particular ‘local inflection’” Ozga and Arnott (2009) But • “they seem to have ducked some of the most difficult issues”. Fiona Hyslop’s response to the Review (2008)

  17. Ministerial issues • robust, validated evidence of good classroom practice while retaining the principle of teacher self-nomination; • the need for senior colleague endorsement; • but, most crucially, the need to be seen, and used, as a valuable school-wide resource

  18. Time pressure/lack of scrutiny Structure of Scheme proposed by Gordon Jeyes but later he described as “Shoogly” and “not the one he envisaged” • “a very strange process”. Ronnie Smith • Deal needed by minister establish and/or consolidate his position as a possible future First Minister. Interviewee. • Funding could and would be reallocated to other services, notably health. Interviewee.

  19. Low Priority • “I’m so very disappointed that in many ways the whole idea never got across” Ronnie Smith • “not top of the pile”, Peter Peacock • Full Implementation group met on 5 occasions with no substantive discussion about the Scheme. • Size of pay increase, the 35 hour week and the conservation of pay. (EIS priorities) • “the Standard is not the outcome of any process of systematic planning” (Purdon)

  20. Professional autonomy • “act of faith” and “a very big objective about changing the whole profession and respecting the profession” Peter Peacock

  21. Professional Accountability • McCrone “completely irrelevant” “important opportunity seriously messed up”.“If the headteacher wants to hang on to you, he’ll pay you more” Keir Bloomer • the quality of teaching in universities “variable”. Scheme “too provider driven” and external endorsement “required”. Michael O’Neil • Need to get a living wage for “the curious professional.” Gordon Jeyes

  22. Review – limited change • “a lack of willingness at Ministerial level to tackle the major issues surrounding self selection, a greater focus on school and the role of the Chartered Teacher”. Michael O’Neil • Opposition of the leaders of the teacher associations • Focus on desire to prevent a few teachers from entering. • No strong desire to end a long period of calm – still a consensus?

  23. A compromise • ‘My line manager has confirmed that he/she is willing to provide me with support during my Chartered Teacher Programme’

  24. The Future • Nature of endorsement? • Robust evidence? • Flexible routes? • Reappraisal? • School/authority wide role?

More Related