Relational Tensions in Partnership
Thursday 20th March 2014
Paula Gladwin
HCUK Online
Working within a changing landscape
• My background
– GTP Manager for 200 primary and secondary trainees in Outstanding Local
Authority Provision
– Ofsted inspector- schools and ITE
– LA Primary Science Adviser
– School Development Adviser
– Executive Director for elearnITT – maths, chemistry, physics, trainees and
SKE, SKE Plus and School Direct primary and secondary
• “deconstruct, confront, theorise and then, think otherwise”
“
•
“The high quality
provision worked well
– Ofsted, schools and
trainees were happy –
trainees got jobs - the
system was working
effectively”
Why do we need to
change ?
“Perfect partners don’t exist.
Perfect conditions exist for a limited time in
which partnerships express themselves best.”
Wayne Rooney
Changing landscape - School Direct
Base point • High quality provision to ensure trainees meet the Standards at a good or
better level and become good teachers
• We chose to work with high quality known partners who we knew would
provide high quality in-school placements and training and with whom
we had worked before
Partnership established
• We provide an overview plan for training across subject knowledge,
subject pedagogy and professional studies using online blended learning
• Work with schools to enable them to use their knowledge, skills and
capacity to deliver those aspects of the agreed overview that they could
• Finance percentages agreed according to split of above with an agreed
split as a starting point
• Trainees can have equivalent of a day a week day release when it suits all
parties to study the online materials and blend with in school planning,
teaching and reflection. Mentors, Pathway Tutors, and school colleagues
can all view and discuss training
HCUK - Our Side (in agreement with partners)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Administration
UCAS
Handbooks (in agreement with schools)
Bursaries
Fees
Offer letters
VLE- e-portfolio
Pathway Tutors (training, tracking)
Tracking of trainee progress
Blended online weekly training programme
QA
Arranging PGCE with additional partner
Design of overall training
Some training depending on partnership agreement
School Partner’s responsibilities
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Recruitment in terms of school interviews
Mentors and on going training (HCUK- VLE and initial half day)
Induction (HCUK- VLE and initial half day with school
Tracking trainees , pastoral support
Weekly mentor meetings
Face to face delivery of their agreed training
QA internally
So what happened…
The following are examples of tensions from providers such as ourselves but
may not have occurred in all cases
-During the design phase:
• School willingness not in doubt
• School capacity changed and dwindled in terms of running training for
subject knowledge, subject pedagogy and some aspects of professional
studies – we picked up those elements from overall design plan
• School leadership changes – large hole in leadership from school side in
some cases
• Schools need to keep recruiting and interviewing until places filled- (a
new issue for them capacity wise)
Tensions arising:
• Previous experience of ITT - Schools realised that this is not a course
where trainees are parachuted in for a placement- they have to take
responsibility for training
• Compliance and equal opportunities• Our tutors carry out rigorous half day visits and expect mentors to be
doing an expert role – (teacher educators )
• Trainees couldn’t be used as class cover
• School leaders took on additional schools and their own capacity was
reduced
• A bonus- lead mentors introduced - schools responded positively to the
issues
PGCE Partner tensions- some feedback experienced
•
Don’t always recognise that experienced school colleagues (EG SLEs) can design, plan
and deliver provide high quality training- and that the ITT partner is quite capable for
ensuring high quality by blending training from a variety of experienced professionals
(They have to for Ofsted purposes in nay case)
•
A training course will be reflective and high quality whether PGCE or not PGCE – it is
often only way the assignments are marked that is the only difference- tensions with
some HEI s as they want the courses for PGE and non PGCE to be different when high
quality pedagogical training should be just that whatever the route
•
Different ways of working – modules long and thin with School Direct programmes ;
short and wide with many HEIs and never the twain shall meet! – tensions with
assignment hand in dates that don’t always help trainees but fit with organisation for
HEI courses
Sustainability tensions
• Two ways- schools decide to go for Teaching School Status – “We can do
this on our own”. – and partnership falls apart as schools build on the
experience and knowledge provided by provider in first year.
• Schools realise they don’t have capacity or staff leave and they have NQTs
so cant take placements the following year – less capacity in a small
partnership to find new partners especially where some schools dip in an
out and across.
• Schools fail to recruit or lose trainees- budget dwindles rapidly but
outgoings stay mostly the same . This can happen part way through the
year once costs incurred
• Or
• Partnership grows from strength to strength- some good examples here
Tensions with funding
• Where do I start?
– Schools have not yet realised the costs involved with senior leadership
management in running a high quality outstanding programme – doesn't
matter if 6 or 60 or 600 trainees
– Funding reduced for lower recruitment which is often the case so budget
deficit before you start and reduces as you proceed although costs do not
– Schools working as a team to plan for subject needs in locality but then
allocated different subjects – which school then has the 1 History trainee.
NCTL allocates.
Core places outside School Direct/SCITT- placement tensions
• On the radar….. I hear that some newly formed school chains are holding
the ring for placements even though not filling them themselves - this
prevents providers using /finding placements eg in London for trainees
that are recruited.
Solutions
•
Look at the strengths in what we have and move forward (deconstruct )
•
Use existing materials to diversify to meet changing needs- SKE plus, from SKE
(confront, think …otherwise)
Flexibility to act quickly to respond to changes and anticipate market influences and
needs (think and confront)
Provide what schools and other users need- advice, support and resources
(deconstruct , confront and move forward)
Ability to blend what schools can offer with a core high quality programme overseen
by experienced Provider (think ..otherwise)
Develop bespoke programmes (within a parameter) to meet schools and ITE
provider needs (think ..otherwise)
Develop online materials for new subjects such as History and English (think
…otherwise)
Cost effectiveness- Using on line materials with some face to face is more cost
effective after initial production costs – (think …otherwise)
Senior Management team who are forward thinking and willing to invest and trust in
their Managers.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Think …otherwise.
Our outcomes•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Maintaining and improving key provision ITE in STEM subjects in a difficult
market
Building new relationships
Extending SKE materials to support other Providers and Schools - “good
subject knowledge is for everyone”
New partnerships eg SCITTs and School Direct
Experienced school colleagues share and take a lead in writing new material
to share expertise – funding shared
Worked in partnership to develop bespoke training programmes for trainees
and their NQTs
Support others with small subject cohorts or where their existing partners no
longer train those subjects through licensing model
Develop CPD material library from all of above to market
New partners and growing market for ITE as a result of all of above.
• “Perfect partners don’t exist.
• Perfect conditions exist for a limited time
in which partnerships express
themselves best.”