A WORLD-CLASS EDUCATION SYSTEM NEEDS A WORLD-CLASS
TEACHING FORCE
Chris Waterman, education policy commentator and Chair of the Supply and
Teacher Training Advisory Group
Within days of the General Election, the Department for Children, Schools and
Families (DCSF) had been re-branded as the Department for Education (DfE).
In less than a month, the Academies Bill had started its progress through the
Lords and just two months later, on 27 July 2010, the Academies Act received
Royal Assent. The speed and determination with which this major piece of
legislation was driven through Parliament was an indication of how determined
the Secretary of State was to reform the education system.
The rest, or at least the last four years, is history, as indeed is Michael Gove’s
period of office as Secretary of State for Education. Raising the bar on school
inspections, the new national curriculum and changes to the examination system
have also dominated the media debate about education.
Less prominent, but equally important, are the changes that have been made to
the training of teachers. The focus on the structure of schools and trying to drive
up standards in schools, which the public understands, has masked the equally
radical changes to the pattern of teacher training.
The abolition of the General Teaching Council and the merger of the Training
Agency and the National College for School Leadership into the National College
for Teaching and Leadership (NCTL), as an executive agency of the DfE, gave
the Secretary of State almost total control of teacher training.
Unsympathetic to the education establishment, the Government introduced
School Direct, which could account for one third of training places for graduates
starting training in September 2014. At the same time, the Government gave
academies the freedom to appoint teachers without a teaching qualification.
There is now a wide variety of routes into teaching, with Teach First and Troops
to Teachers adding to the traditional routes, but with little overall planning of what
is now the teacher supply “market”.
In the absence of a forum for debating the key issues around the supply and
training of teachers, Professor John Howson and I published a pamphlet: The
Future of Teacher Education in England: Developing a Strategy. This led to the
establishment of the Supply and Training of Teachers Advisory Group (SATTAG),
which brings together providers of teacher training, professional associations,
schools and subject associations.
There is a consensus that, with the fragmentation of both the school system and
teacher supply, we need to establish a planning mechanism to ensure that there
is an adequate supply of appropriately qualified and trained teachers.
The intended and unintended consequences of the changes to teacher training
include:





The withdrawal of some universities from teacher training, which will have
a knock-on effect on the CPD and research opportunities for teachers
later in their careers;
The “localisation” of teacher training, resulting from School Direct
partnerships recruiting to meet local needs;
An over-allocation of training places by the National College, which could
mean that in some subjects there will not be enough teaching posts for
those completing courses;
Continuing shortages in key subjects, particularly maths and sciences;
and
Continuing problems in attracting the highest quality teachers to the most
challenging schools (an issue highlighted by the Education Select
Committee and Ofsted.
In his evidence to the Carter Review, Professor John Howson makes the
following recommendations:
Recommendation 1: The Government should to ensure that only candidates
with the highest qualifications and personal attributes to become a successful
teacher should be allowed to train.
However, the Government also has a duty to ensure a sufficient supply of
qualified teachers to meet the anticipated demand. It should publish an annual
plan after consultation with interested parties.
Resolving that dilemma is the most important policy objective, and the reason
why a comprehensive approach to teacher preparation on a national basis is
essential.
Recommendation 2: The Government should look closely at the supply for both
individual secondary subject areas, and primary teaching, to inform monitoring
and identify any areas for potential action.
Recommendation 3: The granting of QTS should be limited in scope, to a
particular sector, and within the secondary sector to a particular subject area. Retraining opportunities should be available to those wishing to switch sectors or
subjects. For those who leave teaching, QTS should not be allowed to continue
indefinitely without a programme of professional development.
Recommendation 4: Schools should only be allowed to employ teachers without
the correct QTS for limited periods of time, to allow them time to study for recertification. If the school wishes them to continue to teach the subject then the
school should bear the cost of the teacher obtaining re-certification.
Recommendation 5: The Government should recognise that different routes into
teaching have different costs, and take this fact into account when deciding on
how to allocate places between different training routes. The Government may
need to consider more bursaries for primary ITE, to encourage sufficient supply in
London.
Recommendation 6: The Government should investigate the use of quotas by
subject area for training routes preparing teachers for the primary sector, to allow
for the development of subject and Key Stage leaders with appropriate subject
knowledge and expertise.
Recommendation 7: The Government should make clear the professional
development requirements expected of teachers at different stages of their
careers. Funding for professional development should be ring-fenced and
allocated through an independent body that can take account of the needs of the
school sector as a whole as well as that of individuals and of schools.
Recommendation 8: The government should establish a College of Teachers
with a Royal Charter to oversee training and professional development plans and
to monitor the demands for new teachers. Although a challenging role, this body
should work with the teacher associations, with government through bodies such
as the NCSL and Ofsted, and with those learned societies and other interested
bodies that oversee specific bodies of knowledge, as well as the wider higher
education community. As teaching is a profession it is important that it has a body
that can relate to all these groups in an independent way that allows
transferability of qualifications between sectors and across the world and
facilitates the development of best practice in teaching.
A good starting place would be for the DfE to set up an official advisory group,
involving all those with an interest and a stake in ensuring that we really do have
a world class teaching force.
Guest articles reflect the views of the author and do not necessarily reflect
NUT policy.