UCET’s response to the current consultation on the new ITE inspection framework

17 March 2020

Dear Amanda

UCET RESPONSE TO ITE INSPECTION FRAMEWORK CONSULTATION

I have pleasure in attaching UCET’s formal response to the consultation on the new ITE inspection framework. I hope that you will agree that our response is balanced and fair, identifying both positive and potentially negative aspects of the proposed new framework.

We thought that it would be helpful if we were to preface our response with some issues of principle. UCET believes that teacher education programmes should equip all new teachers to be:

• Competent and confident professionals who recognise and understand that educating is a professional, thoughtful and intellectual endeavour. They learn from research, direct experience, their peers and other sources of knowledge.
• Epistemic agents, who act as independent thinkers, recognising that knowledge, policy and practice are contestable, provisional and contingent. As such, teachers search for theories and research that can underpin, challenge or illuminate their practice. They are able to analyse and interrogate evidence and arguments, drawing critically and self-critically from a wide range of evidence to make informed decisions in the course of their practice.
• Able to engage in enquiry-rich practice and have a predisposition to be continually intellectually curious about their work with the capacity to be innovative, creative and receptive to new ideas emerging from their individual or collaborative practitioner enquiries.
• Responsible professionals who embody high standards of professional ethics. They act with integrity and recognise the social responsibilities of education, working towards a socially just and sustainable world.

An ITE inspection framework should facilitate teacher education providers to deliver these outcomes. We are concerned however that the new framework could act against this in some areas. For example, we agree that student teachers should have an entitlement to minimum core content. In respect of the Core Content Framework however it was always the intention of the Advisory Group (of which I was a member) that providers should be encouraged to engage with it in a way that allows them and their student teachers to critique the underpinning research and assumptions. To do this they need to draw on the wealth of expertise that exists within, for example, the university component of partnerships. Student teachers must be able to understand the ‘why’ as well as the ‘how’. However, an interpretation of the draft inspection framework could lead to OfSTED inspectors expecting programmes to cover possibly contentious issues within the CCF in an uncritical and inflexible way, and indeed accept them as a ‘given’. This is not helped by references in the draft OfSTED framework to the list of research that has informed the ITE content framework (for example, in the grade descriptor on page 40), and which is not part of the framework, which could be taken to imply that the research itself should be embedded in programmes. ITE providers must have the freedom to interpret, apply, sequence and add to the content framework in a way that is consistent with their contexts, values and principles, and with the welcome statement in the draft inspection framework that radically different approaches to the curriculum are to be encouraged.

Similar concerns arise in respect to references to the teaching of early reading. Systematic synthetic phonics has, partly thanks to organisations such as UCET, been successfully embedded within ITE and its value is almost universally accepted. But the proscription of references to alternative ways of teaching early reading, even in cases in which SSP might not on its own be sufficient, is a cause for concern as it undermines the academic freedom and integrity of ITE providers and will prevent student teachers from learning about approaches to reading that might be helpful to them. The references to SSP in the grade descriptor for ‘good’ on page 39 and, even more so, for ‘inadequate’ on page 44 in particular need to be changed.

The expectations in the inspection framework relating to the structure and organisation of partnerships are problematic, particularly for providers operating at scale whose continued ability to be judged ‘good’ or ‘outstanding’ should not be structurally undermined given the significant contribution they make to teacher supply. While consistent sequencing of ITE curricula and shared understandings across all subject areas may be achievable and desirable in some cases, it will not be possible for providers working with a significantly large number of schools, who themselves might be working with a number of accredited ITE providers. It will clearly be problematic for two or more providers to ensure consistency of each of their programmes within the same school setting. The expectation is conceptually flawed. It is also inconsistent with the government’s intention that schools have influence over the content and delivery of ITE programmes, given that different schools within the same partnership might have different expectations and priorities. This is another reason why expectations that there should not be a ‘cigarette paper’ of difference between school and centre based ITE is logically unsound. The level of engagement of schools within partnerships also, for good reason, varies and care will have to be taken to ensure that expectations on schools, including those in respect of mentoring and the new Early Career Framework, are not pitched so high as to tempt them to withdraw from ITE, adding to the already challenging placement difficulties providers face and potentially impacting on teacher supply. ITE partnerships are dynamic, often in a state of flux, and programmes are tailored to meet particular needs and contexts. A ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach to their structure and organisation would not be appropriate. Account must also be taken of the fact that accredited providers are not in a position to require partner schools and colleges to deliver lessons in a particular way or in a particular sequence. While no provider will knowingly place a student teacher in a setting that would give them a negative experience and threaten their continuation in the profession, the quality of experience will inevitably vary across partnerships, and removing schools from partnerships will inevitably mean a reduction in the number of student teachers a provider is able to recruit. This problem could of course be overcome in part if the inspection framework for both schools and colleges included an expectation that they participate in training and educating the next generation of teachers.

On another note, much of the language is very primary and secondary focussed, with post-compulsory and EYITT sometimes appearing to be added as an afterthought. It would be helpful if it were made clear the extent to which references to ‘schools’, ‘pupils’ etc. apply to non-primary and secondary settings. References to the ITE content framework could, in places, be taken to imply that it covers non-QTS programmes, which it clearly does not.

We do welcome aspects of the new framework and hope that you will take our comments as a whole. For example: the one-stage model; the focus on ‘quality of education and training’; flexibility in regards to assessment and lesson planning; the ‘no grading of lesson observations’; the focus on ‘reflective educationally focussed discussions’ and, as previously mentioned, the confirmation that radically different approaches to the ITE curriculum are allowed. But, as stated, we are worried that aspects of the framework, as drafted, could prevent this.

We would, finally, ask that in the light of the current Corona crisis that ITE providers be given more time to prepare for the introduction of the new framework. Their focus at the moment is on the well-being of student teachers and ensuring that schools have the teachers they need next year. The introduction of the new framework should be delayed until September 2021 the earliest.

Yours sincerely,

James Noble-Rogers

Executive Director

DRAFT ITE INSPECTION FRAMEWORK: DETAILED UCET COMMENTS

To be read in conjunction with covering letter dated 17 March 2020

ITE core content framework (multiple references)

Although it is acknowledged by the DfE and the advisory group that providers are encouraged to ‘go beyond’ the Core Content Framework to enable wider research-informed knowledge to underpin ITE, the extensive reference to complying with ITT Core Content indicates that it is this content that is to dominate future inspections and is viewed as impacting most on the learning and development of teachers. Secondary subject pedagogies and primary specialist pedagogies are crucial to effective student teacher development but are in danger of being ‘squeezed’ for space in curriculum design and awarded secondary importance. They are not of secondary or subsidiary importance – they are part of the strength of the university’s role in partnership provision, particularly in increasing research-informed teaching that is genuinely critically engaged with a wide range of e