TEAG response to the ITT Market Review (September 2021)
The Teacher Education Advisory Group (TEAG) is a jointly organised group by Universities UK and GuildHE representing the views of higher education providers of initial teacher education. Universities UK represents more than 140 universities across the UK and GuildHE represents more than 50 universities and colleges. This consultation response draws on discussions at several TEAG meetings, including with the ITT Review Chair, Ian Bauckham, comments from members on a number of drafts of the consultation as well as drawing on consultation responses from a number of individual institutions.
The following is a summary of points. The full response is attached below.
In our consultation response we cover a wide number of areas that should be read in detail, but we wanted to highlight a few key points:
- Reforms should meet three key tests. That they improve the quality of newly qualified teachers; that we maintain and enhance a strong pipeline of teachers into the profession; and that have we ensured the most effective use of resources so that as much funding as possible is going into the student learning experience and isn't being wasted on unnecessary administration.
- Reforms must be evidence-based, and where a robust evidence-base doesn’t exist then reforms should be modelled, piloted and evaluated before being implemented
- Reforms must be implemented well and not just quickly, in practice this means for new students starting in September 2024 at the earliest, to be properly tested and meet various CMA compliance, internal and external quality assurance processes
- Re-accreditation, if deemed absolutely necessary by DfE, should be risk-based to minimise burden and cost on high quality providers. At a time of other major education reforms, and building back from the pandemic, now is not the time to be diverting key resources to processes that do not directly enhance the student learning experience and risk destabilising teacher supply
- Curriculum should be evidence-based and within a broad framework, but not so inflexible that it does not allow tailoring to the needs of individual trainees and different contexts