A Registered Charity (No 275082)

Promoting Quality in Teacher Education

Minutes of the meeting of the School Reference Group held at 1pm on Wednesday 5 June 2019 at Friends Meeting House, Euston Road, London NW1 2BJ

Present: Christine Buckley; Dave Boothroyd; Jake Capper; Julie Greer; (Chair); Anne Drury; Beth Hartwell; Spencer Hennessey; James Noble-Rogers; & Samantha Somerfield;

Apologies: Elaine Collquhoun; Geraldine O’Grady; Jan Linsey; Nicola Lyons; Jackie Moses; Margaret Mullholland; Keith Perera; Claire Robins; Eileen Robinson; & Di Swift;

Minutes: The minutes of the meeting held on 27 February 2019 were agreed. On matters arising SRG colleagues were encouraged to attend the 5-6 November UCET conference. An update was also provided on the QTS apprenticeship.

Round table discussions

The group discussed issues relating to:

What makes an effective teacher and how does this impact on selection?

Characteristics identified included:

A reflective approach, for example reflecting on, and understanding, the reasons for any sub-par lessons, which might include the impact of school structures outside the teacher’s/student’s control (e.g. if a school only uses outsourced PE coaches, but the lesson observed is a poor PE lesson, as there is no internal structure to support planning. This can be unpicked with a reflective approach).

Resilience-the need for strategies for resilience balanced with support for mental health.

The ability to accept and learn from constructive criticism.

An understanding of the nature of schools (whether from prior school experience or elsewhere)

Empathy with children, colleagues and parents.

The mental health of salaried trainees

Points made included:

While SDS trainees can reasonably be expected to ‘hit the ground running’ at an earlier stage than fee paying students, they do nonetheless require support.

It is important that ITE providers have clear agreements with employing schools about the support that will be provided and the time that will be allowed for training and development.

Professionally Acceptable Teacher Workload (PAW), and the drafting of a paper to supplement UCET’s recent guidance on workload and lesson planning

Points made included:

The extent to which student teachers should be expected to use detailed lesson plans as opposed to adapt and develop their own approaches depend on their level of development and progress. A differentiated and contextualised approach should be adopted.

Workload could to an extent be addressed through the sequencing of work.

Schools tend to have greater scope to impact on workload than ITE providers, although what providers expect in terms of written assignments etc. can vary. Although the importance of teacher education being an academic as well as a practical process was acknowledged, some providers took a more traditional and potentially burdensome approach to assignments and assessments than others, despite making the same offer in terms of academic credit. A balance needed to be struck between academic rigor, intellectual engagement and practical considerations.

Some scope might be provided by the ECF in allowing some important master’s level work to be done during the NQT years (The TSST programme delivered in partnership with York St John was cited as an example of how this might be done).

Teachers and student teachers should be empowered to manage and control their own workload, taking account of what are, in their professional roles, non-negotiables.

Advice from ITE providers on workload is best delivered on a one to one rather than through a group process, as approaches will depend on the individuals concerned.

Student teachers should be placed in schools that best meet their needs and circumstances (e.g. in relation to childcare responsibilities).

ITE providers should build positive and communicative relationships with students, and should be willing to advocate on behalf of trainees.

Teacher educators and mentors should be properly trained in how to support student teachers in regards workload and other issues.

Further comments in relation to PAW were invited. A UCET paper on what can reasonably expected of student and new teachers in the context of their professional status (‘Professionally Acceptable Workload’ - PAW) would be welcomed by the group.

Updates

Updates were given in respect of:

Recruitment to ITE, where the picture was mixed although overall levels were on a par with the previous year.

Inspection issues, including the development of the new OfSTED ITE inspection framework that would come into effect in September 2020 following a period on consultation, a series of pilot inspections and a research programme (the methodology of which had led to some concern being expressed by UCET).

The Early Career Framework, for which tender invitations in relation to the pilot areas were expected soon. It was explained that joint contracts were likely to be issues for both curriculum development and ECF delivery. UCET had argued against the need for prescriptive curriculum materials and for accredited ITE providers to have the lead role in ECF delivery.

The establishment of a new group (including UCET) to advise ministers on ITE content in the context of the ECF.

SRG Chair and group membership

Julie Greer said that, while she was content to serve as Chair for a further year, she would also welcome other colleagues coming forward to act as either Chair or as Vice Chair. Anyone interested in either role should contact j.noble-rogers@ucet.ac.uk.

Colleagues were invited to propose additional members of the SRG. It was also agreed that colleagues from the Teaching School Council and other organisations be invited to future meetings.

Possible agenda items for next time include feedback on Accelerate programme for early career teachers from Chris and Teaching Hub test and learn.

Information will be attached about SEND in ITE paper from IOE and UCLs guidance on SEND in the Early Career Framework, for future discussion and response.

Dates of next meetings

October 2019: to be confirmed

26 February 2020

3 June 2020

Key documents:

The SEND in ITE and SEND in ECF:

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/ioe/news/2019/may/more-guidance-needed-make-strategic-special-educational-needs-professional-development-decisions

NASBTT toolkit:

https://www.nasbtt.org.uk/send-toolkit/

SEND toolkit - NASBTT Professional practice SEND expertise Support systems Focus on pupil outcomes Graduated approach Coaching approaches Synthesis pupil data/info Measurable impact interventions Mentor Evidence- based teaching CYP development (0-25 Tutor Differentiation and personalisation Areas of need Professional Tutor/ ITT Co-ordinator Feedback SK/pedagogy approaches to SEND On-going CPD for school-based leads ... www.nasbtt.org.uk