A Registered Charity (No 275082) 9-11 Endsleigh Gardens, London WC1H 0EH T: 020 7621 6836 info@ucet.ac.uk

Promoting Quality in Teacher Education

Note of the meeting of the UCET Management Forum held on-line at 1.00pm on Tuesday 1 December 2020

Welcome, introductions and minutes of the previous meeting

Colleagues were welcomed to the first meeting of the 2020/21 academic year, with a particular welcome given to those who were attending for the first time. The note of the meeting held on 23 June 2020 was agreed. On matters arising, an oral update was given about the DFE’s ‘review of the ITE market’, which had been the speculation of some media attention and a UCET blog that week.

Discussion

A range of issues was discussed including:

An update from JNR on issues not covered elsewhere on the agenda, including: HMCI’s annual report which had been published that morning; PCET student support and DET issues; the recent UCET conference; and developments in Northern Ireland and Wales.

Covid 19 related issues, including:

Relaxations made to the ITE criteria for 2020/21, including: clarification of the ‘days in school’ rules; GCSE requirements, where the relatively small number of students who had not been able to evidence meeting the standards by 30 November would have to withdraw; the imminent extension of the ‘wholly or mainly in England’ relaxation; and the temporary removal of the 2-school rule. The position on trajectory assessments, which were not currently allowed under the 2020/21 regulations, would it was noted have to be kept under review as there might be a significant number of students (particularly in science) who might not have sufficient time in school (if any) to demonstrate they are meeting the teacher standard because of placement difficulties which remained a serious issue in some regions and localities (especially for secondary students), and where rules about students returning from home in January could have an impact. The offer of DfE support on placements was reported not to have been helpful or well informed. Regional agreements between providers about placements was suggested as one possible solution.

Risk assessing student placements, in the context of schools’ own procedures, and the inevitable difference between protocols on campus and in school.

The quality assurance of ITE and placement experiences, using (subject to GDPR constraints) video technology, remote assessment etc.

The impact of Covid 19 on education research within education departments, including the results of a recent UCET survey.

Applications to ITE, which were reported to be strong across the board, although there was some concern that students might ask to defer because of placement and travel issues. The conversion of applications into acceptances would have to be monitored. Some applicants had withdrawn because of bursary reductions and anticipated SKE changes. Schools had also withdrawn from some SDS programmes because of reductions in salary grants, something about which discussions had been held with DfE. Attendance at DfE Train to teach events had been poor and did not represent an effective use of staff time. Although there was some concern expressed about the DfE taking control of postgraduate ITE applications, the new Apply system was reported to be working smoothly and might lead to better quality of data being available. At institutional level, remote interviewing and recruitment activities were working well and proving popular with applicants. There might however be safety issues relating to interviewing undergraduate applicants under the age of 18 on-line. On-line interviews were also time consuming for staff.

Regulatory issues, including the new OfSTED ITE inspection framework, the introduction of which everyone felt should be delayed to allow providers and partner schools to focus on more pressing concerns, and because any grades awarded during the pandemic would be meaningless and potentially subject to legal challenge. There was also a possibility that schools would withdraw from partnerships rather than be involved in OfSTED inspections. How inspections would take place from a logistical and risk-assessment point of view was unclear and ought to be explained in an updated version of the OfSTED handbook. DfE support in regards the CCF received mixed reports, with some finding it helpful and others burdensome. Concern was expressed about DfE’s recent advice on self-evaluation which appeared inconsistent with the reduced data requirements under the new OfSTED framework. Clarification about the status of the advice would be sought.

The ECF, for which regional pilots were underway, and tenders for national roll-out invited.

Items for information

The summer UCET newsletter and the new UCET strategy were noted.

Any other business

Suggestions for the next morning symposium included: input from school commissioners on the role of the new teaching school hubs; the review of the ITE market; and reports from regional ECF pilots.

Date of next meeting

Friday 19 March 2021

DfE has subsequently confirmed that the guidance is intended as a tool for providers to use should they wish. OfSTED has confirmed that they do not expect data in any particular format and it is entirely a matter for providers to decide the format self-evaluation documentation should take.