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 Friday 19 March 2021

Welcome, introductions and minutes of the previous meeting

Colleagues were welcomed to the meeting. The note of the meeting held on 1 December was agreed. On matters arising: it was confirmed that the UCET conference would take pace, either on-line or face to face, on 2-3 November 2021. Volunteers and suggestions in regards keynote and workshop presenters were invited. Decisions about the nature of other UCET meetings for 2021/22 would be announced soon.

Matt Varley, on the occasion of his final meeting as Chair, was thanked for his outstanding contribution to the work of the forum and the ITE sector.

Discussion

A range of issues was discussed including:

An update from JNR on issues not covered on the agenda, including the Learning & Skills White Paper and developments in Northern Ireland & Wales.

It was agreed that the topic for the next morning symposium would be the emerging teacher education landscape, including recommendations from the Market Review, the IOT, teaching school hubs and ECF delivery. Future symposia might include lessons learnt from the Covid pandemic.

Covid 19 related issues, including: the content of recent DfE guidance and feedback from forum members covering:

The likely need for flexibility in regards applicants demonstrating their degree qualifications given possible delays in the meeting of examination boards. Issues might also arise in respect of exam boards for undergraduate ITE students.

QTS assessments, drawing on discussions at the morning symposia led by Stefanie Sullivan and Jan Rowe.

Continued difficulties in securing placements for some students. Options to address these might include: delaying the beginning of placements (although this might lead to difficulties later in the year); remote engagement with schools; filming and assessing mocks by students; supporting student teachers remotely; students engaging with schools remotely; providing scope or students to demonstrate meeting the teacher standards in different contexts; student engagement in catch-up activities, including summer schools; and maintaining current plans alongside the ability to respond quickly should circumstances change.

The importance of financial support for students needing to continue with ITE into the next academic year, and the implications (e.g. legal) of students who through no fault of their own ae unable to meet the standards because of Covid disruption (e.g. schools withdrawing placement offers, or Covid bubbles bursting).

Social distancing practices within HEIs, and the difficulties of adjusting ITE programmes to reflect institution-wide Covid policies (teaming up with other practice based subject areas to make joint representations to institutional authorities was suggested as one possible solution).

New induction rules, including the new statutory induction period linked to the ECF and the confusion and concerns this was prompting amongst students, schools and teachers. The implications of the two-year induction period for Appropriate Bodies was also discussed.

Recruitment to ITE programmes, which was continuing to be strong in most subjects and phases, although the quality of some of the additional applicants was an issue. Some subjects had been hit because of bursary and SKE changes, and bursary changes had led to people applying for subjects or which they might not be best qualified. MFL had been doubly hit by bursary changes and the impact of Brexit. Fears were expressed about pre and on-programme dropouts.

Policy issues relating to the new Institute of Teaching and the DfE review of the ITE market. UCET’s strategy in relation to the IOT and market review was to continue to engage in discussions with DfE, while at the same time lobbying politicians and other influencers, drawing on the support of other organisations (including PR consultants) and publicly promoting the benefits of HEI involvement in teacher education. Key concerns in relation to the market review were a centrally defined ITE curriculum, which would prevent programmes from being contextualised and tailored to the meeting of particular needs, and the introduction of contracting arrangements which would be inconsistent with shared and flexible partnership working and might be financially unsustainable. The relationship between the new teaching school hubs, the IOT and the market review were currently uncertain. The role of TSHs in relation to ITE was not yet clear, and the complex relationships between hubs, ITE providers, ECF providers and academy chains was likely to make the apportionment of responsibilities and accountability difficult to navigate. TSHs did not, it was noted, always have the capacity to do all that was to be expected from them without the support of other organisations such as HEIs. HEIs would have to take complex decisions about how to navigate the emerging environment in respect of ECF as well as ITE, and how to work in partnership with other organisations. It was suggested that the objectives of the ECF would be better served if it was to grow organically from what particular NQTs had covered during their ITE.

Regulatory issues, where OfSTED ITE inspections were scheduled to begin in April, although that week’s announcement about the delay of school inspections until September could mean that would change. ITE inspections when they did begin were likely to include face to face components, and would almost certainly include a strong focus (as had OfSTED research visits) on CCF implementation and on student teacher perceptions of whether they have received their full CCF entitlement.

SKE, where geography had been removed as an eligible subject, and bursary support had been cut from £200 to £175 per week. There had also been a tightening of criteria to exclude those who had been awarded a degree in their chosen subject area in the previous five years (subject to some refinement allowing those on programmes that cover multiple subject areas to sometimes be eligible). Concern was expressed about the tendering process for SKE, which had led to the closure of high-quality programmes with fewer than 30 participants.

CPD issues, including the recent UCET ‘Effective CPD’ paper, which had built upon the work of the UCET Intellectual Base of Teacher Education report.

Items for information

The December UCET newsletter was noted.

Any other business

None.

Date of next meeting

Tuesday 22 June 2021, via Zoom.