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 ITE primary & early years forum held on-line at 1pm on Tuesday 1 March 2022

Welcome, introductions and minutes of the previous meeting

Colleagues were welcomed to the second meeting of the academic year. The note of the meeting held on 16 November 2021 was agreed. There were no matters arising not included elsewhere on the agenda.

Forum members expressed their best wishes to Des Hewitt and wished him a good recovery from his recent illness and looked forward to seeing him soon.

Discussion

A range of issues was discussed, including:

An update from JNR on non-primary related issues, including the 1-2 November UCET conference which would take place in Stratford upon Avon (for which workshop volunteers were invited), the development of a new teaching qualification for the FE and skills sector and the drafting of a new UCET Effective CPD paper.

Feedback from the morning symposium on teaching and assessments of the foundation subjects which had been led by Emily Davies from Warwick. Key points included: careful planning could help avoid repetition across subject areas; the use of cross-curricula days; close links to the CCF; the use of Moodle to supplement teaching; encouraging students to reflect on their knowledge (e.g. through the use of e-portfolios); assessment as learning; and non-core subject experiences as part of placements. Suggestions for the next morning symposium included: mental health and ITE (Laura Purser); Market Review outcomes and support adaptive teaching in school-based components of ITE; OfSTED inspections; and creative approaches to ITAP.

The ITE Market Review, where large numbers of providers were thought to have submitted applications for accreditation in round 1. The number of successful applications would depend in part on the extent to which DfE remained true to its word that the process would be ‘open transparent and equitable’, that any application meeting the Quality Requirements would be approved (with no other criteria used) and that providers referencing research with which DfE and OfSTED might not agree would not be penalised, providing CCF requirements were met. UCET would be supporting providers through stage 2 of the 1st round application process and through round 2 applications. Peer to peer support (e.g. in relation to mentor training) was to be encouraged.

Recruitment to ITE programmes to 2022/23, where applications were broadly on track with expectations, although there were some variations between undergraduate and postgraduate and provider level, and School-Direct was not performing well in some areas. EYTS recruitment was slow, although this was not unexpected at this stage in the cycle, although programmes were being closed for cost reasons. Placements continued to be an issue because of continued ECT and Covid pressures, and also the re-introduction of SATs. While school partners had been extremely supportive, the quality of some placements might not be as good as would be hoped, which could in turn have implications for OfSTED. Some providers might be unwilling to take a risk with placements because of this. Retention was increasingly an issue because of the pre-programme Covid related experiences of both UG and PG students, because some only applied o ITE as a ‘back-up’, while others had not had the opportunity for school experiences and the building up of resilience prior to applying for ITE. Some providers were addressing these issues by making sure that undergraduate students were ‘placement ready’ by giving them preparatory work and monitoring attendance before going on placement, with placements held back until later in the programme if they were not deemed sufficiently prepared.

The ITE requirements, with which providers must familiarize themselves and ensure that all programmes were compliant. The availability of support from DfE in regards to placements was noted.

Inspection issues and the challenging approach of OfSTED inspectors continuing into the current tranche of inspections. Colleagues were reminded about the UCET briefing paper on the handling of inspections, and were advised to contact UCET and others either before or during inspections for advice. Providers should make sure they have a detailed knowledge of the ITE requirements and the inspection handbook and be ready to challenge any dubious claims made about compliance issues. The knowledge and understanding of individual OfSTED inspectors was an issue, as was inconsistency of approaches taken across inspections. In preparing and managing inspections, it was suggested that providers might want to: use OfSTED terminology and language whether possible (‘sequencing’, ‘components’, ‘provider led & school-centered’ etc.); encourage mentors to give feedback through a subject-specific lens; ensure that mentors and schools have a good understanding of, and can articulate, how the CCF is addressed through the ITE curriculum and that mentors understand their role as ‘expert practitioners’. Looking at EIF videos was also suggested.

Early years issues, where the number of universities providing EY programmes is decreasing, and the NPQ for the early years was increasingly being delivered by the private sector. Recruitment and retention was problematic.

Items for information

The following items were noted:

The forthcoming call for nominations for a new Chair and Vice chair of the forum

The December UCET newsletter

Any other business

In answer to a question, it was confirmed that a mixed approach was being taken to whether or not to continue to interview ITE candidates on-line, with some returning to face to face, others interviewing exclusively on-line and others taking a mixed approach. Pros and cons with each approach were identified.

Future meetings

The next meeting would take place on Tuesday 7 June via Zoom.