Presentation on theme: "Developing people, improving young lives NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED School/University Partnerships: Beyond Outstanding? UCET Conference 3/4 November 2011."— Presentation transcript:
developing people, improving young lives NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED School/University Partnerships: Beyond Outstanding? UCET Conference 3/4 November 2011
NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED The Context Last Autumns White Paper This Summers Green Paper The new Ofsted Framework for Initial Training The imminent Implementation Plan The 2012/13 Targets and Allocations
NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED What is the Implementation Plan likely to cover? Quality Systems Teacher Standards Application System Skills Tests Pre-Entry Bursaries Priority Subjects Specialist Primary Teachers SSP, behaviour etc Timing of Targets/Allocations Regulation & Accreditation Quality Programmes Mainstream Teach First GTP SCITT School Direct Troops to Teachers University Training Schools
NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED i. What are likely to be the drivers of future school/University partnerships in initial teacher training?
NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED Is this a fair summary of the likely drivers? Trainees to have more access to outstanding schools and outstanding teachers? More schools to have the key say on who gets recruited and who does the training? More schools to be approved as trainers in their own right? DfE funding likely to be restricted to the very best entrants in the subjects with the greatest need? More pressure on providers to improve quality still further, or lose training places?
NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED ii. What is the best way of regulating future partnerships in initial teacher training?
NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED What are the key things we want to get out of regulation? Greater stability and certainty? All ITT to be supported and quality-assured by a top-quality University? More room for the best training departments and for those with a strong research base? More focus on what schools need to do to be outstanding partners?
NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED Do we know what we want to regulate? And how? The Whats? Schools Universities Consortia Partnerships Trainers Those conferring QTS The Hows? Accreditation Licensing Allocations Funding Inspection
NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED Is it time to move on from accreditation as a model? How well does it ensure that schools play their full part in partnerships? How well can it cope with the emerging models of school-based training, which start from an assessment by schools of their own supply needs? How well do the accreditation arrangements mesh with the systems for allocating places to providers? How well does it cope with geographical needs? How good a guide does it offer potential students, as they exercise their consumer choices in the new fee-based system? How well could it cope with any consolidation in the provider world? BUT what could replace it? Would that be worse?
NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED iii. How do we attract more high potential candidates into teaching?
NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED Recruitment has been promising, but there are some potential icebergs 2011-12 has been a good recruitment year, and the best ever for physics and chemistry There is clear evidence that the Secretary of States aspirations for teaching to be a top profession have reached the public But it is hard to predict the impact of … – Future revival of the economy – Changes in funding arrangements – Adverse media claims that there is over-training/not enough jobs for NQTs.
NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED We need to keep a clear focus on what attracts people into the top professions The status the profession has in the eyes of the public The opportunity for career progression The chance to have a wider influence The opportunity for personal renown The likely financial rewards, especially for those with seniority
NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED The routes to the top in other great professions all look something like this: Medicine Medical Degree Foundation Doctor Speciality Registrar Consultant Law Law degree Student Barrister Pupillage Junior Barrister Queens Counsel
NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED We have been very successful in creating for teachers a strong path to senior leadership and management roles, through the superb work of the National College… …We have not yet created for teachers a path to the top for our leading practitioners, equivalent to being a Silk or a Surgeon.
NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED But Singapore has gone even further than that:
NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED If we could create a path for our leading practitioners, we would go a long way to realising … Significant new opportunities for career progression, within schools and through joint appointments with Universities Increased chances to have a wider influence, eg through research undertaken in a subject specialism and its pedagogy Greater opportunity for personal renown, eg by being a nationally and internationally renowned academic/consultant teacher Better financial rewards, for the minority who achieve the pinnacle of the profession. Thereby improving the status of teaching in the eyes of the public.
NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED We would also give effect to Michael Goves aspiration for teachers to be seen alongside University academics as the intellectual guardians of the nation. Making progress on this ambition will require a fundamental rethink of what we mean by school/university partnerships.
NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED iv. How will we know we have gone beyond outstanding?
NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED A provisional list …? Schools would find it hard to achieve an outstanding Ofsted rating unless they made a strong contribution to partnerships? The best Universities would help the teaching profession conspicuously own the responsibility for training the next generation of teachers? Partnership would cover the spectrum of ITT and CPD, notwithstanding the different funding arrangements Joint staff appointments by outstanding schools and Universities, in teaching and research, would be commonplace? The best schools and teachers would continually be learning from the best universities and academics, and vice versa? The best providers would offer training in parts of the country where performance was less strong?