Thread by @apf102

A few years back I surveyed 253 people on experiences of ITE. Here's what I found:
1) Quality of training was seen to generally be good or better and improved after a dip in the 2000s
2) Secondary teachers (213) were even more positive about their training (not in all routes)

These findings seem to challegne much of the discourse in the recent ITT Market Review Report, and a good deal of the discussion I have seen flying about today. But there is more...

3) Subejct input is identified as key in the ITT Report. Quality of subject specific input seems to decline over time
4) Yet to unpack, subejct specifc was still strong in HEIs followed by SD-uni partnerships
5) Still true when controlling for recent trainees

6) Recent HEI/SD-Uni trainees were more likely to rate input on the science of learning/DI as good or better.
7) The general picture of exposure to science of learning seems to have shown a recovery over time from a dip in the early 2000s.

8) Encoruagement to engage critically with methods and research was noted as important in the ITT Report. Once again this sample showed stronger engagement in HEIs and SD-uni partnerships than other routes. This critical engagement keeps evidnece based teaching alive.

9) HEI and SD-Uni partnership were also more likely to recognise multiple valid approaches to teaching. This is crucial for a flexible worksforce who are not just trained to meet the demands of their placement school. We have seen how single school practices can be problematic.

What am I trying to show here? Mainly that the ITT Report's identification of HEIs as the root of all evil is utterly misjudged. There is good and bad practice in all ITE but much of what we value can be found in HEIs and HEI-SD partnerships.