Thread by @apf102

A few things to take issue with @StuartLock (and choosing to ignore the use of "histrionics")
1) On what metric is ITT quality too low, or curriculum poor? What would be an acceptable measure of quality + what % of the sector should be meeting this? Recent inspections are v pos

2) Heresy normally involves challenging an orthodoxy. The orthodoxy in the DfE has been that ITT is poor ever since Michael Gove took on the role of Secretary of State. This is also the orthodoxy of a vocal portion of Twitter.

3) Let's unpick the issues with the suggestions beyond the evidnece base:
a) ITT should indeed have evidence-led curricula but following the CCF (a static document) takes us away from that. You cannot follow an explicit plan AND be led by unfolding evidnece.

b) There is no costing model for the subject specific mentor training.
c) There is no sense of how 'lead mentors' will be subject specialists nor how NPQs will support development of subject communities and therefore the authority of such mentors.

c) cont... there is no clear model for the use of 'lead mentors', no studies to show their efficacy. They appear to be lifted from the Teach First approach.
d) It is not clear how the 38 weeks will be funded or what difference those extra 4 weeks on most courses will make.

d) cont... Despite now asking for 38 weeks there is no clear steer on how much subejct/phase input trainees shoudl get as an entitlement. This varies massively across the sector from 40 days to 5 (or fewer).

e) There is no clear sense of what impact the 'intensive placement' will have - the studies it is based on - how it might be used - nor how students would be protected from the potential risks of being guinnea pigs for behavioural training or similar.

e) cont.. the 'intensive placement' seems to run againts established models of training which show how input->practise approaches do not lead to meaningful changes in teacher behaviour or feelings of efficacy.

e) cont... the intensive placment element would be again expensive to run and difficult to put in place without having ITT lead providers as schools only. This therefore pushes HEIs to the side.

It is perfectly possible to believe in the need for systemic improvements without a full reaccreditation process. Ofsted recently found schools' curricular thinking is weak. Are we therefore scrapping all Outstanding grades? Are we asking all academies to reapply for status?

Linking sensible discussion and caution to being an "enemy of progress" is a trope so sadly familiar. If you've lost the argument on evidence, then portray those with legitimate concerns as wedded to the past, or defending the indefensible.

The consultation runs to 23 pages of utterly inane questions. The time required to respond will be too much for most individuals - hence institutional responses being necessary. It is notable that one of the report's four expert authors has also been sounding notes of caution.

On the issue of how people have managed to read a report so quickly: I am sure @StuartLock will know that with plenty of practise we can all improve our reading speed, especially when the report poses a direct existential threat to the sector and is release before the holidays

This report is another squandered opportunity for the DfE to engage proprtly with the sector, research the issues fully, and set out menaingful plans for reform. This article does little to support meaningful dialogue.