Thread by @apf102

Stuck waiting on a wakeful baby so time to read the ITT Review. Immediate flaws in premise. First that CCF is hardly ambitious when compared to most decent ITE programmes and is narrow and not subject specific. Second that ITE already needs to show they have met demands of CCF /1

The reason that we have an inefficient ITE market is largely down to the DfE deciding to widen the pool of providers hugely. Surely the survival of multiple providers supports free market principles which were supposed to drive this reform. Now DfE wants central control again /2

I am assuming this is the DfE admitting it’s own accreditation is inadequate and has been for the last 10 years? If not then we already have a system of accreditation and Ofsted check the aspects listed here. Does the DfE have no faith in the inspectorate? /3

It is remarkable that the DfE suddenly think ITE is so important when all mentions of this have been absent in the reform of schools over the last decade. Nothing has been done to ensure schools are funded to invest in ITE - it is reliant on goodwill /4

Ironic that the aim is to have better subject/phase delivery and yet tie the whole project to delivering the CCF which is an entirely generic document /5

There is absence of discussions of funding here. Many mentors are asked to do their role with no extra time or money. Many would love to be more involved in delivery of the ITE curriculum but would struggle for time. Good ITE shapes a role mentors can fulfil. /6

It is deeply unclear how the review solves the problem of variance across training schools. Even if there were one national provider, there would still be a need to place in diverse settings. The importance of mentors and placements is well known but under supported centrally /7

Read: DfE really fucked up teacher training and made applying too complex. I wrote about this in 2015 andallthat.co.uk/blog/the-execu… and again in 2018 andallthat.co.uk/blog/sluggish-… /8

It is a contradiction to ask for training to be evidence based and then for it to slavishly follow a content framework which has already received a good deal of criticism . Notwithstanding this, ITE providers already have to demonstrate they do this so what’s new? /9

I honestly don’t have the energy to get into the limitations of this model of “know -> do” but it fundamentally misunderstands the complex processes at play during training and treats trainees like blank hard drives to be filled with knowledge and routines /10

What much research does tell us is that real learning in ITE needs careful sequencing but it also needs to engage with trainee beliefs, external sources, purposes, observed impacts etc. It is a web of interrelated actions and reactions eg. Clarke and Hollingsworth /11

It will be tricky to imbue a critical stance towards evidence when the goal of the ECF is to “know and do”. The framing undermines critical, reflective practice. Even framing this as cognitive science ignores that much is cognitive PSYCHOLOGY - the mind not the brain. /12

And let’s consider something like CLT. Which version should trainees learn? The “direct instruction - memory” model which the DfE favour? Or the revised theory which now suggests pupil motivation is a core facet of cognitive engagement? /13

Now we have the genericism of the CCF driving subject practices which have been developed and debated over a hundred years (or often much more). This is the epitome of non-evidence informed practice as it ignores the actual evidence generated by those subject communities /14

ITE programmes already have to do all of these things. If they are not then there is a presumably a big issue with accreditation or inspection. Or the quality of teachers is sub par? In which case why has the DfE abolished groups like the GTC? /15

Ok. Genuinely confused here. Is the suggestion to do less in front of classes and have much shorter bursts of intense “practise”? A very unusual step. How would trainees develop the relationships to enact effective behaviour management for eg? /16

Has anyone considered the impact on pupils of having a bunch of teachers descend to practise their “track the teacher” or “right is right” techniques on them? It is one thing to train with a class, another for the class to become Guinea pigs /17

This sounds suspiciously like the Teach First approach where TF reps set focuses each week and trainees and their school mentors politely pretend to do them whilst actually focusing on the priorities of the classes they are actually teaching /18

Right, going to have to stop now. Clear that the DfE are aiming to remove HEIs from training as far as they can and go for a model of content delivery as centrally defined. Or the exact opposite of their academies approach! The reminder of the plan is a mess. More tomorrow.