Thread by @apf102

Right. Back to the ITT Market Review. What delights does Part 2 hold?

First on reorganisation it is interesting that HEIs are presumably lumped under this category of "other" desspite HEIs accounting for 75% of all training and being the most effeciently organsied already /1

Let's talk efficiency for a moment. 70 accredited (!!) HEIs already train an average of 443 trainees each. The average SCITT trains just 59. It feels like there may be an obvious instrastructure advantage to one model here... /2

This seems like a major push to TS hubs being central to ITT delivery and monitoring the design and delivery of curriculum. This is a strange choice if we are to believe that research evidence is menat to drive practice. Will schools be defacto unis? /3

Another stumbling block for HEIs. Some TS hubs are already aggressively expanding to deliver a joint ITT/ECF package. HEIs are being asked to work with TS Hubs who are currently battling them for training places, local influence etc. /4

I am already noting a world in which smaller schools and trusts who value their independence are about to be swallowed up by TS hubs who have their own teaching approaches to promote via their role in ITT as providers or supporting providers. Can't imagine that going down well /5

So the DfE think Ofsted are capable of monitoring the new system but doesn't trust their judgment on the current system. Seems bizarre....
The grounds of which accreditation could be withdrawn by the DfE will be important to see. How far will this stifle academic freedoms? /6

This suggests transition will be easy becaue ITT providers already do CCF etc. yet Part 1 suggested the lack of CCF being delivered was a reason for change.
"Market warming" sounds ominious. Have already seen how this govt do contracts! Anyone got's Gav's Whatsapp? /7

I wonder if Cambridge threatening to pull out of ITT is a sufficient risk?! /8

There's no money to extend contact time, have more intensive palcmeents, train mentors more thoroughly and ensure consistency....
It would be good to see where current providers spend their money. Vast bulk of ours goes on placements and subject specific training. /9

It's almost like the current govt have not been in charge for 11 years! Schools find it confusing because a confusing system was created in the name of markets. Schools are struggling to fund mentoring because they are already very stretched - What has DfE done since 2010? /10

This is a problem I have been bangin on about for years. But schools are asked to deal with less money, continue to perform in high stakes accountability systems, redesign their curricula to meet a new set of inspection criteria, deliver TAG/CAGs with no time or money etc. /11

One thing I agree with! Now fund it! /12

The real question which the DfE should be asking is why, despite 10 years of reforms and deliberate attempts to promote school-led training, more trusts have not taken the training of teachers on fully. My view: many are happy with their HEI partnerships. /13

I am still unclear how these things will be acheived when the vague mess which is the CCF is the required starting point for ITE curric planning. Real subject sensitivty should begin with what research reveals about teahcing that subject, not shoehorning it into a cog-sci box /14

The phrase "accepted evidnece" is intersting here when it mainly refers to Sweller et al (defintiely not "accepted") and not much else.
Ofsted demanded regualr use of TS at one point.
Good partnerships already exist and have close uni-school links. /15

And now the Framework: There are well over 200 overlapping and sometimes confusing "know that" and "know how" statements in the CCF. They don't lead to curriculum coherence and they cetrainly don't support a subject specific and subejct sensitvie ITE curriculum. /16

This is absolutely the ideal but this kind of work takes investment, time, trust, stability and a committment of schools and HEIs to work closely on course development. Easy to champion and much, much harder to do when turnover in some regions is huge /17

The fundamental model of training is so weak. Input->Practice is so far from how we know people learn to teach. There are absolutely some basics which can be taught, but so much comes from the interaction of beliefs, input and specific experiences at specific points. /18

And of course much good ITE sows seeds which will be useful in a few years. I am constantly contacted by ex-trainees who find things we did in PGCE have become clearer and v valuable 3 years down the line as their beliefs and experiences cause them to rethink their training /19

I am genuinely terrified a whole generation of trainees will be staning wagging fingers in a stern way at a virtual class, or reciting scripts as a cohort to get students safely into a room en masse. "In Loehne, Umsteigen!" /20

On a side note, doesn't "intensive practice" fly in the face of the cog sci view about spacing and interleaving? /21

I don't mind much of this but it looks expensive. It's also a lot of taught time for a course which is supposed to promote deliberate practice and reflection. We tend to build from 6hrs contact (teach/coteach) to 12-15 over the course /22

And ironically there is no minimum entitlement to subject specific traning and input. For all the talk of the importanc eof subject it doesn't even get a mention in the time planning, either for trainees or mentors. Tells you everything really... Fin. /23