Thread by @CamEdFac

1/ The Government #ITTMarketReview will leave @Cambridge_Uni with little choice but to pull out of teacher training. Our full response to the Govt consultation is online here: educ.cam.ac.uk/news/itt-marke…

Colleagues @OxfordDeptofEd have published theirs here: education.ox.ac.uk/initial-teache…

@Cambridge_Uni @OxfordDeptofEd 2/ These aren't just the views of two universities. Deep concerns have been voiced across the sector. Eg:

@CharteredColl
chartered.college/wp-content/upl…

@ASCL_UK
ascl.org.uk/ASCL/media/ASC…

@UCET_UK
ucet.ac.uk/downloads/1325…

...and many others.

3/ @whazell reports further in today's @theipaper: inews.co.uk/news/education…

Short thread summarising key points in our response follows. You can also read a summary here: educ.cam.ac.uk/news/downloads…

4/ Key points: @Cambridge_Uni fully supports the objective of promoting consistently high-quality teacher training, but we are deeply concerned that the proposals would require us to adopt a model in which high standards could no longer be guaranteed.

5/ Why? First, the #ITTMarketReview offers a distinct lack of evidence for the perceived 'challenges' to effective teacher education it describes. This may be connected to the limited engagement undertaken with long-standing university or school-based providers.

6/ Proposals set out the equivalent of a national curriculum for teacher training. Authors have called this a 'myth'. They are, however, prescribing what/how/when trainees should be taught, mentor training, trainee assessment & 'quality' measures. Draw your own conclusions.

7/ Proposed intensive placements will undermine the individualised training available at present. Underlying assumption appears to be that teaching is merely a set of skills, and everyone should concentrate on the same skills, regardless of experience/subject/phase.

8/ Proposed increase to the length of the course (while reducing University-based sessions) will be hugely challenging for many partnership schools, while obstructing the ambitious curriculum we currently provide.

9/ Requirement for mentors to be educated against a restricted, partial evidence base will compromise standards. Training for mentors will effectively be poorer than the bespoke programmes many institutions already provide.

10/ Providers described as 'outstanding' across multiple inspections will now be asked to go through reaccreditation in line with so-called 'quality assurance' requirements. This seems unnecessary, & likely to detract from focus on post-pandemic learning recovery.

11/ Even if providers like us agreed with the proposed measures (keen observers may have noticed we don't), ironically, the short timetable envisaged for implementation would preclude us from adopting them anyway.

12/ We have called on Govt to halt the review and work w/colleagues across the sector, HE and school-based, to establish where real challenges exist and how we really can guarantee all trainees high-quality teacher education. We would be happy to participate in this if useful.

13/ Bottom line: These are flawed proposals that would likely lower standards. We cannot in all conscience envisage continued involvement with ITT if they are implemented.

14/ If you would like to respond to the Govt consultation, please do; there are 4 days left to do so. You can also write to your MP. Info here: educ.cam.ac.uk/news/itt-marke…

Or use these handy @TeachBest_ / @ucu templates:
teachbest.education/get-involved/
ucu.org.uk/write-MP-ITE

#TeachBest

"The proposals risk extensive and damaging disruption to the ITE system, putting the quality and supply of provision at risk and eroding capacity for improvement."

@IOE_London have also just published their full response to the #ITTMarketReview.

ucl.ac.uk/ioe/news/2021/…