Thread by @apf102

So today I read an @Ofstednews report on an ITE partnership which has been judged inadequate. The more I think about it the more annoyed I get. Frustrated at the approach of inspectors. Angry the shortcomings of the CCF/ECF and #ITTMarketReview. Let me explain… 1

I am not disputing the judgment - for which I don’t have the evidence, but the phrasing raises some serious concerns about the thought processes of (often non-ITE specialist) inspectors and their interps of the CCF/ECF. I would have the same concerns had the outcome been good. 2

Let’s take this eg. The implication here is that once trainees have been “taught” something, they should then be expected to apply it in school. This is a very impoverished understanding of trainees and the ways in which they learn - a liner learn->do model 3

Learning models eg. Clarke and Hollingsworth (or any number of others) suggest that professional learning involves a complex and non linear interplay of beliefs, practice and external input. Just because it is taught doesn’t mean it is accepted. This nuance is absent entirely. 4

Of course the CCF/ECF exacerbate this problem with their huge lists of “learn that” & “learn how to” statements which reinforce a simplistic model.

Yet even the proponents of DI accept that social and personal aspects of learning matter a great deal to knwldge / schema devmt 5

Again the report suggests training is a simple learn->do transaction.

Equally outright rejection of pragmatism is a problem. Proper experimentation with a “pragmatic” solution is potentially valid if it involves sound professional reflection. 6

Trainees occupy tricky and often liminal spaces in schools. They are not always at liberty to dictate the approaches they want to use. They have to navigate b/w uni, mentor, host teacher, class and context. The pragmatic can free up time to reflect and improve. 7

In all honesty it can take several years for some ideas from training to sink in and be accepted. That happens when trainees embed themselves in communities of practice and continue learning - not by being told to comply with a set of “learn that” statements. 8

And sometimes trainees will just hold different purposes and priorities central to their teaching . There is no single best way to teach. There are better and worse ways to deliver particular things, but no monopoly on the purposes of education (thank God) 9

Ofsted also complain that key ideas are not revisited or don’t link well with school. This feels vague. Choosing when to introduce significance in history PGCE for eg can be a bit of a crap shoot. Every school curriculum is different in content and timing 10

Choosing a time to introduce significance so that everyone then gets a chance to “apply”
that “learning” in school the following week would be impossible without direct control of the curricula of dozens of schools. There cannot always be a learn->do cycle as suggested. 11

The language is also unhelpful. What exactly would effective sequencing look like. I’d put safe money on the fact that 95% of inspectors would not be able to suggest a more appropriate alternative. I suspect there are magic words which are or are not being said. 12

Ofsted also suggest that part of the problem lies with mentors who are not supportive or not knowledgeable about university approaches. The uni is blamed here for not sharing the curriculum and checking compliance. OK, let’s unpick that too… 13

Anyone working in ITE knows mentor teams are extremely important but also v fragile. Mentors knowing the course well takes time and dedication. It is v hard to create coherence where mentors change constantly, work with multiple providers, or schools shift in and out of pship. 14

And this is before we deal with the issues of mentor time - both for mentoring and release for training. This is partly addressed in the ECF but is left unaddressed in ITE where it is the provider’s sole responsibility. No time and money? Expect mentoring to suffer. 15

Had the #ITTMarketReview wanted to be of any use it might productively have investigated issues of mentoring and resourcing. Here’s 8 qus which cld have been asked of sch/ment/ITE

1) How are mentors prepared for roles?
2) How much time are mentors given for their roles? 16

3) Are mentors invited or do they get press ganged?
4) How does the university fund and invest in mentoring?
5) How do schools choose partners to work with?
6) Are mentors expected to attend training?
7) How long do mentors stay in post?
8) How stable are school-ITE parnshps? 17

If we had some wide scale response to even some of these questions we might have a far better idea of the challenges faced by schools, ITE and mentors but also of means to begin to solve such issues. We don’t, but Ofsted continue to suggest these unknowns are solvable. 18

Just like the school framework, the new ITE framework focuses on curriculum. But, as Michael Young (one of the key drivers behind the move to this focus) has noted in schools, the curriculum approach is failing not from lack of thinking but lack of investment. 19

I am not defending poor quality ITE. What I am saying is that some of these lines of enquiry and comments get us no closer to establishing whether or not the ITE is in fact good quality. Worse, they risk simplistic responses from ITE sector looking to secure futures 20

We have a perfect storm approaching in ITE. A substandard content framework, a poorly resourced and narrowly focused inspectorate, and a market review providing solutions to problems it hasn’t bothered to research. This needs to change: urgently! 21 @nadhimzahawi @UCET_UK