INTRODUCTION
1. The National Union of Teachers (NUT) welcomes the opportunity to respond to the Training and Development Agency for Schools (TDA) consultation on revisions to the requirements for Graduate Teacher Programme (GTP) providers. The NUT has commented below on each of the proposals made by the TDA, in the order that they appear in the consultation document. The NUT’s response has been informed by the findings it conducted with its GTP members in 2003[1], together with subsequent casework and support provided for GTP NUT members.
P1. Trainee teachers on the Graduate Teacher Programme should be entitled to a personalised training programme typically occupying 60 days as well as a second school teaching experience. The provider should ensure that a substantial part of the training focuses on: improving trainees’ understanding and skills in relation to subject knowledge for teaching, and developing trainees’ planning, assessment and evaluation.
2. The proposal to make a “personalised training programme” an entitlement for GTP trainees is welcome. The NUT has expressed concerns consistently about the quality of training experienced by GTP trainees and the wide variation in approaches to training by individual schools and Designated Recommending Bodies (DRBs). This proposal could be strengthened further, however, by emphasising that it a statutory requirement, rather than guidance. However experienced a GTP trainee might be, there would still be a need for a substantial element of training in the programme, tailored to their particular needs.
3. There appears to be few constraints currently on schools and DRBs in ensuring a reasonable balance between teaching and training. At both the formulation of the training plan and its subsequent implementation, there is an urgent need for a minimum entitlement to guaranteed, protected time for training for all those who undertake GTP, in the same way that NQTs have a statutory entitlement to a reduced teaching timetable.
4. The proposed indicative time allocation of 60 days for training purposes is, therefore, extremely welcome. As the consultation document notes, however, it would be more useful to refer to training time as a proportion of the length of the overall programme, that is, one third, rather than specify 60 days, to take into account the variation in the duration of the programme for individual trainees. In addition, it still leaves too much discretion to the individual school or DRB. Whilst acknowledging that the length of employment-based ITT programmes is not uniform, it would be more useful if an indication of the minimum and maximum time trainees should spend on “teaching practice”, as well as to “training” was given in the statutory requirements, in order to give providers a clear message that employment-based ITT programmes should not consist mainly of the trainee working on a full-time basis in a school.
5. This is a particularly important proposal by the TDA as there would appear to be a clear link between the progress of trainees and their teaching commitments. A substantial number of GTP trainees still currently undertake a full teaching timetable in addition to their training and it would be difficult to imagine how training plans could be adjusted to take account of that. It would be extremely problematic for all but the most experienced to take on a demanding full time teaching post whilst at the same time undertaking the necessary reading, written assignments and study specified in their training plans. In addition, despite the provision of PPA time, too many GTP trainees are suffering from excessive workload burdens because of the current lack of a guaranteed entitlement to time and professional support to meet the QTS Standards. It is essential that the current consultation exercise seeks to ameliorate this situation.
6. Consideration should also be given during the revision of the GTP requirements to the extent to which trainees should be used for cover duties per se. A number of respondents to the NUT’s research highlighted the difficulty of taking sole responsibility for classes from the start of their training, due to lack of prior experience: this lack of confidence would certainly be far greater when such trainees were faced with on-going cover duties from the first day of their training. The quality of education these trainees could provide for pupils must also be questionable, as must the quality of the learning experience for trainees.
7. The findings of the NUT’s research indicated that there is significant variation in the type, quality and organisation of training and support experienced by GTP trainees. Even those who expressed high levels of approval for most of the items in the NUT’s survey were critical of specific aspects of their training programme.
8. There would appear, for example, to be some difficulties in the initial recruitment, application and needs assessment processes, which the TDA’s proposals may go some way to address. OFSTED’s[2] findings that the moderation process for candidates’ applications was not robust, that there were poor quality assurance arrangements and that needs assessment could be “casual” were mirrored to some extent in the NUT’s study. In addition, a minority of trainees responding to the NUT’s survey believed that they had not undertaken either an official application or needs assessment. Either they were not aware of these procedures, which would indicate a need for improved information about the processes for trainees, or their schools had acted in an ad hoc way, bypassing official protocol in order to recruit the trainees to the school.
9. Similarly, there was evidence to suggest that the needs assessment process had not been effective in identifying the training needs of the respondents concerned. In either case, there would appear to be a role for the TDA and OFSTED to play in ensuring consistency of application of these initial stages which are central to the later quality and perceptions of the programme.
10. The NUT’s survey findings would support the view expressed in the consultation document that GTP trainees’ professional knowledge and understanding are not always well developed. In the survey questions which related to training needs, numerous respondents said they needed further practical training such as how to plan, assess or differentiate and subject specific content. Among a minority of correspondents there was also a need for more theoretical input such as in child development, teaching and learning styles and curriculum studies.
11. This lack of professional input was not confined to the secondary sector, as the consultation document suggests, however. The NUT’s survey findings indicated, for example, that primary GTP trainees had a good understanding of the content of the National Strategy frameworks but not of the principles or research underpinning them. The most recent OFSTED report[3] on the GTP reveals that these issues remain a concern.
12. GTP trainees are not always aware of the importance, or even existence, of gaps in their training programmes. In order to ensure that GTP trainees are professional educators, rather than “technicians” it is essential that the TDA ensures that, through these revisions, all trainees have a basic entitlement to theoretical study, which DRBs’ and schools’ current interpretation of training to meet the QTS Standards does not always include.
13. The recommended strengthening of the two-school requirement for trainees would benefit from a requirement that trainees undertook “teaching” rather than simply have “experience in” two schools. This would make it clear that trainees should be actively involved in teaching as part of the training process, rather than merely observing teaching, which has been the case for some GTP trainees in the past.
14. Although this requirement has caused difficulties for some DRBs and schools, it is essential that GTP trainees gain as broad an experience as possible of the education system and of the phase in which they will be teaching. This can only be done through exposure to different schools whilst training. Each school has its own individual ethos, ways of working and management systems and trainees need to experience these differences if they are to gain an understanding of the way that schools operate, not only to improve their own practice but also to inform their future employment choices.
15. The two school requirement is particularly important for trainees on employment-based training routes. Without the experience of working in another school, trainees may gain the impression that the methods used in their placement school are the “only” or “right” way to do things. This may hinder the development of their professional practice later in their careers.
16. The proposed use of the two school requirement as a means of clarifying the purpose of the salary grant is extremely sensible. A minority of schools have yet to appreciate that the primary purpose of the grant is to cover training costs, rather than simply cover salary costs. The introduction of the new arrangements should be monitored closely, to check that schools are using the grant for the purposes intended by the TDA.
17. It is imperative that the proposed reforms to the GTP address the current perception that there is a two-tier system of routes to QTS. The Graduate Teacher Programme’s arrangements and organisation should be subject to the same level of rigour as any other route. This is particularly important in relation to the theoretical input into training programmes, which the NUT has found to be an aspect of training which is considerably variable on GTP programmes and heavily dependent on the active involvement of HEI partners. This proposal is a welcome step towards bridging the divide between ‘mainstream’ and employment-based ITT training routes and is, therefore, to be supported.
P2. GTP trainees should have the opportunity to undertake an award-bearing course during their training.
18. As noted above, there is currently a perception that the GTP is not as rigorous or academically equivalent to other, HEI-based, ITT routes. This view is strengthened by the fact that those who have gained QTS via the GTP may not have their qualification recognised overseas, on the grounds that it lacks appropriate academic content. The NUT is aware of a number of instances where, despite supporting statements from the TDA, teachers who gained QTS via the GTP have been deemed not sufficiently qualified to teach in some states or provinces of Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the USA.
19. In order to ensure equivalency of opportunity for GTP trainees to access masters level credits, in the same way as those on more traditional ITT routes can choose to do so, it is essential that the TDA encourages and works with providers to develop award-bearing options for GTP trainees. It is equally important that the TDA and DfES explores further with the relevant authorities overseas, particularly in Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the USA, whether the proposed “higher level” qualification would satisfy their respective teaching requirements. This information should be conveyed clearly in subsequent publicity materials for potential GTP trainees, so that they are able to make an informed choice about the merits of both levels of course and the implications for their future careers.
P3. The TDA should introduce the same quality-based approach for the allocation of training places and funds as other ITT routes to help improve the quality of GTP training. This will be based on initial quality grades for each provider, derived from an OFSTED inspection.
20. The role and importance of DRBs has expanded rapidly due to the popularity of the employment-based ITT routes. DRBs now have responsibility for the administration of these programmes, including recruiting candidates in their region, assessing the training needs of candidates against the QTS Standards and designing and delivering programmes to meet those needs and ensuring that the agreed training is delivered.
21. Such responsibilities make it crucial, therefore, that the same approach to ensuring quality is taken as for other ITT routes. Each of the partners involved in DRBs, whether schools, local education authorities or ITT providers, should have a clear understanding of their own particular responsibilities for quality assurance and have a strong track record in successful ITT delivery if the GTP is to be a high quality training experience which is equivalent to other, more “traditional” ITT routes.
22. Clarification is needed on the proposed strengthening of the requirements relating to the quality of GTP provision and on how this would work in practice. Presumably, the detail of the new quality assurance mechanisms will be subject to separate consultation later in the year.
23. Clear guidance should accompany any revisions to the GTP to explain arrangements for trainees where a provider was found to be offering training of less than satisfactory quality part way through training, including where a placement school was put into special measures by OFSTED. The guidance should balance the need for training to be of good quality with the responsibility to minimise disruption to trainees. It would be unacceptable if, as a result of the new arrangements, courses were terminated abruptly and trainees left to make alternative arrangements to complete their training.
24. The proposal that employment-based provision offered by HEIs which also offer “traditional” ITT courses would be inspected and graded separately in the first instance would appear to be a sensible development. Whilst welcoming any developments which would reduce the burden on providers by bringing together the inspection arrangements for mainstream and employment-based rates as far as possible, the two routes are distinctive and have certain aspects which are not directly comparable. It should not be automatically assumed that a long-established ITT HEI provider, for example, would offer the same quality of provision for both types of training route.
25. The responsibilities of a provider offering employment-based ITT provision are not the same as those of other types of ITT provider, particularly in terms of partnership working with other organisations involved in the DRB. An assessment of the capacity of HEI lead partners to undertake such responsibilities is essential to ensure the quality of trainees’ ITT experiences.