Quality criteria for Geography Initial Teacher Education Charles Rawding & Andrea Tapsfield: on behalf of the GA Teacher Education Special Interest Group

Background to the development of the criteria: The increase in school-based provision and new geography ITE providers. GA concerns about the rise of generic training rather than subject specific training Under-recruitment of sufficient numbers of geography specialist teachers

The work of TESIG since 2010: the mentoring section of the GA website.

As a response to teacher recruitment and quality issues in geography ITE

Executive summary: some key elements (1) The development of subject knowledge and subject-specific pedagogy is an important element of effective ITE training; however, the evidence in geography ITE is that the amount of subject-specialist input is very variable. Some school- led partnerships rely heavily on generic training because they have not secured the expertise of an ITE geography leader. The emergence of several hundred new geography ITE providers has brought new schools into the system. This expansion has also reduced average geography cohort size, with the result that geographers in small cohorts are more likely to be trained generically. Extreme fragmentation – the single trainee model – limits opportunities for trainee geography teachers to work together and learn from one another.

Executive summary: some key elements (2) Ofsted no longer reports on geography, in either ITE providers or schools, so inspection evidence for quality subject provision is unavailable and it is difficult for new providers to make decisions about school placements based on objective evidence of teaching excellence or mentoring capacity in geography. Key aspects of the geography ITE system depend on the subject and pedagogical knowledge and skills of school-based mentors. The expansion of school-led routes places additional demands on subject mentors, especially where there is no geography ITE subject leader, and additional support is therefore needed in these cases.

The GA sent a detailed response to the Carter review call for evidence.

Carter review: elements of the executive summary (1): Subject Knowledge Development XI. Evidence suggests that a high level of subject expertise is a characteristic of good teaching… We have found that the most effective courses address gaps and misconceptions in trainees’ core subject knowledge. This is important for both primary and secondary courses and across all subjects. XII. Across all subjects and phases we have found variability in the way subject knowledge is addressed. Given the importance of subject knowledge for good teaching, this is not satisfactory. Recommendation 1a: Subject knowledge development should be part of a future framework for ITT content. Recommendation 2: All ITT partnerships should: i. rigorously audit, track and systematically improve trainees’ subject knowledge throughout the programme ii. ensure that changes to the curriculum and exam syllabi are embedded in ITT programmes iii. ensure that trainees have access to high quality subject expertise

Carter review: elements of the executive summary (2): Subject-Specific Pedagogy XV. Teachers who understand the way pupils approach different subjects, understand the thinking behind pupils’ methods and can identify common misconceptions are more likely to have a positive impact on pupil outcomes… We believe ITT should address subject-specific issues including phases of progression within the subject, links between subjects as well as common misconceptions and how to address these. This is important for both primary and secondary programmes. Both trainers and mentors should have a strong grasp of subject-specific pedagogy. However, there are important areas of content on subject-specific pedagogy that are not addressed on all courses.

Most recently: the latest White Paper.

pagequote 12 ITT content: we will strengthen ITT content, focusing on helping new teachers enter the classroom with sufficient subject knowledge, practical behaviour management skills, understanding of special educational needs, and a greater understanding of the most up-to-date research on how pupils learn. 24increasing the rigour of ITT content with a greater focus on subject knowledge and evidence-based practice 24Continue to move to an increasingly school-led ITT system replace the current ‘Qualified Teacher Status’ (QTS) with a stronger, more challenging accreditation better recognising advanced subject knowledge and pedagogy that is rooted in up-to-date evidence... we propose to raise the bar for new teachers. We will introduce a more challenging accreditation, recognising the ability to teach well, advanced subject knowledge and understanding and application of up-to-date evidence 28all new teachers enter the classroom with advanced subject knowledge, 28 an independent working group chaired by Stephen Munday is now developing a clear framework for ITT core content which will help to prepare trainees to meet the Teachers’ Standards at the right level introduce new quality criteria for ITT providers and allocate training places accordingly

So, what do you make of it? What would you like to change? How do you think the GA should develop this further ? How do we attempt to share good practice? How do we make people more aware of GA resources ?