Is it possible to reconcile relationships and quality assurance in the Assessment Only Route? Isabelle SchäferCatriona Robinson Friday 16 th May 2014

The AOR at the University of Worcester Background

AO criteria supporting guidance Management and quality assurance criteria

High clarity High rapport Open dialogue Shared expectations Openness to mutual benefit Sense of urgency Task focused Debate rather than dialogue Low rapport Friendship Lack of direction Opportunistic in dealing with issues Short term perspective but … May be long term relationship “going though the motions” Low clarity Clutterbuck and Ragins: p.18, cited in (Megginson and Clutterbuck, 2005) Relationships

Assessment Only Route Process What we explore Feedback from Interview stage 2: Report written by university tutor. Response to the report written by the school mentor and action plan devised by school mentor and AOT. Interview stage 2: School visit: one joint lesson observation ( school mentor and two university tutors) and Quality assurance visit. Application Interview stage 1: Qualifications are checked, written task, portfolio of evidence, second school experience, interview Application Interview stage 1: Qualifications are checked, written task, portfolio of evidence, second school experience, interview Interview stage 2: School visit: one joint lesson observation ( school mentor and two university tutors) and Quality assurance visit. Application Interview stage 1: Qualifications are checked, written task, portfolio of evidence, second school experience, interview Feedback from Interview stage 2: Report written by university tutor. Response to the report written by the school mentor and action plan devised by school mentor and AOT. Interview stage 2: School visit: one joint lesson observation ( school mentor and two university tutors) and Quality assurance visit. Application Interview stage 1: Qualifications are checked, written task, portfolio of evidence, second school experience, interview Application: Degree (at least a 2.ii) subject knowledge, school teaching experience and setting, skills tests Interview stage 2: School visit: one joint lesson observation ( school mentor and two university tutors) and Quality assurance visit. Interview stage 1: Qualifications are checked, written task, portfolio of evidence, second school experience, interview Feedback from Interview stage 2: Report written by university tutor. Response to the report written by the school mentor and action plan devised by school mentor and AOT. Interview stage 2: School visit: one joint lesson observation ( school mentor and two university tutors) and Quality assurance visit. Interview stage 1: Qualifications are checked, written task, portfolio of evidence, second school experience, interview 12 week assessment Feedback from Interview stage 2: Report written by university tutor. Response to the report written by the school mentor and action plan devised by school mentor and AOT. Interview stage 2: School visit: one joint lesson observation ( school mentor and two university tutors) and Quality assurance visit. Interview stage 1: Qualifications are checked, written task, portfolio of evidence, second school experience, interview Conditions are met. The 12 week assessment period starts. Mentor support Feedback from Interview stage 2: Report written by university tutor: Tutor support/advice/conditions. Response to the report written by the school mentor and action plan devised by school mentor and AOT. Mentor support. Interview stage 2: Are all the standards met in the observed lesson? Feedback given by school mentor. Will the school mentor be able to support the AOT? Tutor support/advice/conditions. Interview stage 1:All the standards are met. Depth and breadth of subject knowledge. Two school experiences, evidence of planning, teaching and assessing across two key stages. Tutor support/advice/conditions.

Guidance offered before the start of the 12 week assessment period: AOTs’ perspective We asked AOTs whether university tutors advised them to focus on specific aspects of the teachers’ standards. Most common recommendations: Standard 3 Standard 6

Guidance offered to AOTs before the start of the 12 week assessment period  Guidance given by university tutors  Guidance given by school mentors.

Guidance offered to AOTs during the 12 week assessment period  All the AOTs asked for guidance from university tutors.  5 AOTs indicate that they were offered guidance by University tutors in specific areas.  All the AOTs ( apart from 1) asked for guidance from their mentors and all were offered guidance from their mentors.  Mentors agree that AOTs asked for some guidance from them and that they were given guidance.

Communication with AOTs during the assessment period Positive comments from AOTs: queries were answered quickly There were times when I felt my uni tutor was reluctant in answering my questions because she considered her role to be one of Judge rather than Counsel, and took a very literal view of the “Assessment Only” title.

Mentoring / coaching  Both AOTs and university tutors tend to agree that university tutors did not often “broker access to a range of opportunities to address the goals of the AOT” before or during the assessment period. However, they did “provide information and feedback that enabled learning from mistakes and success “  About half of the AOTs and university tutors agreed that they did “relate sensitively to” AOTs “and that they did “work through agreed processes to build trust and confidence”.  According to AOTs, few tutors did “model expertise in practice or through conversation” or did “use open questions to raise awareness, explore beliefs, develop plans, understand consequences and explore and commit to solutions” whereas, according to AOTs, most mentors did this.

Guidance for mentors during the 12 week assessment period Mentors’ views  “Interim meeting” needed  “Two weekly phone calls just to touch base so that the school and the AOT are clear of the university’s expectations and that the university are aware of the progress the AOT is making.”  “Regular liaison” A tutor’s view about their role In my case I assumed from the guidance that it was as assessor and quality assurance rather than trainer and so only provided the guidance suggested in the handbooks so that the relationship would remain on a “professional” footing.

Communication with mentors: Tutors’ responses “One might argue that enhanced communication and support of the mentor would enable outcomes for the AOT to be improved.” “A two-way communication at regular points over the period from point of the second interview, acceptance on the course and final assessment would help build trust and the establishing of quality relationships and partnerships which I believe is key however this is in tension with the concept of AOR.”

Improving our QA processes “Comprehensive arrangements exist to ensure full compliance of candidates following the Assessment Only route. Quality assurance procedures are used rigorously to ensure the Teachers’ Standards are fully met by each candidate. Successful candidates speak very highly about the support they receive from leaders of the programme. “ (Ofsted 2014)

Conclusion AOT AOM Provider

References  CUREE (2005) National Framework for mentoring and Coaching [Online]. Available from: framework-for-mentoring-and-coaching.pdf. [Accessed: 27th August 2013] framework-for-mentoring-and-coaching.pdf  Megginson, D. and Clutterbuck, D. (2005) Techniques for Coaching and Mentoring. London, Elsevier Butterworth- Heinemann.