The Carter Review of ITT ITT partnerships self-audit summary UCET October 2015

Background Following the publication of the Carter Review in 2015 UCET members were invited to review their current provision against the recommendations made in the report. The intention was that the audit document would provide a focus for constructive discussions across ITT partnerships. UCET invited member institutions to share the outcome of their detailed reviews and some of the key points are captured in this summary. The response from member organisations in England is supportive of the proposal for a consensus on the appropriate content that should be developed in the context of all routes to QTS. In an increasingly fragmented system of teacher education this would ensure the entitlement of all new entrants. to a sound professional preparation. We hope that member institutions will find this summary helpful in the context of their own self-audit and that it might inform benchmarking of provision. UCET is grateful to colleagues at the following member institutions for sharing the outcomes of their self review: Durham University, Oxford Brookes University, University of Roehampton, College of St Mark and St John, University of Worcester. UCET October 2015

Recommendation 1: Developing a framework of core content for ITT Aspects of current effective practice Significant strengths identified in subject knowledge and pedagogy. Phases of progression included routinely. 150 hours dedicated to subject knowledge Child development typically included and often linked to coverage of mental health and well being SEND integrated in professional studies, frequently offered as a specialist pathway with expert input Full assessed placements in SEND settings are common Planning for short / medium long term embedded in subject sessions and linked to the school experience Planning related to the specific pedagogy of the subject in question and flexibility encouraged Provision is regularly reviewed and adapted, e.g. in the light of new thinking around mastery and changing pedagogy. HE subject sessions increasingly informed by the concept of a mastery curriculum Analysis of skills of mentors as subject experts takes place and school staff deliver on centre based learning e.g. in behaviour. Shared observations by tutors and mentors focussed on subject knowledge Use of Moodle to support subject development Specific input on behaviour early in the programme Bespoke input for Salaried SD candidates on planning early in the programme Time allocated for students to read around the pedagogy their specialist subject. Theory of assessment well covered Psychology and neurology underpinning theories of learning / both linked strongly to SEND experience and teaching Trainees sign up to a Professional Code of Conduct at the outset and it is covered in general professional studies and in schools Access to specialist training facilities and resources, staff have Audit and tracking of subject knowledge begins in the interview stage and is monitored for progression across the programme Problem based learning used as an important aspect of the training

Recommendation 1: Developing a framework of core content for ITT Areas for development Foundation subjects in primary are less rich in research evidence due to recent emphasis on literacy and numeracy. More input is needed on the range of methods used in schools currently to track pupil progress and the uses to which different forms of data are put. Risk of SEND experiences being ‘buried’ in subject specific sessions. More input needed on time management and on resilience. Reviewing programmes planning and differentiation in the light of curriculum change and the concept of Mastery learning Safeguarding, FBV and CSE being kept under review and developed in professionalism courses. More work being developed on progression between phases including joint primary / secondary sessions on literacy. Introducing Teachmeet sessions to encourage trainees to share evidence based learning. Programmes need to be kept under regular review to represent changes to NC and assessment arrangements. The typical five year programme review cycle does not match the pace of change in educational practice. More work needed on the use of data and statistics in schools to track progression post ‘levels’. Greater emphasis on the connection between school led input on assessment and that in the HEI. Ensuring that up to date research is embedded in programmes through stronger links between research and profession al practice and through encouraging reflection on theory as an element of professional practice. More work needed with school based staff to focus on subject knowledge in the context of regular feedback to trainees. Approaches to differentiation as an emerging issue in the context of Mastery learning and teaching. Training being developed in voice and in ‘classroom presence’ and in resilience, including time management. We acknowledge that not everything can be covered in the one year programme – we aim to develop teachers who are reflective and adaptable and continue to learn. Serving teachers are perhaps over-reliant on published schemes and units. An element of training should be how to develop short and medium term plans for a specific group of learners, while utilising text books and published schemes. Greater emphasis needed on the application of theory of assessment in the context of specific ages and phases and enabling trainees to articulate why they select specific methods.

Recommendation 2: All ITT partnerships should develop subject knowledge Aspects of current effective practice Subject knowledge audit / tracking typically begins at interview. Modules are continually updated to reflect changes to NC and the EYFS. Staff are appointed on the base of subject expertise, often national leaders in subject associations. Subject knowledge is enriched by trainees working together in cohort groups. Trainees act as ambassadors in schools in implementing NC changes. Trainees encouraged to join subject associations and subject or behaviour specialists brought in to enrich the programme. We have an increasing focus on ‘training for mentors’ which could be subject specific, rather than on ‘mentor training’ which tends to be generic. All programmes are designed so that trainees work for part of their time in subject specific groups, thereby accessing deep subject knowledge while at the same time benefitting from the practical experience gained in many different schools. We QA school based subject input through termly evaluations and the expectation is that every placement should be evaluated as at least ‘good’ for subject training. Some areas of the programme – such as reflective practice and tackling prejudice are taught in cross-phase groups. We actively contest a ‘fill in the gaps’ approach to developing subject knowledge. Our programme focuses on the ways in which trainees can be supported in developing their pedagogical content knowledge.

Recommendation 2: All ITT partnerships should develop subject knowledge Areas for development Subject expertise of teachers in schools and the quality and consistency of feedback given to trainees. Exploring the use of electronic portfolios to be able to access feedback given to trainees and to support QA of mentoring. Tutors need to update subject knowledge audits to ensure they reflect curriculum change A challenge to strong subject provision in ITT has been the ‘cull’ of subject expertise in the HEI, sometimes of national and international calibre (i.e. colleagues who have held leading roles in subject associations) that has accompanied the shift to SD. The subject expertise of school based colleagues tends to be narrower in focus. Schools struggle to release high quality subject leaders for ITT as they are deployed in their own classes. There is an issue as to how subject training is being quality assured. We aim to ensure that SCITT and SD partners participate in centre based subject sessions. We are currently moving to develop conventional ‘ITT evidence folders’ into a ‘resources toolkit’ including materials, resources and research evidence to support the new teacher in the frost three years.

Recommendation 3: Schools should include subject knowledge as an essential element of professional development: Aspects of current effective practice In primary training schools are actively involved in feedback on maths and phonics but there is less input evident on foundation subjects. We are working to ensure that we have good up to date knowledge of the subject strengths within our partnership to ensure trainees have access to high quality training. We are not complacent about the subject knowledge of school teachers as paradigm shifts in learning and teaching take place (Mastery in maths is an example) so we constantly revisit this aspect of training with school mentors. Partnership schools actively support the development of subject knowledge and they also contribute to the support for NQTs and EPD. Our provision is strengthened when school based tutors are involved in other aspects of subject training e.g. through their participation on our MA programme.

Recommendation 3: Schools should include subject knowledge as an essential element of professional development. Areas for development In a schools led system HEI based providers have limited direct influence on how school leaders choose to develop their staff. We have re-established our former PPD network which had lapsed when the funding was cut. We intend to develop regional activities but it is difficult to do so in the context of a squeezed ITE budget. We intend to enhance our alumni offer and to develop capacity for CPD delivery. This is the greatest challenge for us – the subject knowledge of mentors and their ability to give incisive feedback to set rigorous targets. We are looking to develop an electronic system to replace the current one so that we can access all of the feedback given and targets set and intervene if needed. This is a challenge – we intend to develop more robust processes to track the impact of CPD so as to be able to demonstrate this to head teachers. In the context of budget cuts school leaders are inclined to prefer the cheaper option of in house support, rather than paying for high quality provision from outside.

Recommendation 4: DfE should make funded in-service subject knowledge enhancement courses available for new primary teachers to access as professional development. For primary any such courses should include the Foundation subjects as well as the core which has been the policy focus lately. Strong support for the proposal – however resourcing should be consistent and not subject to vagaries of changing policy. HEI has expertise to bring to any such programme and could assist in identifying local or regional needs. There is a dearth of well resourced funded in-service programmes generally. SKE is important, however we would argue for funded in service training in SEND, behaviour and in the uses of assessment. We question the idea that such courses should only be made available for primary teachers. There is a growing shortage of secondary subject specialists and many teachers are being deployed in subjects where they have limited expertise. Secondary in-service SKE should also be a priority.

Recommendation 5: Universities should explore offering “bridge to ITT” modules in the final years of their subject degrees for students who are considering ITT programmes. There are many current instances of such schemes that already exist, in the form of modular choices within different degree pathways. The student associate scheme had good features that could be replicated in terms of encouraging students who had not considered teaching to do so. Some universities already have this in progress, typically for science, maths and computer science. The challenge is one of time and resource to permit further expansion. In a system which is becoming increasingly fragmented this becomes harder to achieve as there is not always a match between undergraduate programmes and the range of subjects offered for ITT. The attractions of teaching as a career are promoted at every opportunity to undergraduates as well as formal modules. In order to achieve this we have developed links with a neighbouring HEI as there is not always a direct match between the u/g offer and the subject spread of the ITE programme.

Recommendation 6: The Teachers’ Standards should be amended to be more explicit about the importance of teachers taking an evidence-based approach. We support this suggestion, however the Teachers’ Standards are not likely to be amended in the short term. The concept could be made clearer in Part B as a core professional attribute. There needs to be greater clarity about what is meant by the terms research, evidence, action research and what exactly can be expected of serving school teachers. Ideally high quality academic research, research informed teaching and support for teachers and trainees to develop their practice through analysis of evidence should combine to improve the quality of teaching and learning and pupil outcomes. What we mean by an ‘evidence based approach’ needs to be clarified. This is a positive suggestion, however it would be best achieved through effective school / HEI partnerships and in the context of an expectation of a profession qualified at Master’s level.

Recommendation 7: A central portal of synthesised executive summaries, providing practical advice on research findings about effective teaching in different subjects and phases, should be developed. This would be valuable – we regret the loss of the Teacher Training Resource Bank as a reliable source of advice on research and also the valuable service provided by the e-librarian. The EEF contains much valuable material, but it is not necessarily accessible for beginner teachers. We strongly support this idea. Typically teachers have access to materials published on behalf of government, or reflecting the current government priority. It would boost the extent to which practice is informed by robust evidence if teachers were able to access a wider range of academic and materials representing different view points. We have evidence from our partner schools that research syntheses and summaries on topics such as behaviour and assessment are extremely popular. We support this idea, though thought needs to be given as to how to maintain the materials as an up to date resource, as well as a judgment made about which materials to include and how they would be mediated and quality assured.

Recommendation 8: ITT partnerships should make more systematic use of wider expertise of the university beyond the department of education. Aspects of current effective practice This is a strength of our partnership and the university STEM departments work in outreach across the schools in our locality. We already do this to an extent – e.g. The HEA research project in History (is there a role for the HEA in identifying good and innovative practice here?) Outreach includes a range of school activities including homework clubs, exam preparation, access to HE events, subject enrichment days, especially in STEM subjects. This happens already, notably in the context of SEND and in Child Development.

Recommendation 8: ITT partnerships should make more systematic use of wider expertise of the university beyond the department of education. Areas for development ‘It takes two to tango’ it would be helpful if other departments were more aware of the value of collaboration in subject development, research into evidence of impact of teaching and learning and in outreach and access activities. Outreach includes a range of school activities including homework clubs, exam preparation, access to HE events, subject enrichment days, especially in STEM subjects. We are exploring the possibilities of extending our cross-department collaboration through a PSHE conference involving health studies and sport. Not all HE staff have the skills needed to work in HE. Innovation here needs to be monitored, quality assured and colleagues may need support. We are currently working to develop multi-disciplinary work with colleagues in areas which might support our wider professional studies modules. At present this includes psychology, but their is scope to take it wider and to develop other SKE modules and research training. Pressure on resources has meant that staff from across the university are now collaborating to work collectively, notably in research.

Recommendation 9: Alongside a central portal on evidence-based practice, a central repository of resources and guidance on assessment should be developed. With the removal of levels we notice a considerable variation in practice emerging in our partnership. Some school are sticking to their former practice, some are changing and developing their own new ways of working. Some reliable, research informed central resource on assessment would be extremely useful. This would be better incorporated in the central portal rather than fragmenting the resource base. To be authentic any such resource would need to be quality assured and be relevant across a range of subjects and phases. In the light of the report of the Commission on Assessment without Levels (Sept 2015) we support the idea that teachers need to evaluate assessment systems developed by external providers and that any central portal should be a part of an approach to high quality professional development endorsed by experts from higher education and delivered locally and regionally (page 8). Any such portal should include subject specific resources.

Recommendation 10: Wherever possible, all ITT partnerships should build in structured and assessed placements for trainees in special schools and mainstream schools with specialist resourced provision. Areas of strength We build in an assessed placement for all of our SEND pathway trainees. All of our trainees currently have the opportunity for an ‘alternative’ placement which is assessed. 20 trainees last year had the opportunity for a fully assessed placement in Year 2 of the u/g programme. This is a compulsory element of our programme for all u/g provision. On both the u/f and the p/g route trainees can gain a specialist enhancement if they elect to take up an extended SEN placement.

Recommendation 10: Wherever possible, all ITT partnerships should build in structured and assessed placements for trainees in special schools and mainstream schools with specialist resourced provision. Areas for development We should explore the scope for extended placements for those on the SEND pathway. We should develop opportunities for all trainees to have direct experience of SEN settings. This should also include other areas of specialist provision: PRU settings or specialist 6 th form centres. We offer all SEND pathway trainees a placement, however these are not always assessed nor open to all trainees in the partnership. We intend to widen the offer.

Recommendation 11: ITT partnerships should ensure all trainees experience effective mentoring Aspects of current effective practice Compulsory school based mentor training for all of those taking on the role with refresher training every two years Two day training offered using videos and scenarios to develop mentor skills. Mentor subject groups have been developed established via SLE links. There is a much greater emphasis for all routes on SKE and on subject pedagogy in the light of the rapid roll out of SD. This is a constant focus and not just a topic for the weekly mentor meeting. Our partnership agreement has specific guidance about mentor selection. Where mentors do not meet our QA requirements they are deselected. Mentors have access to our M level mentoring and coaching modules. Mentor training sessions are run twice a year. We are developing formal accreditation for our mentors as part of our QA function in evaluating the impact and effectiveness of their work in schools. We increasingly ensure that schools who elect to take on a lead role in teacher education take on the responsibility of ensuring that mentors have the skills and resources to take on the role.

Recommendation 11: ITT partnerships should ensure all trainees experience effective mentoring: Areas for development We have a concern about very variable practice in support for mentors. In some instances teachers get allocated time or a position of responsibility based on their mentor role. In other instances it is regarded as ‘part of the day job and squeezed.’ We intend to develop our partnership MOA to reinforce the importance of the role and develop an evidence base to support this. We are working in schools across the partnership to identify the mentors who offered the most effective support and feedback to trainees, that helps them to improve and thereby improves the outcomes for pupil progress. We are working in our partner schools to develop resources and CPD to strengthen teachers skills in teacher education. We are reviewing the entire offer, including the practical aspects such as provision of refreshments, free car parking and a range of dates to ensure that there no barriers that prevent mentors from attending training. As ever the biggest challenge to effective mentor development is allocation of sufficient time to do the job. Well. It needs to be seen as a core element of the mentor's role and not just a bolt on. We need to set out our stronger expectations of the role of school based teacher educator more strongly in partnership agreements.

Recommendation 12: DfE should commission a sector body, for example the Teaching Schools Council, to develop some national standards for mentors. We fully support this recommendation and the proposal that the TSC should lead on the work, however, it has to be acknowledged that HE tutors have a wealth of experience of seeing mentors in role across numerous school is partnership. Their views should be engaged as well. The HE sector has a wealth of research evidence and content developed for Masters modules in mentoring. This should be recognised and valued. Any such development needs to recognise the difference between the role of coach and mentor and the new demands of being a school based teacher educator. If standards are developed they should be given some weight. National standards could be a way of ensuring consistency and of identifying outstanding practice at a national level. There is existing work that has been developed at a regional level by HEI networks and in the context of the MTL programme, that could support such a development.

Recommendation 13: All schools should, whenever practically possible, seek out and participate in robust local partnership arrangements. In a school-led system, this recommendation is naturally the responsibility of schools. This is a positive recommendation and we see ourselves as playing a key role with lead schools and their partners in developing a sustainable basis for ITT locally. This is not entirely clear as a recommendation. We are clear that partnerships should be developed in a spirit of mutual respect and that schools should be receptive to advice from HE as to what works. In some school in our partnership the ITE phase has become no more than a tick box experience e.g. with files with each standard as a divider and a requirement for three bits of evidence against each in order to meet the standard. Schools welcome the spirit of this, however there are practical problems of capacity and appropriately qualified personnel, notably in some school facing challenging circumstances. In our experience schools welcome the support and value the expertise of their partner HEI. Our cluster and hub models sustain this. In practice universities can help to facilitate such partnerships through their extensive links with schools.

Recommendation 14: DfE should work in collaboration with those involved in ITT to consider the way in which teachers qualify with a view to strengthening what has become a complex and sometimes confusing system. We would like applicants to understand that QTS is the essential component of ITT and that a PGCE is an optional academic qualification. We completely disagree with the premise of the recommendation: the PGCE goes beyond a pragmatic set of standards and is the building block for ongoing professional development. We set out to articulate the differences between the different routes clearly at interview and to ensure that every trainee chooses the appropriate route to QTS and understands the benefit and added value of the academic award. It is a fallacy that the PGCE is a theoretical distraction from the practice of the classroom. The PGCE assignments are all linked to classroom practice and provide evidence for the calibre of the achievement of the standards. We think it is of crucial importance that beginner teachers have a wider context of research based knowledge and the opportunity to reflect in a wider range of professional practice than that of one school and a brief second placement. We are concerned at a model that sees teacher as technician. As a team we have a clear understanding o the benefits of the PGCE and articulate this to school partners. There is evidence that high calibre applicants value the academic award and this is important to the status and appeal of the profession.

Recommendation 15: DfE should undertake a review of the effectiveness of the skills tests in selecting high quality trainees. The current arrangements are not fit for purpose. We have numerous instances of problems in booking tests, problems for candidates in the test centres and we have had candidates withdraw from the course or being prevented from taking up their place because they have been unable to take their tests before the course begins. All applicants for p/g QTS who have GCSE in English and Maths at C or above as well as an Honours degree should meet an acceptable academic standard without the need for these tests. They represent a huge waste of resource. For 18 year olds there is some evidence that the high stakes of the test and the non-standard format is off putting and leads to failure of otherwise sound candidates. The indignity of the tests and the difficulties associated with getting a test centre booking do not present the profession as a high calibre one. The tests duplicate GCSE, SKE and u/g and PGCE course content. They are a waste of public money.

Recommendation 16: In order for applicants to make well informed decisions when choosing a course, we recommend the development and expansion of the NCTL’s “Get into Teaching” website. This should signpost information that applicants might consider when choosing a course, for example: provider Ofsted rating and inspection report; completion rates; NQT survey results; and employability rates. This is a sound idea. For secondary it should include more subject specific information. We have developed our own material that goes beyond the NCTL information, as it so important that trainees make properly informed choices. This is a good idea although we expect that any data would avoid bias against the HE and core routes into teaching. The nub of the problem is that the system is very confusing and it is hard for candidates to see their way through the range of different routes and funding options. The website could be improved and developed but it represents a very confusing system which is off putting to some very able candidates. The website should reflect the u/g routes more effectively. At present it privileges the SD route and presents the PGCE as being academic and centre based. This is not helpful to candidates in making an informed choice.

Benchmarking of provision: How do we know how the quality of teacher development in our partnership compares with that of other providers? Internal measures Exit surveys School experience evaluations Annual programme review Periodic programme validation Allocation of hours for specialist subject teaching Mentor training content Subject expertise of staff Staff with national / international acknowledged expertise. External measures Ofsted outcomes NQT survey results External examining and reporting Employment data Induction outcomes for former trainees Staff participate in development of GCSE frameworks