Moving from school to university as an ITE tutor is an important personal and professional change. Apart from the weirdness of no-one giving a monkeys about you telling them about what time you go home, or what you’re doing from minute to minute, or the liberation of being able to get a cup of tea or go to the toilet whenever you want, there’s a question of identity. What am I, if I’m not interacting with hundreds of different individuals each week? What do my students value? What should they value?

At first I found that it was enough to play off my cache as hard-bitten (moth-eaten?) classroom hack. Trainees are very keen to hear war-stories and ‘the best way to do x or achieve y’. Overtime I realise that as my INSET uniform of levis, satirical t-shirt and lumberjack shirt fade, my continued authority might require me to develop new forms of expertise and knowledge. Formulating and emphasising a distinctive nature for my role in ITE as a university lecturer, and pointing out the value of this role are key ways in which I can develop and continue to improve my contribution.

However this expertise and knowledge is different from that which we bring with us from our time as teachers in school and needs to be nurtured and developed in different ways from the expertise of teachers. It should also be used in different and particular ways in school and university partnerships, in order to have the best impact. The studies considered in the next few blog posts suggest particular ways of working: pedagogical and pastoral approaches that we need to develop in our practice and in the practice of our mentors and tutors in the wider partnership.

However, I found that a source of such authority and knowledge is not immediately clear on entry to HE Education Departments. HE based ITE has faced constant challenges from policy makers and politicians for decades[i]. Falling numbers of applicants and the entrance of a broader range of competitors into the sector makes it harder for universities to sustain ITE provision[ii]. Changes to regulation and compliance frameworks can make running an ITE programme seem like walking a tightrope. Regulation and competition has increased the diversity of providers and those who work in them, but has flattened the work of teacher education itself. Complexity in particular has been flattened out of the system, leaving HEI Education departments with ITE work increasingly vulnerable[iii]. As an example, in the last couple of weeks we have seen guidance on workload in schools and during Initial Teacher Education which acts as an excellent illustration of this flattening[iv]. In seeking to reduce the pressures of work on ITE trainees the guidance calls (requires) partnerships to allow trainees to use pre-prepared lesson resources, and to eschew planning lessons.

Another aspect of flattening can be seen in the mimetic use of buzzwords and silver bullet searching that have affected the mainstream of education practice and policy in recent decades and which has inevitably infected Initial Teacher Education. Slogans such as ‘partnership’[v], and ‘reflection’[vi] “have revealed a superficiality in theoretical rationales of many of those engaged in professional education which inevitably leave their practice open to attack”[vii]. In addition the policy maker’s quick fix for ITE has been to increase competition between providers and extend the time that new teachers spend training in schools. The underlying assumptions are that more time in practice will lead to trainees becoming better teachers and that the market will guarantee that the best providers will thrive, whilst others go to the wall.

The focus on quick fixes, the practicuum turn and the hope that a market will solve the central problems of professional education of new teachers, suggests that there is an unwillingness to actively engage with what the central problems of Initial Teacher Education. Indeed recent policy decisions about ITE have downplayed these issues, and framed the problem as one of ‘what to teach’ – what items of knowledge should teachers have in their heads that can be deployed as deliberately practiced techniques in the classroom. Many courses favoured by policy makers involve less and less ‘tuition’ and, as Childs predicted in 2013, rely on the mentoring and coaching skills of teachers and the ability of new teachers to learn on the job. The latest call to avoid the complexity inherent in planning learning, by insisting on delivering materials and lessons prepared by others, is perhaps an example of this tendency[viii].

When ITE is delivering a centrally mandated technical curriculum and the vast majority of time on PGCE courses are spent on placement in school, it is not immediately clear what HEI’s distinctive role in the process is, or should be. The implications of Child’s conclusions are that ITE becomes merely an extension of the School Improvement agenda through the sharing and implementation of good practice, using mentors to show new teachers the ‘craft of teaching’, and that HEI’s role is thereby limited only to accreditation.

Being clear as to what this contribution is has the potential to help us outline a clear path to nurture and further develop a distinctive academic capital. University Teacher Educators can provide a unique and valuable range of insights derived from the knowledge not only of ‘practice’ but also of research and their own subject-pedagogy expertise, as well as their understanding of the limitations of the research and literature that they use with the trainees.

However, in order to meet the challenge of these implications, and examine our role in the sector, it is vital that we act from a position of informed strength about what makes for good ITE provision. We therefore need to examine the central issues of initial teacher education, and explore the buzzwords and policy formulations which accrete to it. In order to maintain our impact and importance in the sector and husband our resources most effectively we should consider important questions such as ‘where does HEI’s independence spring from?’ and ‘what kinds of expertise do we bring that differ from that of our school colleagues?’

[i] John Furlong, Education: An Anatomy of the Discipline (Routledge, 2013).

[ii] James Conroy, Moira Hulme, and Ian Menter, “Developing a ‘Clinical’Model for Teacher Education,” Journal of Education for Teaching 39, no. 5 (2013): 557–573.

[iii] Ann Childs, “The Work of Teacher Educators: An English Policy Perspective,” Journal of Education for Teaching 39, no. 3 (July 1, 2013): 314–28, https://doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2013.799848.

[iv] “Addressing Workload in Initial Teacher Education (ITE),” GOV.UK, accessed November 11, 2018, https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/addressing-workload-in-initial-teacher-education-ite.

[v] Conroy, Hulme, and Menter, “Developing a ‘Clinical’Model for Teacher Education.”

[vi] James Calderhead, “Reflective Teaching and Teacher Education,” Teaching and Teacher Education 5, no. 1 (1987): 43–51.

[vii] Geoff Hayward, “Principles for School Focused Initial Teacher Education,” in Mentoring for Science Teachers, ed. T Allson and A Benson (Buckingham [England]; Philadelphia: Open University Press, 1997).

[viii] Caroline Daly, “DFE Advice on Student Teacher Workload Misses What Is Learnt by Planning Lessons,” IOE LONDON BLOG (blog), November 9, 2018, https://ioelondonblog.wordpress.com/2018/11/09/dfe-advice-on-student-teacher-workload-misses-what-is-learnt-by-planning-lessons/.

What’s the point of me, a HE lecturer in Inital Teacher Training?

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: