Teaching the teachers
Civitas, 22 November 2010
On Wednesday, the Government will publish its white paper on the future of state education in England. The reforms proposed are wide-ranging, but one is particularly welcome; the reform of teacher training.
The Government plans to reform teacher training so that teacher’s learn more through on-the-job training than through university teaching. The Telegraph welcomed the move as a way to break the stranglehold of university academics who subscribe to what the paper calls an ‘Old-Left Orthodoxy’ and pass this on to future teachers. In contrast, the Association of Teachers and Lecturers (ATL) have criticised the proposal, arguing that teaching ‘is a profession which requires strong theoretical knowledge’ that requires a significant amount of academic training.
The reforms are necessary but not for the reason given by the Telegraph. The ATL, however, seems to be opposing the reforms in a typically knee-jerk manner that betrays the organisation’s lack of consistency. This inconsistency is evident when one compares the opposition of the ATL to a previously mooted reform; that of raising the bar for those wishing to apply for teacher training. In opposing restricting teacher training places to those who achieve a degree class of 2:2 or higher the ATL said that ‘the ability to communicate, to inspire and enthuse young people, a good imagination, empathy and patience’ are vital qualities for a teacher. They argued that many graduates who achieved a 3rd class degree had, or could cultivate such skills and so would make good teachers. This is undoubtedly the case and the ATL is right to acknowledge that academic ability, although important, is perhaps not the most important quality for prospective teachers. Indeed the ATL stated: ‘being an academic genius does not mean you will be any good at teaching children’. This would suggest that in terms of importance the ATL feels that academic ability is important, but secondary to the other, let’s say interpersonal, skills needed to be a good teacher.
What baffles me is how the ATL can now argue against the current reforms. Currently most teachers enter the profession through obtaining a postgraduate certificate in education (PGCE) which sees them spending around 50% of the course working with teachers and children and the other 50% studying at university. The PGCE places a significant emphasis on academic, theoretical training; indeed it deems this to be of equal importance to on-the-job training. However, this is at odds with the ATL’s views because, according to the ATL, academic and theoretical training is not as important because ‘being an academic genius does not mean that you will be any good at teaching’. Undoubtedly (as the ATL states) teaching ‘is a profession which requires strong theoretical knowledge’ but, in terms of importance, it is a profession that needs interpersonal skills more. It is true that (as the ATL states) teaching can require theoretical and interpersonal training but for the ATL the latter seems more important. This makes perfect sense to me, what doesn’t make sense is the ATL’s opposition to a reform that clearly reflects their own views. The Government’s reform seems to accord interpersonal training more weight than theoretical training, without getting rid of either. The ATL’s opposition will strike most people as unprincipled and inconsistent.
Beyond the debate of theoretical versus interpersonal skills, the Government’s reform is welcome for a number of other reasons: First, it could make becoming a teacher more affordable. Many graduates are currently put off by the fact that training to be a teacher costs money on top of that already spent on an undergraduate degree. Indeed this worry has meant that on-the-job training routes into teaching such as the graduate teacher programme (GTP) are now increasingly popular, something which will undoubtedly continue to be the case, and arguably increase, as undergraduate degrees become more expensive. Secondly, this could allow trainee teachers to contribute more to a school by taking classes throughout the year, earning money, while also learning, as teachers on GTP courses currently do. Thirdly, the reform could also allow a wider range of people to get involved in teaching, not just those who currently feel that a PGCE is unaffordable but also those who are put off by another (after their undergraduate degree) academic course. Finally, evidence suggests that there are few, if any, drawbacks to placing more emphasis on on-the-job training. The Teachfirst scheme has produced many good teachers with very little academic training, as has the GTP system, which does not have the added benefit (that Teachfirst has) of targeting ‘graduates from the UK’s top universities’.
There is currently a widespread misconception in the media that PGCE courses are not classroom based. On the Cambridge PGCE, for which I am an in-school mentor, the majority of training happens in school. Whilst in school, I discuss both the ‘theoretical’ and ‘practical’ aspects of teaching. When my trainees are in university sessions, they look at how other teachers have developed practical solutions to some of the problems that students face in learning a subject.
It is also worth clarifying what is meant by ‘theory’. In the context of a PGCE course ‘theory’ involves questions such as – ‘how does a student make progress in a subject?’, ‘what conceptual difficulties do students have in learning a subject?’, ‘how can we find out how much a student has learnt?’. The most important ‘theoretical’ question that PGCE trainees deal with is how to go about planning a sequence of lessons based around a particular topic. Every teacher has to learn how to do these things – unfortunately, many GTP candidates do not, and consequently the quality of teachers leaving GTP courses tends to be lower, as OFSTED have recently noted.
We should have a sensible debate about training teachers – it is very important. But this needs to be an informed debate – sadly, very little that is said about teacher training seems particularly informed about what currently happens.
The government has said similarly contradictory things about teaching and teacher training. Gove has talked about improving the perception of teaching as a respected profession but is also keen to take away all of the theoretical background which as a practising teacher myself, know is important. GTP programs have their strengths but I certainly am glad that I went through the PGCE route.
On a slightly different note I absolutely agree with the scrapping of modular GCSEs exams.
Ian
http://www.teachphysics.org
Undoubtedly the government is prone to rhetoric, and all governments seem to want to be seen to be ‘doing something’. In this sense there has always been a tendency to micro-manage teaching more than the other professions. This should stop and teachers and schools should be given more freedom. The issue about training though, is not that the PGCE is not a good route, but perhaps, with constrained finances, and undergraduate degrees soon to be far more expensive, there needs to be a rethink about getting teachers earning while they learn. Changing the ‘theoretical-practical’ balance could be one way to do this, although you may be correct that having only one day in college/university a week (as i believe quite a few GTP schemes do) may not be enough.