The impact of School Direct on teacher education and teacher educator roles

1. The impact of School Direct on teacher education and teacher educator roles Caroline Brennan, Jean Murray and Andrew Read University of East London

2. Questions and design What kind of work are HE-based teacher educators doing in the emerging contexts of the School Direct? Is this new / different work or a continuation / extension of existing work patterns? What are the associated changes in roles and identities? What are the knowledge bases and skills being deployed? What kinds of sense are individuals and groups making of the new context/s? Are there accompanying identity shifts?

3. Research design issues Main data collection: on-going summer – winter 2014. Questionnaires (target 60, snowball sample) + interviews with key informants (11 to date). Piloting: informal interviews: 17 HE-based teacher educators, 5 HEIs in 2012/13. Ethics / data sensitivity: institutions and individuals Factionalised vignettes or pen vignettes - same ethical rationale for use as in pen portrait methods

4. Teacher educators’ work 2000 – 2012? • Time in managing partnerships with schools and student-school-HE relations increasing? - Ellis et al (2012) termed this ‘relationship maintenance’ • Changed and substantially increased roles for school-based mentors and for HE-educators increase in ‘pedagogy of guidance’ work (Guile & Lucas, 2004) • Emphasis on experiential, recent and relevant knowledge of schooling within teacher educator professionalism - prioritised in recruitment (Ellis et al., 2010) and monitored through Ofsted and peer / student scrutiny • Knowledge and pedagogical skills of teacher education itself - or knowledge of teaching teachers (Loughran, 2006) – still under-valued or unrecognised (Murray et al. 2011)

5. Vignette 1: School Direct & ‘smart shoppers’ Schools with School Direct places becoming ‘smart shoppers’: ITT / partnership managers spending considerable time in schools ‘marketing’ their programmes to schools and / or undertaking detailed financial negotiations around the business model on offer ‘XX school will be holding interviews for ITT providers interested in working with them on the School Direct scheme on xx date. Please confirm your interest and we will then allocate you a time slot.’ Teacher educators repositioned as marketing and sales executives

6. Vignette 2: School Direct & branded forms of ITT 2012/13 xx schools in the HiStar Academy chain worked with HEI xx for all their (SD) ITT provision. 2013/14 HiStar Academy chain moves away from HEI xx’s provision, deciding to train its own SD trainees. Training programme. Effectively SD trainees become teachers when the schools judge standards met by individuals. HEI educators working with HiStar to support trainee development. No accredited ITT, although HiStar Academy chain now considering formation of its own SCITT – with HE input.... Teacher educators repositioned as consultants, working for free and giving away their intellectual capital

7. Vignette 3: School Direct & emerging recruitment practices School XX is recruiting – with a partner HEI - for a School Direct trainee in a shortage subject. The interview panel consists of head teacher, head of subject, year tutor and HE-based teacher educator. There are 4 candidates, 3 of whom have degrees in the subject. The chosen candidate, however, has only an A level in the designated subject and little other subject knowledge, but he is a career-changing parent and ‘will fit in here’. The knowledge / guidance of the HE-based teacher educator and the subject knowledge imperative over-ridden. Teacher educators’ gatekeeping experience marginalised

8. Vignette 4: School Direct & pedagogies of guidance on beginning teachers as learners School XX interviews for 2 School Direct salaried places in shortage subjects by asking candidates to teach a lesson in their subject. All 6 candidates are initially rejected because the lesson they teach does not include any element of Assessment for Learning. Following discussion with the partner HEI on the ‘training potential’ of two of the candidates they are ultimately appointed and start work in September on the SD scheme Teacher educators positioned as gatekeepers & experts in student ‘potential’ / growth

9. Vignette 5: School Direct & pedagogies of guidance on beginning teachers as learners School Y has placed its 3 SD trainees on the PGCE programme of HEI xx. Trainees attend the university 1 day a week and undertake training in schools for 4 days. 1 trainee of the 3 reports very heavy teaching timetables, often with full classes, leaving little time for observations, group teaching, other forms of workplace learning. HEI educator reports negotiating with school around workload. School positions trainee as ‘already a very good teacher’ who can cope with the workload. Teaching heavy timetable is ‘good practice’ for her. Other 2 trainees have very different training ‘programmes’, with less direct teaching. Teacher educators attempt to act as trainee ‘defender’ and negotiator, unsuccessfully.....

10. Vignette 6: (Re)negotiating the curriculum / assessment modes School xx requests that the PGCE course followed by their School Direct trainees includes ‘substantial coverage and written assessments on topics’ x, y and z. All named topics have clear relevance to the school’s institutional teaching practices and are instrumental in terms of their focus e.g. knowledge of behaviour management must be assessed. All part of learning ‘the XXX Academy way’ Teacher educators’ decision making on curriculum and assessment explicitly challenged

11. Differentiations Differentiated effects across the sector e.g. ‘smart shopper’ / SD recruitment pressures most intense for universities in urban areas with high density of providers and / or where partnerships in flux. Pressures lowest where existing partnerships stable and well established (especially with lead schools in Teaching School alliances) and / or less density of ITE provision. Differentiated effects across responsibility levels / roles. Impact heaviest on those in partnership / senior management roles. Changing patterns of school-university engagement over PGCE year as a re-drawing of ‘partnership’ boundaries and practices occurs? Shifting patterns of teacher educators’ work?

12. Overall findings Teacher educators investing time in securing School Direct trainees and teaching schools to work in collaborative partnerships New forms of recruitment which in turn bring a shift in the gatekeeping responsibilities of teacher educators Shifting forms of trust because of the changed economic bargain between schools and universities Teacher educators creating new structures and relationships in action as the landscape of teacher education shifts around them Emergence of new teacher educator-as-broker roles Where are the tensions in the new work? How much of this new work is focused on developing the quality of trainee learning and/or improving quality? How much is focused on mentor / school based teacher educator learning and improving the quality of work with trainees?

13. The future? In the context of last year’s patterns of allocations – where are we now? Fears around the ‘dive to the bottom’ in terms of price (and quality?) and further moves towards simplified and instrumental models of teacher learning. Yet more bureaucracy in the teacher education system? But where / are there ‘productivities’/positives/opportunities, e.g. new pedagogies / new research opportunities? Are there emerging new roles for school based teacher educators and higher education based teacher educators McNamara & Murray, 2013 argue that new spaces for teacher education ‘partnerships’ to become part of a ‘moral learning process’ (that ‘deals with how people who have a stake in the subject at hand, interactively assign, re-interpret and re-negotiate responsibilities’ and do ‘not regard responsibility as instrumental, something that is ‘assigned’ by an authority (Visse et al 2012: 281). Opportunities for the development of a critical pedagogy of teacher education?