ASSOCIATION OF TEACHERS AND LECTURERS 7 NORTHUMBERLAND STREET, LONDON WC2N 5RD TEL: 020-7930-6441 FAX: 020-7930- 1359 e-mail: info@atl.org.uk web site: http://www.atl.org.uk VAT REG NO 539 0866 17 DfE Review of Teachers Standards Response from the Association of Teachers and Lecturers 10 June 2011 ATL, the education union, is an independent, registered trade union and professional association, representing approximately 160,000 teachers, head teachers, lecturers and support staff in maintained and independent nurseries, schools, sixth form, tertiary and further education colleges in the United Kingdom. AMiE is the trade union and professional association for leaders and managers in colleges and schools, and is a distinct section of ATL. We recognise the link between education policy and members' conditions of service. ATL exists to help members, as their careers develop, through first rate research, advice, information and legal advice. Our evidence-based policy making enables us to campaign and negotiate locally and nationally. ATL is affiliated to the Trades Union Congress (TUC), Irish Congress of Trade Unions (ICTU), European Trade Union Committee for Education (ETUCE) and Education International (EI). ATL is not affiliated to any political party and seeks to work constructively with all the main political parties. ATL policy ATL believes that teachers as professionals must be recognised for their knowledge, expertise and judgement, at the level of the individual pupil and in articulating the role of education in increasing social justice. Within light national parameters, development of the education system should take place at a local level, within local authority structures: the curriculum should be developed in partnership with local stakeholders; assessment should be carried out through local professional networks. Schools should be encouraged to work collaboratively to offer excellent teaching and learning, and to support pupils well-being, across a local area. Accountability mechanisms should be developed so that there is a proper balance of accountability to national government and the local community, which supports collaboration rather than competition. Draft Teaching Standards ATL welcomes the opportunity to contribute to the current review of teachers standards through comments on the draft standards provided by the Review Group. These written comments follow on from conversations between ATL and the Review Group. ATL believes that these draft standards are fundamentally flawed, portraying an uncertainty as to their very purpose. They are a combination of standards, job description and disciplinary code. Staff duties belong properly in contracts of employment and job descriptions rather than in professional standards. The latter should detail the standards of knowledge, skills and attributes appropriate to the role of teacher. 1
These draft standards betray a view of teacher professionalism which impoverishes the profession and learning. They imply a didactic model of teaching based on a supposedly unproblematic relationship between what teachers do/say and what pupils learn. And they are about teachers doing what they are told rather than about the quality of education and learning they can provide through innovation, creativity and involvement of pupils and others as participants in the process. The draft standards level of prescription and watering down of continuing professional development (CPD) into a performance and improvement focussed strategy further demonstrates this narrower view of teacher professionalism. The draft standards also fail to reflect progression between qualification and early professional development and raise interesting questions about the role of induction. Furthermore, it is problematic that we are asked to look at these standards with no opportunity to do so in the context of the identical review of the standards of higher levels, Threshold, Excellent Teachers (ETs) and Advanced Skills Teachers (ASTs). These failures become even more problematic within the proposed context of use within performance management. ATL does not believe that this change of use from standards as a backdrop to professional development and performance management to becoming a direct part of performance management is helpful to staff performance or morale. Standards and education the overall picture The draft standards lack the previous QTS and Core standards emphasis on a holistic view of education, which gives the learner and their families a more participative role in their education and which sees learning as a lifelong journey. The draft does not reflect a view of children and young people as independent learners, instead suggesting a very straightforward link between what a teacher does and what a learner learns. Also, these draft standards focus on what teachers do in individual subjects rather than across pupils learning. The draft standards lack an emphasis on valuing diversity and promoting inclusion and equality, elements that were very much part of the previous QTS and Core standards. There is little emphasis on extended services and other professionals. The draft standards prescribe what teachers do in classrooms to their pupils, almost ignoring their role within the school and within the community. The draft standards in detail ATL concerns It is proposed that these draft standards replace the current QTS and Core standards. However, this merging/revision has made some questionable changes reflecting a critical change in how teachers and their role are to be viewed. Pupils place The place of the pupil in the draft standards is significantly weaker with a more passive view of their role in the classroom and in their learning. The Core and QTS emphasis on teachers building respectful, supportive and constructive 1 relationships with pupils has been completely omitted. There is no direct mention of the development of children and young people and the influences upon them. This is in direct contrast to the QTS and Core standards, in which teachers are expected to understand how children and young people develop and how the progress, rate of development and well-being of learners are affected by a range of developmental, social, religious, ethnic, cultural and linguistic influences. 2 This omission demonstrates the simplistic view of pupils in this draft standards revision and does little to reflect the complexity of engaging pupils in education. 1 Taken from QTS (Q1) and Core (C1) Professional Standards for Teachers 2 Taken from QTS (Q18) and Core (C18) Professional Standards for Teachers 2
Communication and work with other groups, particularly parents/carers The draft standards omit the Core and QTS standards emphasis on communication, particularly with parents/carers who receive little attention in this revision. In addition, the emphasis on providing colleagues, parents/carers with constructive, accurate and timely feedback on learners attainment, progress and areas for development 3 is omitted in this revision. This ignores teachers experience of the value of establishing positive relationships with parents and carers and of their vital role in supporting pupils learning. Professional development It is very interesting that in a document which is meant to be a tool to steer professional development 4 that the emphasis on professional development is fleeting, appearing in the last item within the standards; You must take responsibility for improving your teaching through appropriate professional development, responding to advice and feedback from colleagues 5. The Core standards emphasis on review 6 in addition to a commitment to improving their practice 7 has been changed for sole emphasis on improvement and portrays the drive for teachers to access professional development as being in response to colleague advice and feedback. It also loses an emphasis on innovation as included in the Core/QTS standards which talks of teachers taking a creative and constructively critical approach towards innovation. 8 This omission fits with the worrying de-professionalisation of teachers manifest in these draft standards. Curriculum and assessment Sections 3 to 8 of the draft standards are worryingly prescriptive and detailed, with content which belongs in job descriptions rather than within a standards document, for example under standard 4 You set homework and plan other out-of-class activities. It varies from worrying level of detail to demands that do not reflect the complexity of schools. ATL s view of teacher professionalism is in direct contrast with standards that aim to prescribe what professional decisions teachers make in order to teach and engage their pupils in learning. We have strong concerns about many of the standards outlined in the bullets in sections 3 to 8 and to their level of detail/prescription. A strong example of this inappropriate level of prescription relates to the fourth bullet point/standard in section 3: If you are teaching reading to primary-age pupils, you demonstrate a clear understanding of systematic synthetic phonics. Draft standard 5 [headline] states that teachers should use a range of teaching skills, strategies and resources this should be sufficient coverage of teacher strategies. Reference to one particular strategy demonstrates a political prejudice rather than professional knowledge and expertise. No matter to which use the standards will be put, it is vital that each heading/bullet point is carefully worded to reflect education reality. For example, ATL is concerned with the standard in section 3 that states that teachers should consistently maintain pupils interest in the subject. This takes no account of pupils role in this; of their preferences, strengths, weaknesses, the impact of wider circumstances. Teachers should not have to be judged at any stage against standards which rely upon some factors outside of their control. Despite a level of worrying prescription and detail in the draft standards sections on teaching, it has some concerning omissions in relation to content from the QTS/Core standards, as outlined below. In relation to teaching, the draft standards omit explicit reference to local and national statistical information [C13], and statutory/non-statutory curricula [Q15], [C16]. 3 Taken from Core (C32) Professional Standards for Teachers 4 DfE Terms of Reference for the Review of Teachers Standards, p.1 5 DfE Draft Standards for Teachers 16 May 2011, p.3 6 Taken from Core (C35) Professional Standards for Teachers 7 Taken from QTS (Q7) and Core (C7) Professional Standards for Teachers 8 Taken from QTS (Q8) and Core (C8) Professional Standards for Teachers 3
The draft standards omit any emphasis on cross-curriculum approaches or understanding [C15]. The draft standards omit EAL, disabilities [Q19], [C19] and also QTS/Core s message about diversity and promotion of equality and inclusion in their teaching [Q19], [C19] [Q25], [C29]. In the teaching aspect, the draft standards do not reflect pupils learning and thinking skills and the concept of pupil application of new knowledge, understanding and skills [Q25] [C29]. Safeguarding ATL is concerned with the considerable watering down of safeguarding with its brief mention in the Personal and Professional Conduct section in a brief sub-bullet point. It omits the QTS/Core standards reference to local arrangements re safeguarding, identifying neglect or child abuse and following safeguarding procedures, identifying vulnerable children and when to refer them [Q21], [C22-25]. Statutory provisions are only mentioned once (in the bullet above) and there is no reference to equality legislation for example. Behaviour ATL is very surprised that in the behaviour section of the draft standards there is no reference to whole-school behaviour policy as seen in the Core standards [C38]. This reflects the trend, within these standards, to have an overly-narrow focus on teachers classroom approach rather than the whole-school approach. Legislation / policies The QTS and Core standards emphasise the statutory framework, workplace policies and practices, including those designed to promote equality of opportunity. In contrast, the draft only briefly alludes to this broader context: You must have proper and professional regard for the ethos, policies and practices of the school in which you teach, and maintain the highest standards of attendance and punctuality (Section 9, bullet 3). Furthermore, this standard removes the emphasis on professionals contributing to policies (as reflected in the Core standards) 9. It also removes the emphasis on equality of opportunity seen in the Core/QTS standards (C3/Q3). Ethics and behaviour ATL contests the inclusion of a section of ethics and behaviour within this standards document it does not fit within the role of professional standards. Also, the language within this section is ambiguous as in section 9, second bullet point which states that teachers should not express personal beliefs including political, religious or moral beliefs in ways that exploit pupils vulnerability. This is ambiguous; how is pupil vulnerability to be interpreted; this is one of a number of sections that is open to abuse and misinterpretation. There are also elements within this section which fall more appropriately within disciplinary codes eg improper sexual and emotional relationships with a pupil, punctuality and attendance, which should therefore be removed. Conclusion These Draft standards move away from the principle focus of the previous Core/QTS Standards and the Code of Practice. They read more like a job description than a set of standards and are likely to lend themselves to a tick-box approach. In order that these draft Standards prove to be helpful to the profession and reflect the professionalism of teachers, ATL makes the following recommendations: The sections on teaching are substantially slimmed down with a change of emphasis from what teachers should do in detail to a set of quality principles which reflects and guides the profession. 9 Core (C3) Professional Standards for Teachers 4
References to particular teaching methods and strategies (eg synthetic phonics) should be removed or referred to as one of a range of teaching methods which teachers should understand. The role of teachers as active agents and professionals in their professional development and an emphasis on creativity and innovation should be reflected within the standards. Revised standards must reflect the pupil relationship and the importance of teacher relationships outside of the classroom, with parents/carers, the community and other professionals with a focus on pupil and parent engagement and extended services. Key elements such as diversity, equality of opportunity and school-level policies should be re-introduced. Sections on ethics and professional conduct should be separate from the teaching standards themselves. These standards should be open to public consultation in concert with the higher level standards to reflect how each needs to complement the other roles within the team. 5