Study visit group report

Study visit group report Group No: 174 Title of the visit Qualifications and competences for today s teachers Topic Teachers and trainers` continuing professional development and career opportunities City, country Malaga, Spain Type of visit Mixed Dates of visit 19 th March 23 rd March, 2012 Group reporter Steven Chubb, University of Cumbria, United Kingdom I FINDINGS 1. One of the objectives of the study visits programme is to exchange examples of good practice among hosts and participants. Cedefop will select well-described projects/programmes/initiatives and disseminate them to former participants and a wider public, including potential partners for future projects. Therefore it is important that you identify and describe all aspects that, in your view, make these projects/programmes/initiatives successful and worth exploring. Study visits are part of the framework of the European lifelong learning programme and their main objectives are the exchange of information and experiences between education specialists. The study visit Qualifications and Competences for Today s Teachers was held in Malaga, Spain between the 19 th and 23 rd March, 2012 and was based at the Teacher s Training Centre for Malaga (the Centro del Profesorado de Malaga). The Centre provides training and resources for teachers through a range of collaborative activities, developmental programmes and in-services training projects. These activities are tailored to meet locally identified needs. Teachers and staff members of the Centro del Profesorado de Malaga are highly motivated, open, innovative and selfreflective. They have a positive attitude towards development in order to improve the quality of in-service teacher training. Their highly professional expertise and standards were demonstrated in both the content and the excellent organisation of the whole study visit. The aim of this study visit was to compare the qualifications and competences of teachers who work in schools across Europe and to consider how these teachers update and renew their professional practice. Seventeen professionals from fourteen countries participated 1

in the visit and the countries represented were Latvia, Turkey, Germany, Poland, Slovakia, Italy, Austria, Belgium, Romania, France, Norway, Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom. The study visit was very well organised by highly professional staff who obviously take great pride in their work. The visit provided all participants with a wide variety of experiences such as visiting schools at different levels, inputs from local teachers and education professionals and the chance to share practice across our participant countries. The study visit provided a wonderful opportunity to share views on education practice across Europe in both formal and informal settings. Overall, it was felt that we share many broad trends and issues in our education systems, particularly in connection to the inservice training of teachers. Good practice identified during the study visit: 1. In-service training for teachers. Werner Mair: Werner.Mair@schule.suedtirol.it The Sud-Tirol region offers free in-service training to its teachers and is able to make use of a wide range of suitable sites to host the training. See www.schule.suedtirol.it 2. Bilingual schools www.juntadeandalucia.es/educacion In primary and secondary schools, the Junta de Andalucia have developed some innovative planning and thinking around the teaching of languages in schools and this could provide a model for elsewhere in Europe. Contact: Jose Francisco jfrancisco.subiri.ext@juntadeandalucia.es 3. In-service training for teachers Centro del Profesorado de Malagá at www.cepmalaga.com The centre operates a range of programmes through activities at the centre, training in schools and collaborative work groups that work on a particular issue for a set period of time. These approaches and their increasing use of web-based materials and social network sites makes their model of in-service training one that could be followed elsewhere. Contact: Juana Saenz jmsaenz@cepmalaga.com Some individual highlights and comments made by participants: Tove (Norway) I have learned a great deal about the school systems in other European countries and I will take these experiences back to Norway to discuss with my teacher colleagues. I enjoyed the visits to the Spanish schools and was particularly impressed with the new developments in their use of computer technology.

Florentina (Romania) I valued the chance to see how bilingual classes operate in Andalucía and how strongly the province values the teaching of foreign languages. Milena and Marzanna (Poland) In the future many of us will be bilingual and the bilingual school model that we have seen in Andalucía could become a standard in other countries. This will be a challenge for educational administrators and in-service trainers as teachers will need to be flexible and motivated about up-skilling. However, it is a challenge worth accepting. José (Belgium) I was particularly struck by the fact that, even though we share the same goals, our approaches are diverse. The study visit was organised perfectly and I welcomed the opportunity to further develop my professional practice. Nikolaus (Austria) I have learned a great deal from the discussions with colleagues from other countries and will take home some useful ideas. Sussie (Denmark) Visiting the Spanish schools and learning about the school systems of other countries has made me reflect on my own professional practice. I was especially struck by the integration of children and young adults with a range of special educational needs into mainstream schools in Malaga. Werner (Italy) The most valuable lesson for me was to share our best practices in in-service training. I will take some of these ideas home with me. Steven (United Kingdom) I was particularly impressed with the bilingual programmes within the schools and the dedication of the team at the Teacher s Centre in Malaga. I will reflect on the different approaches to in-service training for teachers that I have encountered and hope to develop some of these ideas in my own context. Livija (Latvia) I was very impressed with the progressive bilingual system in Andalucia. This has made me reflect on the challenge that faces my country as we are at the beginning of this development in Latvia and I recognise how essential bilingualism is for our future in Europe. Oktay (Turkey) I found that teacher training systems in the participant countries seem to be going through constant change. While some change is necessary, stability is also valuable. We need to critically evaluate new initiatives to ensure that they are worthwhile. Effective initial teacher training and in-service training require careful planning and adequate funding and this is a challenge that we all face.

Suzanne (Ireland) The most interesting aspect for me was learning about Dual Teaching in Norway a completely new concept for me and something that I will investigate further. I imagine that working with a partner teacher and sharing the duties, care and responsibility of a class as a team ensures that the conversation about direction and progress planning is always active. Jana (Slovakia) The most interesting aspect for me was exploring pluralingualism in local Spanish schools. I believe that this is a very sophisticated approach to education. Nathalie and Evelyne (France) Meeting colleagues from 14 different European countries has given us the opportunity to learn a lot about the different education training systems. It was interesting to see how each country deals with the topic of training and how it integrates innovation at school. For example the Spanish bi-lingual schools showed us that even very young pupils can begin to learn a foreign language effectively. Christoph and Hans-Joachim (Germany) Malaga seems to be a region with a high level of investment into the development of the educational system and in this context in-service-teacher training centres, such as the Centro del Profesorado de Malagá, play a very important role. 2. The study visits programme aims to promote and support policy development and cooperation in lifelong learning. That is why it is important to know what you learnt about such policies and their implementation during your visit. You are invited to describe your findings concerning the following: 2.1 APPROACHES TAKEN BY PARTICIPATING COUNTRIES (BOTH HOST AND PARTICIPANTS ) REGARDING THE THEME OF THE VISIT. ARE THERE ANY SIMILAR APPROACHES/MEASURES IN PARTICIPATING COUNTRIES? WHAT ASPECTS ARE SIMILAR AND WHY? WHAT ASPECTS ARE DIFFERENT AND WHY? The approaches within the different countries could perhaps be best summed up by the phrase the same, but different. The point being that everyone involved in teacher training and ongoing teacher development is working towards the same end but via different means. The role of in-service teacher training was valued and recognised within all of the participating countries. Most countries are now using on-line training for in-service programmes as well as faceto-face training and this obviously has the potential to save money and time for those involved. In-service training is certainly encouraged in all the countries represented but in some this is more mandatory than in others. Some countries require teachers to have a Master s qualification to enter teaching, others require it as part of the in-service training while others only encourage it for staff where it is feasible.

Some countries require teachers to pass an exam before they enter the profession and these may vary in level. The amount of practical training within initial teacher training may also vary and in some countries the amount of school involvement is under discussion or indeed growing. Perhaps there is a need for further European-wide discussion about the minimum requirements for teacher training to ensure consistency and quality? 2.2 CHALLENGES FACED BY PARTICIPATING COUNTRIES (INCLUDING HOST) IN THEIR EFFORTS TO IMPLEMENT POLICIES RELATED TO THE THEME OF THE VISIT. WHAT ARE THE CHALLENGES? ARE THEY COMMON CHALLENGES? IF SO, WHY? IF NOT, WHY NOT? Cost of provision is an obvious challenge for all countries involved in providing in-service training for teachers, especially in the current financial climate. Where provision is more optional and delivered by a range of providers this is perhaps less of an issue. However, where there is a strong state or national provision alongside a more mandatory aspect to in-service training, this obviously has greater financial implications for those involved. A common challenge discussed by the group was the attitude of the teachers themselves. Some teachers may feel a little de-motivated (for various reasons, such as pace of change, pay or terms of service) and so may not actively seek out further in-service development. Other teachers may not feel they need further training or have been unable to identify key needs and so do not seek the training. A key area of training is around the use of ICT in the school or classroom and it is this aspect that has been identified as a key priority in many countries. The Teacher s Training Centre in Malaga, for example, has put great priority into servicing this aspect of teacher development. The fact that training is sometimes after school, at weekends or during school holidays could understandably be a de-motivating factor for some teachers. From the presentations we realised that our profession is in a period of constant change throughout Europe, especially in the fields of foreign language learning and ICT. It is obvious that teachers all over Europe are working more and more in international teams and that teacher training needs to encourage such projects. We are all moving in the same direction and we make the same effort in improving teacher competences and teaching quality. It would be interesting to continue to encourage teachers to share their experiences and best practices at a European level, perhaps virtually and also by giving them the opportunity to meet in person. Of course it all depends on finance but even in times of economic crisis we have to continue to invest in valuable education programmes such as study visits. The presentations given by the participants raised some important questions. For example: to what extent are teachers themselves convinced of the need of in-service teacher training; how can we measure the effectiveness of in-service teacher training on teacher development and learning outcomes and to what extent should in-service teacher training be made obligatory by schools and governments? These are not easy questions to answer.

Another theme that developed through the week was the problem of attracting enough high-calibre candidates into teaching in the first place, let alone retaining them during their career. Problems with perceptions of the job (such as an increasingly lower status), changing pay and conditions and changes to work life balance mean that in some countries teacher supply is seen as a growing problem. This is a difficult issue to address as it requires investment and perhaps some broader changes in the perception of teachers within society. 2.3 NAME AND DESCRIBE EFFECTIVE AND INNOVATIVE SOLUTIONS YOU HAVE IDENTIFIED THAT PARTICIPATING COUNTRIES (BOTH HOST AND PARTICIPANTS) APPLY TO ADDRESS THE CHALLENGES MENTIONED IN QUESTION 2.2. PLEASE MENTION SPECIFIC COUNTRY EXAMPLES. In the United Kingdom, schools are obliged to provide 5 days of in-service training per year to all teaching staff. These days are usually based within the school and do not usually involve outside input, but they do usually make good use of expertise from within the school. They also increasingly make good use of initial teacher training students from within the school and this often provides very up-to-date and useful input, particularly in the realm of developments within ICT in education. The progression teachers make during their career could be linked clearly to the amount of in-service training that has been completed. In Romania, for example, the training requirements and expectations are at a high level and it may take teachers some years to fully qualify and reach the top of their grade. The work that centres such as the Teacher s Training Centre of Malaga completes with teachers in terms of projects and small work groups seems very useful as a model. Here, priorities or needs are identified and a small group come together for a specified period of time to meet these priorities. Good use is also made of on-line materials so that staff who is unable to attend the centre can still participate. The centre makes good use of new online possibilities for dissemination such as through Facebook and Twitter. Whatever our own view of such social media sites it would seem that further use of such sites may become increasingly important in engaging teachers in the future. Further involvement of Universities in in-service training was felt to be a priority for many countries. Universities are usually involved in initial teacher education but their later involvement can vary greatly. They often have strong links to local schools and teachers and so they seem an obvious conduit for further development. This solution would depend on the ability of teachers and others to identify needs and solutions, however, as discussed above.

2.4 ASSESSMENT OF THE TRANSFERABILITY OF POLICIES AND PRACTICES. COULD ANY EXAMPLES OF GOOD PRACTICE PRESENTED IN THIS REPORT BE APPLIED AND TRANSFERRED TO OTHER COUNTRIES? IF SO, WHY? IF NOT, WHY NOT? The further involvement of Universities in in-service training is a distinct possibility that could be transferable. The sharing of good practice through the informal routes provided by involvement in initial teacher training would be quite easy to develop. The use of initial teacher trainees themselves in developing in-service provision in schools (especially in the realm of ICT training) would appear to be a positive way forward. Relating this to the theoretical application offered by Wenger s Communities of Practice model, we should perhaps accept more readily that the novices have something to offer the old-timers and are not just in school to follow an apprenticeship model and be trained to meet the perceived needs of the existing school community. As stated above, an issue for all countries involved in in-service training is the cost element and for some countries this remains an on-going issue. This may preclude the adoption of some of the ideas discussed above. Another inhibiting factor may be the level of local control over policies such as in-service training and teacher development. In Spain, Germany and Italy, for example, the high level of local control through federal or semiautonomous regions means that local, flexible solutions may be found and applied quite readily. In more centralised systems such as France, Poland, the United Kingdom and Ireland, however, varied and flexible responses at the local level may be more difficult to plan and deliver. 3. Creating networks of experts, building partnerships for future projects is another important objective of the study visit programme. Please state whether and which ideas for future cooperation have evolved during meetings and discussions. All participants shared their relevant websites for further sharing and discussion in the future. All participants agreed they would stay in touch and start to consider how they might collaborate on relevant projects. Some examples of possible collaboration include: Further discussion between the participants from Ireland and Norway over the use of dual teachers in the Primary classroom; Further contact between the participants from Germany, U.K. and Italy investigating comparative secondary education and the changing curriculum in their respective countries;

Further contact between the participants from Slovakia, Poland and Austria to consider developments in teacher training in their countries; Many of the group aimed to stay in close contact with the Teacher s Training Centre of Malaga to investigate the concept of bilingualism and pluralingualism teaching in secondary schools. This was especially the case for participants from Latvia and the U.K. TO SUM UP 4. What is the most interesting/useful information that the group believes should be communicated to others? To whom, do you think, this information will be of most interest? A recurrent theme throughout the visit was the contrast between the needs of teachers and the financial and organisational provision made for their continuing development. There was a great range in provision discussed within the group, and this ranged from compulsory in-service training to completely voluntary training for teachers. There was also a range of providers identified across the different countries represented. In some places there was a very obvious locus for developmental training (for example, the Teacher s Training Centre at Malaga itself), whereas in others there were a range of providers on offer and so it is up to the school or individual teacher to make best use of the available resources. In the United Kingdom, for example, there are a range of providers such as charities (including Exam Boards and subject associations), private educational organisations, Universities and Government based providers. Sometimes this can provide an almost overwhelming array of provision through which teachers and schools must navigate very carefully. The study visit led to a very interesting exchange of ideas. The informal conversations around similarities and differences of our various educational systems were invaluable. It was perhaps reassuring to find that many of us in Europe deal with similar challenges and issues; for example, dealing with pupil motivation and how to approach the balance of compulsory and optional in-service training. Further discussion and collaboration between relevant parties in different countries can surely only continue to assist us in meeting these challenges. The key theme of the week, as mentioned above, was the same, but different. We are all travelling towards the same destination, but the route taken may vary.