ASSOCIATION OF TEACHERS AND LECTURERS 1 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 GENERAL SECRETARY Dr MARY BOUSTED B.A.(Hons) PhD Online consultation re the Teacher Apprenticeship Standard Response from the Association of Teachers and Lecturers (ATL) March 2017 About ATL 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 s education policy is underpinned by the professionalism of teachers. Teachers should be recognised for their knowledge, expertise and judgement, at the level of the individual pupil and in articulating the role of education in promoting social justice. Development of the education system should take place at a local level: the curriculum should be developed in partnership with local stakeholders and assessment should be carried out through local professional networks. Schools should work collaboratively to provide excellent teaching and learning with a broad and balanced curriculum, and to support pupils well-being, across a local area. This means that mechanisms must be developed that ensure a proper balance of accountability to national government and the local community, and which supports collaboration rather than competition. Executive Summary Via the survey monkey consultation, ATL made the following points, in relation to the survey questions: We agree that the teacher apprenticeship standard should be the same as the Teachers Standards; as they are the basis on which teacher qualification is awarded. We are concerned that the duration of the programme may be unrealistic, and very out-of-step with the amount of time that Level 6 apprenticeships take in other countries. The encouragement, within the trailblazer guidance, of schools to register as training providers to directly design and deliver the 20% off-the-job training
2 requirement undermines the vital strong partnerships between schools and higher education institutions (HEIs), and impacts negatively on the opportunity for student teachers to access a strong theoretical base for their practice and to have a broader experience than any single school or MAT, can provide. Funding and teacher shortage could drive bad practice and abuse of the TA route; it s vital that there is a clear structure with accepted milestones, to ensure clear expectations around duration, content and levels of support. To ensure the teacher apprenticeship route leads to a qualification which has currency across the UK, the PGCE should be mandatory, rather than optional as currently proposed. The work of Stephen Munday s group around exemplifications of the Teachers Standards in relation to initial teacher education provision and the current work around strengthened QTS will need to be considered within the development of the teacher apprenticeship programme. We need to hear more about the sign-off of the standard, post development and consultation. We also need to learn ore around the external quality assurance options. Representing the full education workforce, across the UK, we would like to be involved in the on-going development of the Teacher Apprenticeship Standard and assessment methodology. The Consultation Questions (response completed online via surveymonkey) 5. Referring to the Draft Teacher Apprenticeship Standard do you agree that the occupation profile accurately describes what someone who is fully competent to begin employment as a teacher will be expected to be able to do? Options: Strongly agree; Agree; Disagree. We agree to the extent that the occupation profile is identical to the preamble from the existing Teachers standards, with the addition of the academic requirements which UCAS identify for those applying to other initial teacher education routes. Whether the Teachers Standards themselves accurately describe what a good teacher can and should do, is open to question, reflecting concerns we have expressed before in our 2011 response regarding the then-draft Teachers Standards: 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.
3 The draft standards also fail to reflect progression between qualification and early professional development and raise interesting questions about the role of induction. The [Standards do]...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. https://www.atl.org.uk/images/atlteachingstandardsresponsefinal.pdf 6. The proposed knowledge, skill and behaviour requirements outlined in the Draft Standard are well defined and cover all key requirements for full competence as a teacher. Options: Strongly agree; Agree; Disagree. We agree to the extent that the proposed knowledge, skill and behaviour requirements outlined in the Draft Standard are identical to those from the existing Teachers standards, against which current students on initial teacher education routes are judged, in terms of expectations of their abilities and knowledge and their competence to begin employment as a teachers. We include the caveat around the existing teachers standards as outlined in our answer to the previous question. 7. The proposed 'typical' duration of the apprenticeship in the Draft Standard is appropriate. Options: Strongly agree; Agree; Disagree; Strongly Disagree. We disagree that the duration of this apprenticeship is appropriate, based on the amount of time that usual Level 6 apprenticeships take in countries which have more experience, wider breadth, and proven quality in their apprenticeship provision. We also await more detail of what will be included within the apprenticeship, the role of higher education within it and what the minimum of 20% of off-the-job training will entail, in practice. It s concerning that not only does the trailblazer guidance refers to the possibility of this off-the-job training being delivered on site; it actively encourages schools to register as training provider to directly design and deliver the content of the off-the-job training that apprentices in your school will receive. This minimises the involvement of higher education, ignoring the substantial evidence that good ITE relies on strong partnerships between schools and HEIs, with students on school-led routes having the opportunity to have a strong theoretical base, to provide them with a broader training, than that which can be provided in any one workplace. This concern also applies to multiple workplaces within MATs, which while they may provide a broader experience than a single school, will still (likely) be operating with a specific ethos and pedagogy, that may be peculiar to the Trust. In the current funding and teacher shortage crisis, abuse of the teacher apprenticeship route, in terms of content and duration, becomes more likely. It s therefore vital that there is a clear structure and milestones set in relation to the programme, with limits to its duration so that
4 apprentices, colleagues and schools can have clear expectations around content, timing and support. 8. The proposed entry requirements outlined in the Draft Standard are appropriate for the Teacher Apprenticeship. Options: Agree; Disagree. We agree, in that the entry requirements as outlined in the Draft Standard are the same as those towards other ITE routes, requiring a degree (or equivalent). This suggests that rather than something new, this apprenticeship route is to echo closely the School Direct (Salaried) scheme. With the entry requirements, teacher standards and timeline exactly the same, it is unlikely to be a route that attracts a more diverse and larger group of applicants into the profession. 9. The suggested qualifications outlined in the Draft Standard are appropriate for the Teacher Apprenticeship. Options: Agree; Disagree. We agree with the proposal that the qualification be set at Level 6. The initial proposal that the teacher apprenticeship be set at Level 7 (Masters) was unrealistic within the one year time frame initially and still outlined. However, as we outlined in Question 7, we are very concerned at the assumption within this programme, as outlined in the initial proposal and trailblazer guidance, that HEIs are not a necessity. The PGCE has currency within education, and across the countries of the UK and we believe that this element should be mandatory, rather than optional. We are concerned that the proposed optional nature of the PGCE within the teacher apprenticeship programme and the myopic focus away from HEI-input will make it difficult for apprentices to obtain it. Indeed, there are also questions to be asked around the cost of the PGCE; would it attract a separate cost and if so, who is most likely to be bear that. As with many aspects of this teacher apprenticeship route, there seems to be little thought on how it will appeal to the numbers of trainee teachers that are so desperately wanted by the system, nor the impact it has on the workforce in terms of workload, and indeed the capacity of both the apprentice and the workplace to deliver what is needed. 10. Is the two-year period until the review of the Standard appropriate? Options: Yes; Probably; No. Probably, review of the new standard is important, in terms of impact it has on practice, foreseen and unforeseen and in light of changes around initial teacher education and CPD. We believe that it is key to have a proper pilot of the teacher apprenticeship (TA) route, that it is reviewed in terms of professional preparedness, retention levels and impact on overall attractiveness of the profession. We also question how much freedom there will be to change the standard, as it s based on the current teachers standards which the Secretary of State has said will not be changing.
5 We wait to see the impact of current/forthcoming work around strengthened QTS on the TA standard etc. 11. Is there anything else you think should be taken into account when developing the Teacher Apprenticeship Standard? Options: Yes; No. Yes, while QTS is based on the Teachers Standards, whatever the issues with those standards are, then the Teacher Apprenticeship Standard must mirror the Teachers Standards, as the current draft does. However, bearing in mind Ofsted s use of Stephen Munday s working group s exemplification of the Teachers Standards in their inspection of ITE provision, that should be also taken into account. This need for this standards exemplification to be recognised is even more important, when strengthened QTS work goes forward, especially if it leads to a delay in the award of QTS; what impact will this have on the timing of QTS in relation to the teacher apprenticeship, and its standards framework. We also await further details around the sign-off of the apprenticeship standard, post development and consultation. Legislation requires the Institute for Apprenticeships to ensure that standards and assessment plans have been examined by an independent third party before they can be approved, but we would like to have further details on this. We also have questions around external quality assurance (EQA) options, as part of the responsibility of the Institute for Apprenticeships. Which of the four EQA options available to the employer group developing assessment plans, ie i) a Professional Body, ii) Ofqual, iii) the Institute of Apprenticeships (if standards/plans don t need QA until post April 2017), and iv) processes developed by employer groups, will be chosen. The draft standard doesn t address assessment or EQA and we look forward to further detail on these. 12. Would you/your organisation like to be involved in the on-going development of the Teacher Standard and assessment methodology? Options: Yes; No. Yes. As a union which represents 160,000 members in education, we believe that it s vital that their voices and experiences inform development of a teacher apprenticeship standard, contacted via policy@atl.org.uk. ATL are in a strong position to contribute to future work around teacher apprenticeships: Our workforce has considerable expertise, knowledge and skills of what is needed in teacher training, what works well, and what doesn t. We can also provide a school leadership perspective through our leadership section, AMiE. We have a strong membership in Further Education, where the workforce has developed working relationships with local employers to deliver apprenticeships over decades. The consultation on the FE teacher standards was minimal; ATL believes that this opportunity to
6 ensure that development of an apprenticeship standard is informed by evidence is vital and should not be missed again. The Expression of Interest indicates that the group is willing to work with colleagues from other sectors where the standards are closely related, so we would urge involvement of FE workforce with the caveat that there are issues of equality with the FE teacher apprenticeship standards. We have a strong support staff membership, who constitute potential applicants for this route, and it would be key to have their voice represented within this work. Our membership in Wales and Northern Ireland provide us with a valuable expertise and perspective around the portability of qualifications across the UK. Wales is currently reviewing professional development and standards, so we can bring that perspective and expertise to bear to this development work. We have good working relationships with HEIs and believe in evidenceinformed policy and practice. We provide an excellent CPD programme and our General Secretary has chaired the unionlearn board from 2009 to date and has just become president of the TUC. Serving our range of membership from students to leaders, we will ensure that the individual (ie not just the employer) is central to the apprenticeship development. We need to ensure that apprentices have a training plan and that they know where to get support to ensure it is adhered to. The apprenticeship must be portable between schools, sectors and countries through the inclusion of a recognised qualification.