UK Data Archive Study Number 6890 - Surveys of Teachers, 2004-2010 Accountability in Teaching Key messages from two research studies 1.0 Introduction In early 2009, the General Teaching Council for England (GTC) commissioned two research studies to inform its project on the future of accountability in teaching. The project forms part of the GTC s vision for teaching in 2012 http://www.gtce.org.uk/gtc/teaching2012vision/. The research sought to explore teachers experiences of the operation and impact of current accountability arrangements and tested various scenarios for developments in accountability. The research explored teachers views on the future of professional accountability and their appetite for introducing a requirement for teachers to revalidate their professional knowledge and practice. Since the research was completed, the Government has signalled in the Your Child, Your Schools, Our Future white paper 1 that it intends to introduce a renewable licence to teach, for which teachers will be required to demonstrate periodically that their skills are up to date and that their practice continues to meet the standards required for the profession. Although the GTC s research did not examine the concept of a licence to teach explicitly, it did capture teachers reflections on the principle and objectives of introducing a requirement for teachers to demonstrate their professional development and how this might work in practice with current continuing professional development (CPD) arrangements. The findings of the research are discussed in two parts in this paper. Part 1 outlines the key messages from the research relating to teachers accountability for maintaining and improving their knowledge and practice, and their current experiences of engaging in CPD. This provides evidence to inform the development of the licence to teach policy. Part 2 of the paper provides an overview of the findings on accountability more broadly, including teachers experiences of how they are held to account, to whom and for what they feel accountable, and their reflections on reforming the current framework. 2.0 Methods Evidence was gathered through two research projects that ran concurrently; a representative survey and a qualitative study. The independent research agency TNS-BMRB was commissioned to conduct the survey. They drew a sample of 1 Your child, your schools, our future: building a 21st century schools system, DCSF (June 2009). 1
12,500 teachers at random from the GTC Register of teachers 2. 5,168 teachers responded achieving a response rate of 41 per cent. The profile of respondents was compared against the Register to ensure its representativeness of the teaching population. Teachers took part by means of a self-completion questionnaire either via a postal or web survey between 23 February and 30 April 2009. A booster sample of teachers from Black and minority ethnic groups (BME) was drawn at the same time as the main survey sample. This achieved 668 responses from BME teachers in total. The BME teacher sample results cannot be compared statistically with those of the main survey of teachers (see method statement in BME teacher survey report for further information). However, where there appear to be interesting differences these have been noted throughout the paper. The qualitative study was conducted in two stages by OPM. Stage 1 took place between January and March 2009 and comprised eight focus groups with teachers and eight interviews with Head teachers in different geographical locations. Stage 2 took place between March and May 2009 and involved two larger workshops. Participants that represented a diverse cross-section of location, school type, role, length of service, ethnicity, gender and age group were recruited to take part. The detailed reports from both projects are available on the GTC website. In addition to the two studies, the GTC also commissioned a review of literature on the accountability of teachers. The findings of the review are not discussed in this paper but are available in a separate report on the GTC website. 3.0 Part 1: Accountability for maintaining and improving practice 3.1 Do teachers feel accountable for maintaining and improving their practice? The research found that teachers overwhelmingly felt accountable for the quality of their teaching and expressed a strong sense of professional responsibility for maintaining and improving their practice, with many teachers wanting more importance placed on accountability for improving professional knowledge and practice in the future. The extent to which teachers currently feel accountable for this varies across roles and working status. Part-time teachers and supply teachers, in particular, felt less accountable for improving their professional knowledge and practice than other teachers. This was especially so among local authority supply teachers. Both parttime teachers and supply teachers were also less likely to desire a greater level of accountability in future for improving this. 3.2 Experiences of accessing adequate CPD The survey findings showed a strong association between teachers experiences of CPD and their sense of accountability for both the quality of their teaching and improving their knowledge and practice. Teachers who said they had not had 2 It is compulsory for qualified teachers working in maintained schools, pupil referral units and non-maintained special schools in England to be registered with the GTC. There are more than 551,000 teachers currently on the Register. 2
access to adequate CPD opportunities in the last twelve months and who felt their professional development needs had not been identified by their school or employer were significantly more likely to say they did not feel accountable for the quality of their teaching or improving their professional knowledge and practice. Correspondingly, teachers that reported a more positive CPD experience felt more accountable for both of these. This pattern applied not only to how accountable teachers felt for their professional development, but also how accountable they felt for other measures including children s wider well-being, engaging with parents, responding to pupil views, and promoting equality. Equally, the level of importance teachers attributed to different reasons why schools and teachers were held to account, such as maintaining standards of professional behaviour, increased among those teachers who felt that their professional development needs had been identified and who had accessed adequate CPD opportunities. Teachers access to CPD varies according to the context of the school in which they teach. Those who teach in schools with a higher level of challenge, in relation to attainment and SEN 3, were more likely to say they have not had access to adequate CPD opportunities and that they need more time to engage in professional development than those working with lower levels of challenge. Interestingly, teachers faced with higher levels of challenge, in terms of both attainment and SEN challenge and socio-economic and linguistic challenge 4, wanted to see a greater focus in future on accountability for the quality of teaching and improving professional knowledge and practice. 3.3 Teachers participation in CPD Participation in CPD was high amongst teachers in general, with 94 per cent having engaged in some form of CPD activity in the past twelve months. However, participation varies considerably within the profession. About 14 per cent were highly engaged, having undertaken four or more types of activity on a frequent basis in the past year. The most common form of activity undertaken by teachers in general was collaborative learning with school colleagues, with eight in ten engaged in this either frequently or occasionally in the past year. This finding was reflected by focus group discussions, where teachers said that a significant proportion of their professional development was undertaken outside formal training sessions, e.g. peer observations, shadowing and mentoring. Teachers felt that such types of activity were easier to fit into a busy school day and had greater benefit for teachers practice. Interestingly, however, when teachers referred to CPD they associated it largely with participation in external courses rather than developing their practice within the classroom setting. CPD activity varies by role, with Head teachers and Assistant/Deputy Head teachers participating more frequently and in a wider variety of CPD activities. In contrast, supply teachers engaged very little. In fact, two in five supply teachers 3 DCSF data were used to identify the percentage of pupils with special needs and percentage of pupils who achieve the expected levels in national tests in survey respondents schools. 4 DCSF data were used to identify the percentage of pupils eligible for free school meals and percentage of pupils whose first language is not English in survey respondents schools. 3
said they had not engaged in any CPD activity in the past year. Part-time teachers and those aged 55 and over were also less engaged. Differences exist also between the phases of education. Secondary teachers tend to engage in more CPD activities than primary teachers but despite this were more likely to say they need more time for their professional development. Secondary teachers were less likely to feel accountable at present for both the quality of their teaching and improving their knowledge and practice than primary teachers, which may help to explain why secondary teachers were more likely to desire a greater focus in future on accountability for improving professional knowledge and practice. 3.4 Value and impact of CPD Looking at the impact of CPD on teaching, three in five teachers surveyed agreed that participation in professional development activities has had a positive impact on their teaching practice, and just over half had seen a positive impact on their pupils learning. It should be noted, however, that there was a level of indecision among teachers about the impact of CPD activity, particularly regarding the impact on pupils, with a quarter of teachers opting to give a neutral response on this. This uncertainty might be explained by poor perceptions of the relationship between commitment to CPD and delivering outcomes in teaching and learning expressed by teachers in the discussion groups. Teachers who had a higher level of participation in CPD activities were more likely to agree that CPD has had an impact on their teaching and on their pupils, suggesting that experiences of accessing adequate CPD influence perceptions about its value and impact. Half of teachers surveyed said that their school/employer evaluates the impact of professional development on teachers practice, compared to one in five teachers who said this was not the case. Those more engaged in CPD were more likely to say their school/employer evaluates the impact. The lower the level of academic/sen challenge faced by the school, the more teachers said that their participation in CPD had impacted positively on their teaching practice and their pupils learning. 3.5 Performance management Just under half of teachers surveyed thought that performance management was an effective way of holding teachers to account for the quality of their teaching, and about a third did not. Those teachers who perceive it to be effective were more likely to have participated more frequently in a greater number of CPD activities; said they have had access to adequate CPD opportunities; and said that they have had their professional development needs identified. Secondary teachers were less likely to view performance management as effective. This might be linked to the finding that secondary teachers were less likely than primary teachers to report that their professional development needs have been identified by their school/ employer and that they have had access to adequate CPD opportunities. 4
In the focus group discussions, several teachers and Head teachers in particular suggested that systems for holding teachers accountable, primarily with regard to the quality of their practice, were flawed. Participants expressed particular concerns about the opportunities for bias in the performance management system where staff in middle management were required to judge and hold to account colleagues whom, for example, they have lunch with in the staffroom. Greater input from more objective external advisers, such as School Improvement Partners, in the process of verifying teachers CPD was suggested as a potential solution. Some participants identified that their schools did not always link their targets to individual teachers CPD needs. There was a sense from the majority again that it would be preferable to address such issues through changes to the existing performance management system, rather than by instituting a new process. 3.6 Providing evidence of continuing professional development More than half of teachers surveyed agreed that they should be required to provide evidence of their continuing professional development in order to continue teaching children and young people. A quarter of teachers disagreed. A key factor in teachers openness to this idea was their perception of the impact that professional development activities have on their teaching and pupils learning. Those teachers who reported a positive impact on their teaching practice and on their pupils learning as a result of their CPD activities were more likely to agree that they should be required to provide evidence of their continuing professional development in order to continue teaching. Not surprisingly, perhaps, teachers who felt that their development needs had been identified by their employer and who had had access to adequate CPD opportunities in the last year were also more likely to agree that teachers should be required to evidence their professional development. 3.6.1 Benefits Participants in the focus groups identified that one of the main advantages of such a requirement would be to compel certain teachers to undertake necessary CPD, particularly in cases where they were performing poorly (and were not adequately addressing their weaknesses) or were coasting and not making sufficient efforts to engage with professional development. Making CPD mandatory in this way would provide an additional lever for use by senior management when enforcing CPD involvement among teachers who were not complying with school policies. Several participants also welcomed the system as a means of recognising the efforts of teachers who were currently devoting time to CPD. In addition to maintaining adequate levels of performance, participants suggested that teachers with higher performance should be recognised through reaching a new pay threshold. Participants felt that incentivising engagement in CPD in this way was more likely to maintain a positive culture around professional development, rather than fostering a culture of dragging heels Participants recognised the potential for such a system to support former teachers returning to the profession following career breaks. They felt that it might help to 5
ensure that returning teachers did not bring out-of-date approaches into the classroom, as well as ensuring they could access support, in the form of mentoring, for example, where required. It was felt, however, that teachers who had passed the threshold in the preceding few years should be exempt from a requirement to evidence CPD, in recognition of the fact that they had recently demonstrated their commitment to professional development. A key argument to emerge in favour of requiring teachers to demonstrate their CPD commitment as part of their professional registration was that it would help to standardise the CPD offer to all teachers. Teachers and Head teachers acknowledged that some schools are better than others at supporting CPD, and a system such as this might oblige those schools with a poorer record to put better provision in place. 3.6.2 Concerns A key concern raised by the focus group participants was whether such a system could link effectively with current school processes of determining which areas, subjects and staff members would receive CPD as a priority. It is common practice for schools to direct CPD resources towards subject areas and key stages that are the focus of improvement in the school development plan, with the result that in any one year some teachers will have more development time than others. There were concerns about schools ability to continue to prioritise CPD in this way if they were required to provide each teacher with a minimum allocation of professional development. Teachers were also concerned about being penalised for their school s failure or where funding was constrained inability to provide adequate access to professional development. The cost of funding CPD, including supply cover, was considered a potential difficulty of a system that linked professional development to registration, particularly if an increase in demand caused training costs to rise. Participants especially those with management responsibility indicated that current levels of government funding for CPD would be insufficient for schools to meet the anticipated CPD requirements for every teacher. The issues of time and funding were raised by focus group participants particularly with regard to supply and part-time teachers and those returning to the profession. Participants experience was that teachers on short-term contracts could struggle to gain access to CPD, due to schools reluctance to fund training for non-permanent staff; this difficulty could be compounded if their local authority or supply agency was not proactive in its provision of training, or required the teacher to pay for the course and/or miss a day s work and salary in order to attend. Participants were particularly anxious about the ability of part-time staff to access the CPD required for revalidation. Part-time staff can struggle to be included in the CPD offer to fulltime staff, due to training being scheduled when they are off-site or because of a reluctance to deploy them outside the classroom on the days that they are in school. 6
The issue of concern for most teachers was that such a requirement would demand a great deal of time from staff. Primarily, teachers found it difficult to accept that such a system would not cause extra burden to individual teachers if it required a certain number of hours of engagement in CPD and administration of logging their CPD commitments. Teachers reported that their absence from the classroom as a consequence of engaging in CPD was perceived as disruptive by some parents. Teachers had experienced parents who were unhappy at the disruption caused to their children s learning as a result of being taught for a day by supply or cover staff. The link between CPD and improving outcomes for pupils was therefore not felt to be one that was accepted or appreciated by parents. Teachers also expressed concerns that introducing such a requirement might encourage a tick box approach to professional development, where teachers undertook courses not because these were relevant to their needs and necessary to improve their practice, but because they had to fulfil certain requirements on a surface level. Teachers emphasised the importance of monitoring the impact of CPD activities on pupils, as opposed to monitoring the number of hours teachers were engaged in CPD. Teachers felt that in order for such a system to be worthwhile and feasible, it would be necessary for individual teachers to build up a portfolio of CPD experience which was aligned with their individual development needs. This would have to allow for a diverse range of formal and informal types of CPD to be included, and for teachers to have the freedom to fit their CPD requirements around their existing teaching responsibilities. The quality of training and development and ensuring that courses and other activities are of an adequate standard were considered to be of critical importance to the success of a future system. Teachers felt the implementation of any such system would be unworkable until the quality of provision was addressed. 4.0 Part 2: Accountability in Teaching 4.1 Purposes and experiences of accountability The survey explored the levels of importance teachers place on different purposes of accountability. The most important reason cited for holding teachers and schools to account was to maintain public confidence in the standards of teaching, with nine in ten teachers saying this was very or fairly important. This was closely followed by encouraging improvement in school performance, and providing information about pupil outcomes for use by parents. Of least importance in terms of accountability was showing that government education policies are being followed, although those teaching Early Years and Key Stage 1 were more likely to cite this as important. The importance of accountability was discussed by focus group participants, who felt it was vital that teachers were held to account for safeguarding the welfare of the pupils in their care and achieving the best for them in the long-term. Participants contrasted teaching with other professions, such as medicine, in identifying 7
potentially more subtle implications of not having strict accountability processes in place within the teaching profession. They acknowledged that the consequences of making a mistake in teaching might not be as immediately dire as in medicine, but that it was important for teachers to be aware of the longer-term impact of their actions, which might only be detectable some way down the line. During their discussions on the purposes of accountability, participants also acknowledged the benefits of accountability in relation to upholding public perception of the profession and providing the opportunity for teachers (and other public sector professionals) to showcase their achievements through accountability measures. Head teachers, particularly, were more likely to identify accountability as a means of uniting teachers and encouraging them to keep in mind the ultimate aim of their work. Despite recognising the purposes of accountability and the importance of these, teachers experience of accountability in practice was largely negative due to the pressures they encounter under the current system. Most of the participating teachers associated the word accountability with greater sanctions, extra burdens and a lack of trust in teachers from central Government and the wider public. Classroom teachers expressed frustration that an overload of administration, meetings, and form completion to fulfil Ofsted and central Government requirements detracted from teachers time with pupils, and the focus on their teaching and learning. Head teachers attributed this negative reaction to the lack of support structures built into existing accountability mechanisms to help develop and encourage teachers who were not fulfilling their requirements. They felt that accountability without adequate support and development opportunities served to undermine teacher confidence and professionalism. 4.2 What are teachers held accountable for most and least? Given the focus on attainment of the current system recounted by focus group participants, it is perhaps not surprising that teachers who took part in the survey said that, at present, they are held accountable most for individual pupils progress and pupil attainment in national tests and exams. As might be expected, there were differences between teaching roles. Classroom teachers said they were held most accountable for the individual progress of pupils, while senior teachers (Head teachers and Heads of Department) were more likely to say they are most accountable for pupils attainment in national tests and exams. There were also differences between phases of education, with primary teachers held most accountable for individual progress of pupils and secondary teachers being most accountable for pupils attainment in tests and exams. Teachers working in schools with the lowest levels of academic and SEN challenge were more likely to say they are currently held most accountable for individual pupils progress. Within the BME teacher sample, teachers from a mixed ethnic background were more likely to say they are most accountable for individual pupils progress, while more Black or Black British teachers said they were held most accountable for implementing national strategies. 8
Currently, teachers in general say they are held accountable least for implementing national strategies, and for the performance of their school relative to others. Whilst discussing their experiences of accountability to central Government, focus group participants identified a conflict arising from requirements on teachers to meet targets related to different and at times conflicting initiatives. Teachers particularly emphasised the tensions they felt existed between the Every Child Matters (and the personalisation) agenda and the National Curriculum. These two national initiatives were felt to be incompatible, with the National Curriculum perceived as a one size fits all method, and the ECM/personalisation agenda focusing more on the individual needs of every child. 4.3 What do teachers feel they are accountable for? Despite teachers mixed experiences of the current system that holds them to account, they revealed a strong sense of their accountability. Survey respondents said they felt accountable across a range of aspects of their roles but particularly for the quality of their teaching, with more than three quarters of teachers saying they felt very accountable for this. The vast majority also felt accountable for contributing to children s wider well-being and engaging with parents, and a high proportion, although to a slightly lesser extent, said they felt accountable for promoting equality and tackling inequality, improving their professional knowledge and practice and responding to pupil and student views. Whilst they are not truly comparable samples, it is interesting to note that more BME teachers felt very accountable for promoting equality and tackling inequality when compared with the main survey results. More teachers in the BME sample also felt more accountable for responding to pupil and student views than teachers in the main survey. Within the BME sample, Black or Black British teachers were more likely to say they felt accountable for contributing to children s wider well-being than Asian or Asian British teachers. With the exception of the quality of their teaching, secondary teachers were significantly more likely to say they do not feel accountable in all areas. Part-time teachers and supply teachers also felt less accountable for these, particularly when it comes to improving their professional knowledge and practice, and engaging with parents. 4.4 To whom are teachers accountable? 4.4.1 Pupils Most of the teachers who participated in the focus groups felt that their primary accountability was towards their pupils. They expressed a sense of duty to meet a range of pupil needs, from engaging them in high-quality learning and supporting their social and personal development, to being responsible for their care and safety. Some teachers, however, felt their time to focus on pupils was often compromised by the other people and organisations to whom they are accountable. The more general education of pupils was felt to be suffering as a result of the pressure from Government, and from the school itself in many cases, to get good exam results. There were several examples provided in which teachers found their time being diverted from focusing on the teaching and learning of pupils to having to 9
focus on form-filling/evidence-production for Ofsted or the senior management team (SMT). This was felt to be highly counter-productive to meeting the needs of their pupils. A quarter of teachers surveyed felt that more importance should be given in future to accountability for responding to pupil and student views, although the majority (60 per cent) felt that the focus should remain the same as now. Teachers working in schools with higher levels of both attainment and SEN challenge and socioeconomic and linguistic challenge were more likely to say this should be given more importance in future. During the group discussions teachers acknowledged the benefits to pupils of giving them greater opportunity to participate in decisions about their own learning. Suggestions included dialogue with pupils to involve them more regularly in evaluating their learning and to find out what they felt about their education. Teachers suggested that this would also encourage pupils to take more responsibility for their education and the consequences of their actions. 4.4.2 Head teachers and senior management teams (SMT) Teachers accountability to external agencies and the wider accountability system is largely via their Head teacher and SMT. As a result, accountability to the Head and SMT was felt very strongly by all teachers in the focus groups and much more so than their accountability to Government or any national bodies. This was considered to provide the strongest sense of professional and organisational accountability for teachers, with performance management systems and processes in place through which they were held to account for their performance and behaviour. The Head and SMT formed the stakeholder group to which teachers felt they were (and should be) accountable for the widest range of factors, spanning pupil attainment, professional development, wider aspects of schools (extra-curricular activities) and standards of teaching. Some teachers, however, recalled a lack of support from their Head teachers during Ofsted inspections, with regard to explaining what Ofsted were looking for, and that this often contributed to their stress levels during these periods. Teachers perceptions of whom they were accountable to within school largely depended on the department in which teachers were situated, the staffing structure and the size of the school. This also affected the lines of accountability, with teachers in larger schools being answerable to a Head of Department or other line manager, and those in smaller schools answering directly to the Head teacher. Teachers discussed their accountability to fellow teachers and revealed a strong sense of commitment to supporting and challenging their colleagues, but commented that there were few systems in place that actually held them to account for doing this. 4.4.3 Parents A high proportion of survey respondents (86 per cent) said they felt accountable for engaging with parents, with almost half feeling very accountable for this. Accountability for engaging with parents was felt more strongly among Head teachers and Assistant/Deputy Heads than classroom teachers. It was also more 10
evident amongst teachers working in schools with lower levels of challenge in relation to attainment and SEN. Interestingly, BME teachers working in schools with higher levels of socio-economic and linguistic challenge were more likely to say they felt accountable for engaging with parents. Teachers in the focus groups felt they were accountable to parents for their pupils progress, health and well-being whilst in their care, and for behavioural issues and communicating incidents to parents at the right time. However, perceptions of the accountability relationship with parents were found to vary depending on the type of school and stage of children s development. Primary school teachers were more likely to have direct contact with, and therefore feel more directly accountable to, parents on a regular basis; whereas in secondary and larger schools this responsibility often went up the line to the Head of Year or Head of Department. This also reflects the structure of primary schools, in which one teacher is often responsible for delivering the curriculum, compared to the more fragmented structure of secondary schools where a pupil can have many teachers across a range of subjects. In secondary schools, there was felt to be less accountability to parents for pupils emotional development, but more accountability experienced for pupil results and attainment. Interestingly, secondary school teachers responding to the survey were more likely to say that they do not feel accountable for engaging with parents and that currently they do not have sufficient opportunity to provide parents with a full account of their children s learning. Despite this, however, increasing the frequency of communication between parents and their children s teachers was regarded with ambivalence by most focus group participants, who felt that it encouraged parents to question and challenge the professional knowledge of teachers, while not also requiring them to take their share of responsibility for their child s education. This ambivalence was reflected in the survey results with over half of teachers in general saying they currently have sufficient opportunity to provide parents with a full and rounded account of their children s learning, but a quarter of teachers saying they do not. When asked about the future focus of accountability, just one in five teachers said that engaging with parents should be given more importance in future, whereas the majority (70 per cent) felt its level of importance should remain the same as it is now. Teachers working in schools with higher levels of both attainment and SEN challenge and socio-economic and linguistic challenge were more likely to say there should be a greater focus in future on accountability for engaging with parents. 4.5 How should accountability be changed? 4.5.1 Exercising professional judgement Four out of five teachers said they needed more opportunities to exercise their professional judgement. Primary teachers were more likely to say this, possibly reflecting the broader curriculum they are required to teach. Freedom for teachers to interpret the curriculum in creative ways was felt to be important by focus group participants in general, especially in terms of teachers responsibilities for their 11
pupils wider development. Interestingly, when teachers discussed exercising their professional judgement, they referred to it in relation to expressing their personalities and opinions in the classroom, and said they felt anxious about doing so for fear of being held to account for what they said by parents phoning up to complain. Using a thematic approach to teaching was one suggestion for providing teachers with more freedom and creativity in a move away from the current rigidity of the national curriculum. Head teachers, however, were more measured in their attitude to increasing teachers freedom to use professional judgement. Most Head teachers were concerned about the practicalities of a system that retained a focus on achieving certain standards of attainment while also allowing greater freedom for using professional judgement. Head teachers were also concerned that teachers judgement could differ quite dramatically depending on their abilities and experience, and were concerned about the ambiguities associated with more professional freedom. 4.5.2 Children s wider well-being Over a third of teachers surveyed felt that more importance should be given in the future to the accountability of teachers for their contribution to children s wider wellbeing. Half of teachers said this should continue to have the same importance as now. Teachers working in schools with higher levels of both socio-economic and academic challenge were more likely to desire a greater focus on this in future. Workshop participants discussed a scenario in which the system for accountability for well-being outcomes was reformed, so that all schools and other agencies in a local area were collectively held to account by the children s trust rather than separately by central Government. Teachers highlighted the potential for such a system to strengthen relationships between schools and pointed out that this tied in closely with the wider integration of children s services and the multi-agency working models promoted by the ECM agenda. Whilst some participants did feel that the children s trust might be in a better position than Ofsted to identify good practice, the majority felt they would be unlikely to put the same pressure on schools as Ofsted and that this could weaken the accountability of teachers for these outcomes. In contrast, other participants felt that the greater accountability of schools to the children s trust (alleviating accountability to central Government) would be a positive move due to the visibility of the children s trust locally and closer relationship with, and respect from, children s services professionals. 4.5.3 Localising accountability Reflecting their negative experiences of the current system for accountability, and in particular the pressures of external inspections, teachers initially welcomed a shift towards more school-based accountability. Indeed, half of the teachers surveyed disagreed that accountability to the public should involve the external observation of teaching, possibly reflecting the stress and burden caused by judgement from outside of the school. They argued that accountability to outside bodies should be the general responsibility of the Head and senior management rather than directly involving teachers in the classroom. 12
Teachers felt that more distant mechanisms of accountability were less effective and more resented by teachers, so they explored alternative ways of localising accountability, through either strengthening internal school systems, increasing the role of local stakeholders, or by introducing peer review inspections. Teachers discussed the merits of introducing a model of regular supervision within schools as a way of strengthening internal accountability systems. They felt that this would help management teams to be more aware of individual teachers practice and identify when early intervention is required. The concept of continuous accountability, rather than irregular bursts of accountability, was welcomed by the majority of participants and seen as less disruptive than current systems. Despite these benefits, however, internal mechanisms were seen to be at risk of bias related to the quality and nature of existing relationships between staff at different levels. The risk of poor performance and behaviour going un-challenged was felt likely to increase with any move towards more internally based accountability. Participants also raised concerns about the current capacity and capability of managers in holding their staff to account within schools. They had particular concerns about whether Heads of Department would be adequately trained to take on a challenge and support role such as this. Participants considered the pros and cons of involving local stakeholders in setting the accountability criteria against which schools would be judged, thereby giving greater focus to a school s local context. Although participants felt this could represent a positive move towards greater involvement of the community in schools, challenges could arise through too many voices and the process for reaching a consensus on priority areas. Concerns were also expressed that such a system could to lead to fragmented and less robust inspection, and thus ultimately weakening the accountability of teachers. Teachers raised concerns that, whilst it was not fair to compare all schools across the country without taking into account the demographics and school context, reducing national accountability might result in inconsistent practice and a lack of comparable data across the country. This was felt important in order to drive up standards and prevent individual schools from lagging behind. Introducing a system of peer review, in which inspection teams would include current and former local teachers and Head teachers, was one approach discussed. Participants felt that such a system could strengthen teachers accountability to their own profession, by creating a mechanism whereby the knowledge and experience of ex-heads and teachers could be fed back. Teachers felt this would provide opportunities for learning and support on an ongoing basis, which was missing from the Ofsted system. Some participants suggested reforming the current inspection process to ensure that teams leading nationally organised inspections comprised excellent teachers with current knowledge and experience in practice, who would be able to provide constructive criticism. There was a sense that this type of work was happening to a certain extent already through the School Improvement Partners (SIPs), who are aware of the local circumstances but have a sufficient degree of impartiality and are able to take a broader view. Teachers highly valued the support provided by SIPs currently, and felt they would be well placed to provide additional support not currently being provided by Ofsted. 13
In contrast to their initially positive response to localising accountability, when teachers discussed alternative systems for this they highlighted a number of risks involved in replacing or reducing external accountability. The discussions raised an interesting tension between the pressures experienced by teachers responding to national forms of accountability, and the sense of security that an objective and impartial system brings. 5.0 Conclusions Among teachers in general, accountability was felt most strongly to pupils. Teachers felt particularly accountable for the quality of their teaching, and acknowledged that maintaining public confidence in the standards of teaching was an important purpose of accountability. Despite this, their practical experiences of the current system have led teachers to define accountability in largely negative terms. Due to the perceived overload of administration to fulfil central Government requirements, which they felt detracts from their time with pupils, teachers initially expressed a desire for a shift away from national and distant forms of accountability towards more local and school-based accountability. After having reviewed alternative options for reforming the system, teachers instead favoured adjustment rather than radical overhaul. Teachers expressed concerns that internal accountability mechanisms would not be as impartial or robust in holding teachers to account, and that this might result in inconsistent practice and a lack of comparability nationally. Rather than reducing external accountability, teachers instead thought that a changed system should provide more support for schools to help them manage and respond to the existing external inspection process. Increasing the accountability of Head teachers and SMT to Government for classroom practice and supervision was suggested as a way of relieving some of the pressure felt by classroom teachers under the current system. Alongside these changes, teachers felt that internal accountability systems could be strengthened by improving the capacity and capability of line managers and SMT in their supervision and appraisal of teachers. Many teachers supported the introduction of a requirement for teachers to provide evidence of their continuing professional development in order to continue teaching children and young people. A key argument to emerge in favour of this was the standardisation of the CPD offer to all teachers. At present, the extent to which teachers participate in CPD varies with part-time teachers and supply teachers, in particular, engaging very little. There are also variations currently in teachers experiences of accessing CPD; the extent to which schools and employers identify their teachers development needs; and the impact CPD activities are perceived to have on teaching and pupils learning. Indeed, teachers who reported a positive experience of these were more likely to feel accountable for maintaining and improving their practice and were more likely to favour a future requirement to evidence their professional development. Teachers, therefore, felt the implementation of any such requirement would be unworkable until the quality of CPD provision and inconsistency in access to CPD opportunities were addressed. 14