Qualified Teacher Status and improving career progression for teachers Government consultation

Qualified Teacher Status and improving career progression for teachers Government consultation response

Normative: Importance of teacher’s recognised. 

Cultural-cognitive: Importance of accountability in education. Role of government to ensure quality.

Normative: Government lacks legitimacy, teachers have it. it is important to have high demands of teachers (moral arguments)

Cultural-cognitive: shared need for public services (such as education) to be accountable – some efforts to justify it.

(DES 1983)”

Normative: academia moral authority on academic degrees, CATE as staffed by teachers moral authority on professional degrees. Academics need relevant classroom experience to even train teachers (ROSE)

Cultural-cognitive: need for accountability, need to ensure quality, the importance of schools in teacher education. Cost concerns (This dimension is weak in this document, but strong through the direct link to “teaching quality”)

Normative: Teacher’s know the classroom better than academics – practical argument. “High performing” teachers the recognised voice of the profession. 

Cultural-cognitive: Similar to developments elsewhere in public policy – perceived need for central oversight and cost management. Also important to ensure quality in Education – link to teaching quality important here. Central efforts to justify why the QTS is needed (fragmented profession, quality, costs etc.)

Normative: Universities seen as a legitimate actor, cannot be ignored. Continued emphasis on teachers knowledge and expertise (professional competences) – left undefined by government, but central through the probationary period

Cultural-cognitive: push of academic – practitioner split, emphasis on the classroom and the role of schools regarding professional competences. Need for accountability, need to ensure quality, the importance of schools in teacher education

Normative: still strong position for teachers and academics, cannot be ignored

Cultural-cognitive: clear and comprehensive frame rooted in issues of quality assurance, to be handled through standards, accreditation, and the role of schools in training teachers. Emphasis on teacher’s as knowing “what works”

Normative: School teacher’s are the voice of education. Sec of State “expects” in relation to how the DES interprets education. The purpose of education a state-prerogative. 

Cultural-cognitive: push of academic – practitioner split, emphasis on the classroom and the role of schools regarding professional competences. Need for accountability, need to ensure quality, the importance of schools in teacher education. Some increased emphasis on “evidence” 

Normative: Sec of State claims some moral authority and expertise – contestation

Still recognised role for teachers through CATE. And role of schools (partnerships) in ITT

Cultural-cognitive: continuation of existing lines, increasing understanding. Not yet fully taken for granted. References to Government and HMI “evidence”. Emphasis on teacher’s as knowing “what works”

Normative: induction maintained, role of teacher’s and schools in teacher education reinforced

Cultural-cognitive: induction as an “aid” rather than evaluation device, still within an academic-practitioner split due to the emphasis on a necessity to continue training after the end of the academic course

Normative: continued evolution of teacher’s as a self-referring profession (importance of practical knowledge)

Cultural-cognitive: does not break with any developments observed in other documents, but adds little as well. 

Regulative: restatement of control levers, accreditation, role of CATE, and HMI. But accreditation now granted to a whole institution (e.g. university) rather than on a “by course” basis.

Normative: increased focus on schools’ role in ITT, at the expense of academia

Cultural-cognitive: continuation of previous trends

Normative: Role of state more prominent, teacher’s still the core “voice”. Academia still has a role

Cultural-cognitive:  further institutionalization of accountability, academic-practitioner divide, role of inspections. Emphasis on teacher’s as knowing “what works”

Of importance across 9/92 and 14/93: split requirements, but same QTS

Regulative: restatement of control levers, accreditation, role of CATE, and HMI. But accreditation now granted to a whole institution (e.g. university) rather than on a “by course” basis.

Normative: increased focus on schools’ role in ITT, at the expense of academia

Cultural-cognitive: Importance of accountability to ensure quality pushed, academic-practitioner divide present

Normative: Role of state more prominent, teacher’s still the core “voice”. Academia still has a role

Cultural-cognitive:  further institutionalization of accountability, academic-practitioner divide, role of inspections.

Regulative: supply teachers should have QTS – inspectors will check

Normative: need for quality, and government as quality assurer through QTS institutionalized

Cultural-cognitive: push of accountability through inspections (NPM)

Normative: QTS pushed as “stamp of quality” – moral implications, teachers should have the QTS no matter what.

Cultural-cognitive: accountability through inspections and prescribed standards. (limited attempts to justify)

Normative: importance of teacher education – the white paper emphasised teacher training as the core of all their initiatives in education

Cultural-cognitive: knowledge economy, need for standards and accountability of teachers and their training

Normative: teacher education, and by implication its quality, a key part of education (normative/moral argument) – it is right to have high demands of teacher training

Cultural-cognitive: presentation of “knowledge economy” – need of accountability and why it is important restated – clear frame

Normative: professional aspects of teaching considered central, this is handled through schools. Emphasis on schools as “custodians” of the professional aspects of teaching. Professional aspects central to ITT (PGCE).Partnerships between universities and schools important

Cultural-cognitive: accountability central, importance of education and the teacher for the country’s economy (knowledge economy), importance of schools in ITT. 

Normative: Mainly a legitimiser of approaches, it is important to have high demands of teachers (moral arguments). Academic side not mentioned – academia “not important”?

Cultural-cognitive: Accountability and standards clearly defined, also attempted legitimised through emphasis on schools and teachers expertise. 

Last “circular”

Normative: increased emphasis on school-based teachers as the professional educators of teacher’s

Cultural-cognitive: academic-practitioner split, ITT as one part in academia (initial) and one part in schools (induction. 

Normative: importance of practical experience

Cultural-cognitive: teacher education seen as comprised of both an academic and professional component, clear understanding as to why this is so – emphasis on teacher’s as knowing “what works”

Normative: recognition of individual needs and that ITT providers know what they are on about.

Cultural-cognitive: references the current system as “what works” due to perceived increases in standards and attainment. 

Normative: ITT providers are legitimate as “experts” on ITT – a right to define methods is theirs. But outcomes is for the state to determine, as custodians of the nation. 

Cultural-cognitive: standards work – All should aspire to them. 

Normative: Emphasis on the Initial-induction link, as well as the place of schools in ITT. Added some new “certificates” in a ladder, but the QTS is still at the heart of the profession

Cultural-cognitive: changes justified in part due to “internal” evaluations and reviews – all behind a veil. Emphasis on “evidence” in addition to inspection results. Value for money traits more prominent than before

Normative: authority still given largely to school based practitioners, particularly through emphasis on induction. QTS is argued to be at the heart of the profession, so any “good” teacher should meet the teacher standards, always. 

Cultural-cognitive: an emphasis on “evidence” of what works. 

Normative: Incredible emphasis on education being left to the professionals, this includes ITT – a stated aim is to increase school-led provision

Cultural-cognitive: large emphasis on evidence of “what works” – mostly centred on profession led ITT, CPD, reduction of direct government intervention in favour of a “distant” approach ensuring quality. Framed under “learning on the job”, so continued academic-practitioner divide, but with more direct langauge

Normative: Teaching is a craft, teacher’s and high performing school leaders know best. First true articulation on “high performing schools” (circular 3/84 focused on high performing teachers) as a central “voice” in ITT.

Cultural-cognitive: emphasis on “evidence” and references to what works, particularly what works elsewhere (Finnish model) – first attempt to use “academic” style references to legitimise approach

Normative: high focus on “elite” and high performing teachers, schools, and school leaders as the “experts” on education and by extension ITT and CPD

Cultural-cognitive: high focus on teachers, limited references to academia. Pushes the importance of quality (accountability to ensure this), but a first recognition of recruitment (quantity) issues. Main focus on PGCE, limited focus on B.Ed

Normative: high performing, and “elite” are key words for the right to “speak” on education and ITT/CPD – all as measured by government criteria. 

Cultural-cognitive: focus on schools and school led ITT as “what works” – accountability seems taken for granted, almost an afterthought that is and will be present. 

Normative: ITT is improving, doing well, but can do better – legitimises current system. 

Cultural-cognitive: Continuation of “the importance of teaching” – focus on schools, the use of evidence, emphasis on ensuring quality. Emphasis on high performance and elite performers.  Extreme focus on “outcomes”

Normative: Current system is working and is supported by the high performing school, developments supported by Andrew Carter, the highest performing school leader.

Cultural-cognitive: the government’s policies is largely “what works” – Outcomes is what matters in education. 

Normative: an emphasis on these standards as the right approach to ITT – especially regarding reading (systematic synthetic phonics) – also restatement of teaching as an all graduate profession. Universities have a place, BUT before ITT (subject knowledge)

Cultural-cognitive: academic-practitioner divide, place of university is in partnerships and as subject knowledge experts. 

NB: Normative and cultural-cognitive becoming blurred – old norms undermined 

Normative: Universities used as “subject knowledge” experts rather than “education” experts – a push of government and their “advisers” as true experts on ITT

Cultural-cognitive: a joining of “what works” as a taken for granted presentation of teachers and school leaders as “profession” experts (teaching is a craft) – further legitimised normatively by a redefinition of the role of academia.

Normative: focus on CPD and life-long learning as central aspects of the teaching profession. Recognises some “leading” voices in education

Cultural-cognitive: accountability cannot be touched (taken for granted), a need to engage with CPD more. 

Normative: CPD can help to develop the profession, attract new professionals, and keep teachers in schools – do CPD a normative prescription. Academia recognised to an extent through Sam Twiselton – who was also on the Carter review

Cultural-cognitive: accountability taken for granted as a necessity. 

Normative: this document primarily operates here – denotes what good ITT is and how good ITT should be done

Cultural-cognitive: high emphasis on “evidence” of what works in teacher education. The document centres on perceived problems in ITT identified mostly in the Carter Review

NB: pillars align, limited direct attempts at “undermining” existing practices. 

Normative: a normative language centred on the one hand on research findings, and on the other on government definitions of stated targets and perceived issues.

Cultural-cognitive: The document claims the issues identified in the Carter review have now been addressed through the Core Content Framework and the Early Career Framework – so doing what they prescribe is “what works”

Teaching quality, circular 3/84, circular 4/98, DfE 2019b, DfE 2019c, interviews (A3; A7)

Education governance

Kenneth Bakers move towards a national curriculum also influenced in part by a teacher’s strike over pay and conditions in 85-86 

This was pushed by the TTA who wanted a common set of standards in ITT.

NPM but of a different character. Neo-liberalism as a tool not an end in itself. On the other hand, others have called it neo-liberalism by stealth.

association (the National Employers’ Organisation for School Teachers (NEOST)) and  

teachers’ unions (except for the strident National Union of Teachers). Was aimed at reducing teachers workload to improve student learning. Based upon a report from price waterhouse cooper

Management) (England) Regulations 2006

‘establish a written policy (‘the performance management policy’) setting out how the  

performance of teachers at the school [was] to be managed and reviewed. Showed how Government faith in teachers remained minimal

Coalition policies driven by ideology across social policy domains. 

Decentralisation and centralisation of policy both at the same time (DfE – Schools). Autonomy and Accountability of equal importance

SCITTS were created by Kenneth Baker in the late 80s however, and was encouraged by both Labour and the TTA according to Furlong (2013). UCET is also pro-SCITT. Issue is with the Univ-SCITT link and the PGCE. Partnerships an increasing issue. 

Continuation of decentralisation and centralisation of policy both at the same time (DfE – Schools). Autonomy and accountability

Justine Greening new Sec of State, Theresa May new PM.