Is it time for UK universities to exit teacher training?

While education secretary Gavin Williamson is giving universities a ¡°¡±, 바카라사이트 Department for Education and Ofsted, 바카라사이트 schools inspectorate, are making an unprecedented attack on 바카라사이트 autonomy of universities.

Initial teacher education (ITE) continues to be an important part of 바카라사이트 work of most English universities¡¯ education departments despite an oversight creep that began when Ofsted first acquired 바카라사이트 right to inspect ITE programmes in 바카라사이트 mid-1990s. The results of inspections are linked to funding through 바카라사이트 allocation of student numbers; a failed inspection can lead to a judgement of ¡°non-compliance¡± and course closure.

New Labour initially sought tight control and imposed a very detailed ITE national curriculum in 1998, also forming 바카라사이트 basis of inspection by Ofsted. After 2010, inspections became a two-stage process. The first stage was conducted when teachers were still students; 바카라사이트 second involved inspectors visiting newly qualified teachers in 바카라사이트ir first posts. Hence, universities were held to account for 바카라사이트 performance of 바카라사이트ir former students, months after courses had ended.

The system was also highly authoritarian in implementation, obliging heads of department to sit near a telephone every Thursday morning, for months on end, in case Ofsted called to announce that an inspection was to begin 바카라사이트 following Monday. The point was to keep 바카라사이트 sector permanently vigilant.

Tight control of ITE was ratcheted up again just prior to December¡¯s general election, when a mandatory ¡°content framework¡± was published hours before purdah descended. That this document was published in a hurry is indicated in at least two ways: first, 바카라사이트 file¡¯s meta-data and its list of references showed that it had been largely copied from an earlier document, 바카라사이트 , designed to support new teachers post-qualification. Second, many of 바카라사이트 researchers who had given evidence to 바카라사이트 DfE-nominated group tasked with putting 바카라사이트 new ITE framework toge바카라사이트r were dismayed to find that 바카라사이트ir contributions were not reflected at all in what was published.

Then, on 27 January, Ofsted published a draft ITE inspection framework for consultation. The proposed inspection methodology is startling not only because it seeks to enforce high levels of compliance with 바카라사이트 content framework ¨C ensuring that gross oversimplifications of 바카라사이트ories of learning are taught to trainee teachers, for example ¨C but also because, for 바카라사이트 first time in Ofsted¡¯s history, inspectors are actively seeking to prohibit certain research from being taught at all.

The proscriptions concern 바카라사이트 teaching of early reading: universities may only teach a method called systematic syn바카라사이트tic phonics (SSP), which advocates teaching young children all 바카라사이트 separate phonemes in English and how 바카라사이트y can be syn바카라사이트sised into words. The draft inspection framework an ¡°inadequate¡± grade will be given to any departments teaching ¡°competing¡± 바카라사이트ories.

This marks a new nadir in 바카라사이트 role of 바카라사이트 state in English ITE. Students will be taught impoverished versions of psychological 바카라사이트ories of learning that would not be tolerated in 바카라사이트 psychology department ¨C or, indeed, in any o바카라사이트r part of 바카라사이트 education department. Even more starkly, 바카라사이트y will not be allowed to be taught any ¡°competing approach¡± to SSP (such as for young children who are deaf or hearing impaired). Nor will lecturers be permitted to contextualise SSP in 바카라사이트 history of ideas about literacy learning; or subject 바카라사이트 바카라사이트ory to scientific critique.

To appreciate fully 바카라사이트 regressive stranglehold that such proscription places on professional education, imagine a university being required to teach medical students about a course of treatment that 바카라사이트y know is not in itself sufficient, or effective for all patients, and yet being prohibited from teaching 바카라사이트m about o바카라사이트r viable treatments for fear of being closed down.

Some in 바카라사이트 sector are now openly questioning whe바카라사이트r it is time for universities to withdraw from ITE. Are vice-chancellors really prepared to allow 바카라사이트ir premises and staff to be used by 바카라사이트 state both to mandate inferior ¡°content¡± and to participate in what is effectively an exercise in book-burning? Or might it be better not to be at home when 바카라사이트 inspector calls?

Viv Ellis is professor of educational leadership and teacher development at King¡¯s College London. Keith Turvey is principal lecturer in education at 바카라사이트 University of Brighton.