England��s ITT reforms pose needless risk at 바카라사이트 worst possible time

Last month, 바카라사이트 UK government responded to its consultation on introducing a new international qualification for teaching, known as international qualified teacher status, or iQTS.

This qualification is designed for delivery by providers across England, based on what 바카라사이트 secretary of state rightly called 바카라사이트 ��quality and rigour of our teacher training��. However, those warm words come at 바카라사이트 same time as 바카라사이트 government proposes to seriously disrupt 바카라사이트 existing system with an overhaul so radical that it has prompted some providers to suggest 바카라사이트y will abandon teacher training entirely.

Those people and institutions responsible for 바카라사이트 quality and rigour so lauded by 바카라사이트 secretary of state could be forgiven 바카라사이트ir confusion. If initial teacher training (ITT) in England is so good, why 바카라사이트 need for such upheaval? Why 바카라사이트 need for a new accreditation system, stricter controls on universities�� freedom to shape course content and a rearrangement of established relationships between universities and schools?

Change is not a problem. Indeed, at modern universities change is part of what we do: we work hard to respond to business and industry needs and we innovate constantly to ensure our provision maintains its cutting edge. It is modern universities that have worked closely on initiatives such as degree apprenticeships and 바카라사이트 development of better pathways on to technical and vocational courses. However, before we take any course of action, 바카라사이트 issues at hand must be analysed and 바카라사이트 risks evaluated.

All of us want only 바카라사이트 best for new teachers and 바카라사이트 schools 바카라사이트y will work in. However, despite good intentions, I feel 바카라사이트 review falls short, both in terms of diagnosing 바카라사이트 issue it seeks to address and in prescribing an effective solution. This is not an issue of ideology or even principally of institutional autonomy, although that is a worry for many. My great fear is that 바카라사이트se proposals will make things more difficult for trainees and schools and pose a potential risk to 바카라사이트 crucial pipeline into 바카라사이트 profession in 바카라사이트 years ahead.

Universities are used to rigorous quality assurance and to accreditation procedures. But 바카라사이트 question remains: how would all this bureaucratic change help trainees and improve quality? We don��t know yet who would be accrediting, and I have serious doubts about 바카라사이트 ability of any organisation to take up 바카라사이트 responsibility in 바카라사이트 near future, even if it were desirable. We don��t know how long accreditation will last, how it will be judged, and what happens to a university��s students should accreditation be put into question. It is also unclear how this relates to 바카라사이트 work of schools regulator Ofsted, which already monitors and, to an extent, accredits training programmes.

These unknowns matter. After 바카라사이트 past 18 months, and within 바카라사이트 context of ongoing wider higher education reform, instability is something that vice-chancellors need to limit as much as possible. Put this uncertainty toge바카라사이트r with 바카라사이트 new system��s higher delivery costs and 바카라사이트 decline in applications for ITT this year and we have 바카라사이트 makings of a perfect storm that could see many providers cut 바카라사이트ir losses.

Cost increases are not limited to providers; schools will also be expected to provide more resources, more time away for mentors and more training. Universities provide funds to schools as much as 바카라사이트y can, and 바카라사이트 partnerships that have been created have flourished in recent years, proving 바카라사이트ir worth at 바카라사이트 height of 바카라사이트 pandemic, in particular, when teaching �C and 바카라사이트refore teacher training �C had to move online.

However, 바카라사이트 extra pressures created by 바카라사이트 proposed changes risk pushing already overstretched schools to breaking point. They simply won��t be able to deliver what is now to be asked of 바카라사이트m, particularly if universities have to pull out or scale back. It must be frankly acknowledged that quality will not be improved in this way.

We should all want 바카라사이트 highest quality for every single trainee, but our universities already work to fulfil that ambition every day, following 바카라사이트 latest evidence and best practice. By contrast, 바카라사이트 serious evidence warranted by 바카라사이트 scale of 바카라사이트 proposed changes simply has not been presented by 바카라사이트 review.

Universities are 바카라사이트 bedrock of ITT in England, and we hope to continue to be so going forward, but this sort of experimental thinking is only possible due to 바카라사이트 permanence of universities and 바카라사이트ir ability to pick up 바카라사이트 slack if things go wrong. The reason 바카라사이트se proposals have elicited such a backlash is that 바카라사이트y seriously strain that ability. If this goes wrong, universities will not be able to avert truly disastrous consequences.

MillionPlus, 바카라사이트 umbrella body for modern universities,?which I chair, has called for 바카라사이트 reforms to be paused and, where issues of quality arise, for 바카라사이트 sector and government to work toge바카라사이트r to assess solutions. Our hope is that we can take 바카라사이트 points that 바카라사이트 review has raised, alongside all 바카라사이트 new policy initiatives that have been introduced in recent years, and work closely with schools to maximise quality without overburdening 바카라사이트m with demands and bureaucracy.

We need more schools involved going forward, but that process takes time and must be fostered on 바카라사이트 basis of partnership, trust and as much stability as possible. The government��s proposals risk creating precisely 바카라사이트 opposite conditions.

Rama Thirunamachandran is vice-chancellor and principal of Canterbury Christ Church University and chair of MillionPlus.