Higher Education

Baroness Donaghy Excerpts

Wednesday 9th April 2014 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Donaghy (Lab)]

My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, for introducing this debate. It is quite right that he talked up the universities. We have a room full of expertise and knowledge, but also a room full of passion about higher education, although we might disagree about certain things, of course.

My contribution is about the importance of universities in teacher education and training. I spent 33 years at the University of London Institute of Education, and recently had the pleasure of attending a meeting at the institute at the invitation of the noble Lord, Lord Nash, to see the exciting developments that are taking place in research and development in teacher education. The noble Baroness, Lady Shephard of Northwold, was also in attendance in her role as chairman of the institute council.

The university connection with teacher education started in 1890, and the McNair report of 1944, exactly 70 years ago, consolidated that connection by establishing area training authorities, whereby colleges of education were attached to a university hub to raise standards and ensure consistent qualities. I am aware that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester recently made a speech about teacher education, and I wanted publicly to thank him for that contribution.

Some policy changes that are taking place are damaging the connection with the universities and may lead to some universities opting out of teacher education. Indeed, some already have. I thank James Noble-Rogers from the Universities Council for the Education of Teachers, or UCET, for his excellent briefing on this subject. The teacher education base was sound in 2010; 94% of higher education institutions offering initial teacher training were good or better, according to Ofsted, and 47% were outstanding, compared with 26% of school-based routes. The partnership between universities and schools was strong—in fact, among the most developed in the world. In the most recent survey, conducted in 2013, more than 90% of newly qualified teachers, after having been in post for one and a half terms, rated the quality of training that they had received as being good or very good. The Education Select Committee in 2012, while welcoming moves towards the more school-led approach of this Government, cautioned against any diminution of the role of universities in teacher education.

I am not claiming that everything is perfect. Some schools did not take responsibility for the next generation of teachers or did so half-heartedly, and some initial teacher training providers viewed schools as providing classroom experience without engaging in leadership and the design of programmes. In some cases, there was too much focus on initial teacher training and not enough on continuous professional development, which produces better teachers, increases their confidence and helps to retain them in the profession.

When the Government published their teacher education proposals in 2011, there were many things to welcome, such as raising entry qualifications—although there is no direct correlation between degree classification and someone’s effectiveness as a teacher—a greater focus on partnerships and a stronger school involvement in initial teacher training. This is something that universities and UCET have urged for many years. Schools should have a central role that goes beyond the traditional model under which they—sometimes reluctantly—accept student teachers on placement. The fact that a school needs sufficient resources to carry out this very resource-intensive exercise goes without saying, but I feel that I ought to say it.

This country has led the way in developing partnerships between schools and universities. Universities explicitly and actively supported the Government’s proposals to develop networks of teaching schools which could, if done properly, engage schools more effectively in teacher education, both initially and in continuing professional development, including masters and research and development projects. But then we come to School Direct. When it was launched in 2011, it was described as a scheme under which 500 training places would be allocated directly to schools to help them meet teacher supply needs which could not be met through the existing supply system. At the time, no one suspected—not even the Government, I would like to bet—that it would become the centrepiece of the school-led, market-driven agenda. It could be made to work—and there are some good examples. However, the speed with which this policy is being introduced is causing supply problems and planning headaches and is a threat to the quality of teacher education and training.

There were 900 School Direct places in 2012-13, of which only 50% were filled. This soared to 25% of total places in 2013-14, and to a provisional 37% of places in 2014-15, even though mainstream programmes offered by higher education institutions are better at filling places. The dangers of this too rapid expansion are obvious: it will cause instability in the initial teacher training education infrastructure, leading to unsustainable provision and reduced choice for schools. Bath University and the Open University have already dropped out of initial teacher training: both were rated outstanding.

It is true that 70% of School Direct places are allocated to partnerships involving universities, but this system is by its very nature fragmented and unpredictable. For example, a university might have 10 School Direct places to train English teachers in any one year. However, once a school holding those School Direct places has recruited the teachers it needs, it is not going to recruit any more. A university is unlikely to maintain staffing and resources for training English teachers in the hope that it will be able to pick up different contracts each year from different schools. Good programmes will close, which could cause teacher supply problems. Schools that want to participate in teacher training, but not through School Direct, will have their choice taken from them, while schools which want to be involved with School Direct will have fewer providers with which to work. There is nothing school-led or market-driven about that.

School Direct has led to places not being filled because of the inflexibilities in the new allocation and application system. It is desperately urgent that these inflexibilities are dealt with now before the summer. Universities are turning away highly qualified applicants while School Direct vacancies exist in the same area. Recruitment is 43% below target in physics and 22% below target in mathematics. School Direct also undermines the ability of an integrated teacher education infrastructure to deliver system-wide change, which, of course, all Governments like to do. With an integrated system, significant policy changes can be implemented quickly and effectively. Without commenting on the quality of the policy, an example would be systematic synthetic phonics, which this Government introduced. The Minister for Schools has written to universities and schools to congratulate them on their achievements in this area. Higher education institutions can be a route for getting new policies and new ideas into schools. Training that is entirely school-based risks replication of established orthodoxies and institutional conservatism.

UCET has already suggested quick and easy solutions to some of these problems both to the Minister and to the Select Committee on Education—an appropriate balance between the allocation of core and School Direct places. Following the last allocation, there are parts of the country with no training taking place in particular subjects through either the mainstream or School Direct. This cannot be right. To maximise recruitment, there needs to be virement between core provision and School Direct. The current inflexibilities will lead to disaster this autumn.

Prospective teachers should have an informed choice about the route for taking their careers further. There is a market but it must be sustainable. Schools should have the choice between School Direct and core provision. There is the broader market of the education system as a whole, where demographic changes require teachers to be trained to work across a system and not with the needs of a particular school in mind. The trainees are also customers who want flexibility, adaptability and transportability. For every one teacher who wants to stay in the same school throughout their career, there will be nine others who want to move.

Without a good base of core allocation, universities cannot sustain their involvement in teacher training, including the School Direct provision, to a good standard. Current policy risks a race to the bottom in the quality of training, determined in large part by locally negotiable financial considerations. Initial teacher training infrastructure is likely to be broken up, with provision offered by associate or brought-in staff or abandoned altogether. Warwick University has placed all its initial teacher training provision in a self-financing business unit. It will be interesting to see where research and development find a place.

In order to remain in the market, some providers have begun to offer validation-only routes. They appeal to schools because of the low cost, but a validation-only approach will drive down standards and is out of step with high-performing systems internationally.

Finally, I believe that this Government are sincere about improving schools and the quality of teachers. However, their policy initiatives will do the exact opposite if changes are not made soon, and the university connection, which has been in existence for more than 100 years and is admired by the rest of the world, will be irreparably damaged.