February 2, 2015 3 Comments
In 2012, just as the celebratory images of how proud we are of the NHS were being beamed across the world during the London Olympic Games ceremony, an unedifying debate on twitter (and beyond) began to ensue. The
Sunday Times, a persistent stirrer of the education pot, had thrown a well-timed grenade in order to leak an intended publicising a policy* from Michael Gove; to remove the requirement for teachers to hold QTS (qualified teacher status) in order to teach in the academy school system.
The horror: how dare the DfE belittle the role of teachers by suggesting that anyone could teach and they didn’t need to be qualified, and why just academies and free schools, etc. The reason why this debate was so noxious, is that it quickly became apparent that the revered QTS was not as ubiquitous amongst teachers as was originally thought. Many teachers who had done their PGCE, for example, but ended up working in F.E. (some through choice, others because that’s where the jobs were), had not achieved QTS, not because they weren’t up to the task, but because what was required for teachers to teach in FE colleges was QTLS (Qualified Teacher Learning and Skills). Did that mean they were teachers? It certainly made some feel that they shouldn’t teach in schools as FE was different some how. And then there were those FE teachers who couldn’t get QTLS because their college wouldn’t provide them with the mechanism to get it; because the IfL made it non-mandatory for a teacher in FE. Then there were the teachers who have been teaching in schools since before the PGCE, BEd and other ITT routes were dreamed up. They didn’t have QTS either. So the hashtag #NoQTSNoTeacher that went round during and after the opening ceremony was a rather selective and, to some, offensive sieve that created a divide between teachers in different settings and with different qualifications. Arguments were had and feathers were ruffled, but then we all got on with the job of enjoying the Olympics and the rest of the summer holiday.
Why do I bring this up? Well because definitions of what constitutes a teacher have been raised again to support, in my opinion, an idealistic attempt to ensure some control for teachers in the fledgling College of Teaching; it has just announced its next draft of proposals for consideration after a few months of consultation and panel discussions.
I want to make clear that I’m not responding to specific arguments made in some of the posts I link to at the end. I am setting out why I think the College of Teaching needs to be inclusive in the definition of “teacher” and also why I think the people behind the latest proposal have settled on the membership structure they have.
The problem, as I see it, is that those advocating a very tightly guarded membership structure in the College of Teaching for current teachers of school children only (or those within 2 years of a teaching post), are making the same sort of mistake as the #NoQTSNoTeacher tweeters of 2012. Teaching as a profession spans the teaching of children as young as 3 in Early Years settings all the way up to 19 in sixth form, both in school and 6th form colleges. But does it stop there? Some would say yes; some would say that already the net is cast too wide.
Who do I think are teachers? Well I’ll provide some anecdotal examples: My daughter is currently four years old, passing through the last year of the EYFS of her education. It started at pre-school when she was 3 and will continue until she moves up into Y1 aged 5. She is currently taught by a teacher and teaching assistant (who is a fully trained teacher – who has taken a role as a TA). She was taught in pre-school and now in school following the same curriculum and the people providing her education are subject to Ofsted judgements, and so, whilst the setting is different I would argue that the qualified people running the preschool count as teachers; all of the people in this example are teachers in my opinion. Others disagree.
My wife worked at a F.E. college, teaching students Childcare Studies. She was training to be a teacher, following the PTLLS, CTLLS and DTLLS route. She stopped to be a full time mum, but had she not, she would have continued to teach 16-19 year olds as well as the same course to adult learners in the evening. She marked, planned, wrote schemes of work, wrote reports, did parents’ evenings, and taught lessons. This sounds very familiar. She didn’t class herself as a teacher by the time she stopped as she was still in the middle of her training, but had she carried on she would have been a teacher in my opinion.
My PGCE tutor Dr Anne Scott was a Biology teacher for 10 years in state schools after completing her PhD, including being Head of Department in a large state comprehensive school. She has been a PGCE tutor at the University of York for the last 15 years, also undertaking work to develop curricula for Biology for Nuffield foundation. I can testify that she had to mark my assignments as well as provide effective feedback and support through my 1st year of learning to teach. She taught many sessions to her students – she was and still is a teacher (IMO).
Phillip Moriarty is a Professor of Physics at the renowned University of Nottingham. He carries out research, but he also teaches courses to undergraduate Physicists and has a “very keen interest in outreach activities and primary and secondary teaching”. He has told me he would definitely consider himself a teacher (as would I), and depending on the distinction between teachers would possibly join a College of Teaching.
Four different examples of teachers who would possibly not be allowed in the College of Teaching (not Teachers, Teaching!) if some had their way. They would not be allowed to gain from the advantages the CoT proposes to provide.
The proposals are not perfect. I think the membership structure is not yet right. And should anyone be allowed to join as lay members but without voting rights? Possibly, probably not. But I believe the argument about what defines a teacher is one of the reasons the current proposals for the College of Teaching are staged as they are; to allow the sorts of teachers I describe above to join no matter what their status, and to work towards chartered membership should they so wish and if the College leadership decides they fit the bill.
Good luck to them all. I’d be proud to call them fellow members of the College of Teaching.
Some reference posts:
Schools Week overview of the new proposals
Here are two posts that oppose non-teachers joining the CoT by Andrew Old. I agree with his points about the 4 year wait till the chartered scheme gets off the ground, however I think his worry about all and sundry “with a beef about schools” wanting to join the College of Teaching will prove to be unfounded. As such I nominate Andrew to join the selection team for the founding committee members – I hope he’d do it.
The Learning Spy also argues that non-teachers as lay members of the College of Teaching is not a good idea.
A post from David Weston on why he believes in an inclusive College of Teaching.
The panel discussion I took part in with Al Moon from David Young Community College and John Tomsett from Huntington School in York and Raphael Wilkins from the College of Teachers (to be disbanded in order to form the College of Teaching).
*Sam Freedman has reminded me that it was an official announcement during the opening ceremony!