Teacher training providers have hit back at a questionnaire from Ofsted that they say is biased.

The questionnaire has been sent to providers in both universities and schools to ask about curriculum quality.

Opinion: ‘Teacher training was full of gimmicks 10 years ago’

Statistics: Primary teacher training applications fall 6%

Quick read: Trainee teachers with more friends less likely to quit

But the Universities’ Council for the Education of Teachers, which represents higher-education providers, is not recommending that members fill it in - saying it contains loaded questions.

James Noble-Rogers, executive director of UCET, said: “I thought the survey was jumping the gun a bit and some of the questions did seem a bit loaded. I think it was not deliberate, but if they had shown it to us in advance we might have smoothed the waters.

“To some extent, it did pre-empt what counts as good practice, by the nature of the questions they were asking. So ‘How do you do x, y and z in your programme?’...[That] assumes x, y and z are good practice.

“I think Ofsted should look at quality of provision in the context of Teachers’ Standards and the initial teacher education requirements, which are set by the secretary of state. This survey suggests they want to identify good content over and above what the regulatory framework is.

“I do not feel able to forward it to members and recommend they complete it.”

There are three versions of the survey: one for the provider, one for current trainees and one for newly qualified teachers.

The survey is understood to be for Ofsted’s own information, and not part of the official inspection of initial teacher education.

But there have been criticisms that questions on the survey are poorly designed.

One anonymous provider said: “I’m concerned by the nature of the questionnaire and what it hopes to achieve. The questions appear to be quite negatively posed.”

Viv Ellis, professor of educational leadership and teacher development at King’s College, London, resigned from Ofsted’s external advisory group on initial teacher education earlier this week, citing the surveys as contributing to his decision.

I have resigned from @Ofstednews External Advisory Group on ITE, concerned about its independence, the nature of senior official’s public communications & the composition of expert groups. But if I was in any doubt, its surveys of ITE providers on ‘high quality’ curriculum ..?!! pic.twitter.com/gcuXbwsEIr

— Viv Ellis (@viv_ellis) April 2, 2019

In replies to his tweet, other teacher educators expressed their concerns.

Jan Rowe, of Liverpool John Moores University, said she and her team had chosen not to respond to the questionnaire “as it appeared designed to confirm pre existing biases”.

Respect this decision. We chose not to respond to the questionnaire as it appeared designed to confirm pre existing biases. Also feel that an ITE curriculum needs definition. We see it as everything our students learn from us and our schools/ mentors. How do you calculate that?

— Jan Rowe FCCT (@Janroweljmu) April 2, 2019

Professor Ellis also said he was concerned about the composition of Ofsted’s expert groups.

Both Mr Noble-Rogers and Emma Hollis, executive director of the National Association for School-Based Teacher Trainers, are on the advisory group.

Ms Hollis said: “The external advisory group did not see the questionnaire before it went out. If we had, I think we could have probably pre-empted criticisms and shaped it slightly differently. I do think there is good representation of the sector on the group.”

An Ofsted spokesperson said: “The DfE is responsible for the ITE curriculum. The core content framework sets out the department’s view on the content required to train teachers to meet appropriate standards. Ofsted does not, and will not, have a preferred curriculum model in its next ITE framework. Our research will promote discussion within the sector. This mirrors the work the research team did to support the new Education Inspection Framework. Responses to the survey are completely optional, but all views and challenge are welcome. We encourage everyone to reply openly and honestly to support us in this work.”