THE McCrone report anticipated that “a significant majority” of Scottish teachers would achieve chartered teacher grade. Teachers, however, have been reluctant to join the debate. Only 761 responded to the recent consultation - and this after the General Teaching Council for Scotland sent the papers to every member.

The Chartered Teacher Development Partnership is undertaking two tasks - developing a “national standard” for chartered teachers and, on the basis of the standard, outlining an exemplar programme of activities for continuing professional development. Gaining agreement and respect for the national standard is clearly the primary objective. The first substantive consultation question was “what qualities should a chartered teacher possess”? This is a good question - but not the first thing teachers tend to ask. It is also impossible to answer, meaningfully, unless we have already clarified what chartered teachers are actually expected to do. Until we can answer the practical questions, about their role and functions, discussion about their qualities seems to many little more than an academic exercise.

It is not the fault of the chartered teacher partnership that these practical issues remain unresolved. It is, however, a retreat into sophistry to claim that the term chartered teacher refers to “a grade and not a post” - and that the standard therefore will not need to be derived from an analysis of functions (TESS, September 21). A national standard that does not clarify the functions of chartered teachers is a conceptual and practical nonsense. It will do little to improve the response rate in the next phase of the consultation.

Nor could such a national standard provide an adequate basis for the development of a continuing professional development (CPD) framework. McCrone reported “a widespread criticism of the quality of CPD on offer” because, it was claimed, “it does not provide what teachers require”. This is a challenge to our “supply side” tradition, which has led to CPD in Scotland being characterised more by what the provider can offer than by what the consumer - teachers and schools - requires. There is, however, little evidence in the report that this challenge has been recognised. A possible framework involving 12 postgraduate-type modules is proposed. The paper argues that such a structure has the attraction of being based on existing provision and that it would permit “an appropriate balance” of activities. Neither is self-evidently a strong recommendation.

Existing provision is heavily criticised and what constitutes an “appropriate balance,” be it theorypractice or genericspecific, depends on perspective. As McCrone observes, what a provider regards as an appropriate balance may feel, to the practitioner, like a failure to address practical needs. Centrally imposed prescriptive frameworks may be administratively convenient but seldom provide an effective mechanism for addressing local and individual needs. The proposed model is also apparently remote from other aspects of the emerging structure. Take, for example, the notion of “needs analysis”. The summary of responses to the consultation reports strong support for the first module being on “professional development needs analysis”. This ignores the fact that, under the new conditions of service, every teacher will maintain a CPD record and negotiate an annual CPD plan with a line manager. What will this involve if not needs analysis?

Development needs analysis is axiomatic to professional practice in the new structure: to cite it as the first of a 12-module CPD programme is akin to having a module on breathing as an introduction to a life skills course. Teachers have many practical and specific questions - about roles, expectations and range of duties; about overlap with other posts; about management structures; about expectations of the same grade in different sectors; about all chartered teachers having a pastoral role; about specialist functions such as guidance and support for learning - even whether access to the new grade will be restricted to fund other parts of the package.

he extent to which CPD can help meet the challenges Scottish teachers face will depend more on the support available to them locally - in particular in their own schools - than it will on a national framework. If a national framework becomes a set of inflexible hoops (or modules) through which teachers have to jump for career progression, it will obstruct and frustrate other important developments.

We no longer live in a “one size fits all” world and the traditional domination of professional accreditation by higher education has significant limitations as well as benefits. These are not explored in the consultation paper. We have an opportunity now to develop a framework for continuing professional development which gains its credibility by reference to the professional needs of teachers.

The chartered teacher initiative is the most significant development for the teaching profession in Scotland for generations. In order to participate, teachers need answers to their practical questions. The danger of not ensuring a full debate on these matters may be that the structure of the chartered teacher grade and the continuing professional development framework that underpins it will fall well short of the ambitions of McCrone and the profession as a whole.

Jim Rand is a consultant in education training and development.