Professional update - reaccreditation
mydoll: What do you think of GTC initial statement paper on this? Good thing? Bad thing? Storm in a CPD cup?
abmiss: Given that I'm in favour of all drivers retaking a test every five years, what's the problem as long as it's not over-bureaucratic and is assessed by practitioners?
it isn't supposed to be a test. Professional Update is not a tool to get rid of teachers. It is anticipated that it will focus on continuous improvement rather than on determining whether a teacher is, or has remained, competent. Whenever someone begins by telling you what something is not, that is the time to pay particular attention. (Eg, the McCormac review is not about saving money.)
coaltown1: I am very wary of the wording. If it is not a tool to get rid of teachers, then why mention it?
Dominie: This is potentially very dangerous. McCormac said teachers' duties should be defined by the SFR. If proceeded with, this will be the first step in the re-accreditation system the Government wants. The GTCS leadership can say what they like - if we go down that road, getting rid of teachers who fail to demonstrate competence is just a step away.
RaymondSoltysek: I share the concern. I heard this described by someone at the GTCS as an "entitlement to reaccreditation". That's clearly double- speak, since it's not an "entitlement" to anything that is material, such as promotion or extra payment.