Several of England’s top universities have warned that the radical reforms outlined in the government’s teacher training review could put the quality and supply of provision at risk.
The University of Cambridge has threatened to pull out of teacher training altogether if the changes are implemented in their current form, while the University of Oxford called the proposals “fundamentally flawed”, and the UCL Institute of Education said they risked “extensive and damaging disruption” to the sector.
The comments form part of the universities’ responses to a consultation on the outcomes of the government’s initial teacher training (ITT) market review, which included the controversial suggestion that all providers should go through a “rigorous” process of reaccreditation.
Warning: ITT plans ‘pose catastrophic risk’ to teacher supply
Exclusive: ITT plan risks teacher quality, says DfE adviser
ITT review: What schools need to know
Guided by a new set of “quality requirements” for the sector, the department said the reaccreditation process could be completed by September 2022 - with successful applicants expected to launch their “new” ITT courses the following year.
But Cambridge, Oxford and UCL have warned against the “damaging” consequences of implementing the proposals in their current form.
In a statement issued today, Cambridge said it would be forced to pull out of the teacher training market in the event that the reforms went ahead.
“We cannot, in all conscience, envisage our continuing involvement with ITT should the proposals be implemented in their current format,” the university said.
It warned that the “flawed” proposals would have a “detrimental effect on recruitment and teacher supply” as a whole, while the recommended curriculum requirements set out by the Department for Education’s (DfE) expert group would “undermine the innovative and ambitious teacher education curriculum that we already have in place, lowering standards in the process”.
The university also claimed that much of the evidence behind the proposals was “either untested or not sufficiently robust”.
“Our view, as a leading centre of education research, is that the review’s specifications are not based on the best evidence available about what works in teaching or teacher education,” it said.
“At best, the underlying evidence is restricted and partial, and overlooks the need to guard against fads in teacher training that may turn out to be unhelpful to future teachers.”
Meanwhile, Oxford once again called on the government to halt the consultation, arguing that “the proposals contained in the review report are fundamentally flawed and risk destabilising teacher education in England, with inevitable consequences for teacher supply”.
It added: “Current university-school partnerships, even those as well-established as the Oxford Internship Scheme, could be ‘squeezed out’ in a model which would make it difficult for established local partnerships to operate.
“The proposed structure would threaten our current model of collaborative partnership, in which schools and the university work together to design, deliver and evaluate the programme.”
And UCL claimed the review “essentially positions (student) teachers as passive consumers of a narrow set of research findings as well as atomised chunks of knowledge”.
The university added: “In their current form, the proposals risk extensive and damaging disruption to the ITE [initial teacher education] system, putting the quality and supply of provision at risk and eroding capacity for improvement.
“At the very least, reform should proceed at a realistic pace, based on piloting before system-wide reform. In particular, the case for a costly restructuring and reaccreditation process has simply not been made, especially in the current context.
“We are keen to work with the government and the wider sector on reforms that better recognise teaching as an intellectual exercise, the value of provider-school partnership, and the value of universities’ contribution to ITE, which has provided a vital underpinning for both quality and innovation within the system over a number of decades.”
A DfE spokesperson said: “Supporting our teachers with the highest quality training and development is the best way we can improve pupil outcomes, and we want all teachers to have a world-class start to their career.
“We continue to engage with the sector on proposed changes to initial teacher training and we will respond to the review’s recommendations later this year.”
