The commitment of the new government in its manifesto to introduce a new entitlement for teachers to continuing professional development is to be welcomed. Likewise, is its commitment to the importance of an early career framework for beginning teachers. However, the pledge to simply “update the Early Career Framework” and to “maintaining its grounding in evidence” does not go far enough. A full review of the underlying principles and the associated evidence base is necessary in order to address the current crisis in the professional education and development of teachers as encapsulated in Teacher Education in Crisis: The State, the Market and the Universities in England by Viv Ellis and colleagues.

This crisis arises from the Conservative-led reforms from 2010 onwards because of a clash of conceptions about the of quality of teaching and the nature of professionalism. The root of this clash can be traced back to the speech by Michael Gove in 2010 as the Secretary of State for Education in which he asserted that that teaching is merely “a craft that is best learnt as an apprentice observing a master craftsman or woman”. He also declared that “watching others, and being rigorously observed yourself as you develop, is the best route to acquiring mastery in the classroom”.

This clash of mindsets can be seen in the terms used by Hoyle (1974) on a spectrum that ranges from a “restricted” technicist view to an “extended” professional view of the nature of teaching as highlighted in the report from Graham Donaldson to the Scottish Government in 2010. The restricted view is based on a conception of an effective teacher that is narrowly defined in terms of technical skills only. In contrast a teacher at the extended end of the spectrum is the kind of professional who is not only highly proficient in the classroom but is also reflective and enquiring not only about teaching and learning, but also about those wider issues which set the context for what should be taught and why.

 

Central to this clash of conceptions has been a clash of values concerning the nature of professional knowledge and the role of higher education in the professional education and development of teachers. The view of teaching as merely a craft ignores the complex nature of professional knowledge and the ways that it is developed both in practice and through higher education. In relation to the teaching of school subjects, such knowledge is developed through collaboration in communities of inquiry and dialogic spaces with accomplished academic specialists in the scholarship of subject-specific education (Hudson, 2024).

 

In the process of consultation about the new framework strong criticism was made by subject associations regarding its neglect of subject-specific education. For example, in the written evidence from The Historical Association the framework is described as being “not fit for purpose” and the generic nature of the framework is seen to discourage subject-specific teacher education. Similar criticism is made by the Council for Subject Associations (CfSA) which also points out that it draws on a narrow research evidence base that misses out important research in subject pedagogy.k

In its response to the consultation, the Department for Education (DfE) combined the early career framework with the existing Core Content Framework to create the ITT Early Career Framework (ITTECF). However, in its response to the criticisms by the subject associations, it demonstrated a lack of understanding of their nature and a ‘blind spot’ by placing an emphasis on the development of subject-specific content rather than in addressing the shortcomings of the underpinning evidence base in relation to subject-specific pedagogical research. For example, in its response the DfE states that “ECT training lead providers will develop enhanced subject-specific materials” and that Oak

National Academy “will work with ITT and ECT training providers to support them to enhance their existing provision with more subject-specific content.” This has left subject-specific education and its associated research marginalised and England as an outlier in an international context in which the study of subject-specific education is recognised as an academic discipline in its own right.

 

The way in which the ITTECF was used to carry out a “market review” of provision in 2022 was highly controversial. This led to the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Greenwich issuing a press release in which ongoing and serious concerns were raised about the rigor, reliability and validity of the desk-based ITT accreditation process. As a result of the review process, the university lost its accreditation, along with several other providers, to deliver teacher training/education which it had provided for 120 years. In its response, the University of Greenwich requested a review of the accreditation process and the chance to reapply or be reinstated at the earliest opportunity.

 

In addition, the press release highlights that the removal of accreditation will create more barriers to getting the “best and brightest students into teaching at a time where the country is struggling to recruit and retain educators.” Further barriers have been created by the unrealistic pressures on experienced mentors to engage in 20 hours of training in generic “instructional coaching”. This pressure has led to existing accredited providers withdrawing provision as is the case outlined by Sarah Steadman at Kings College London.

 

This call and expression of dissatisfaction with the process was echoed by other leading voices in the field. In addressing the question “Does the new ITT and Early Career framework hit the mark?” Clare Brooks from the University of Cambridge speaks on behalf of the sector when she writes that there is a need for a more engaged conversation about what teacher education and professional development might become. Furthermore, she adds that a better framework is desperately needed and that it does not look like this.

 

In summary, firstly there is a major difference between the previous government and what is widely regarded as good practice in relation to the nature of professional knowledge and professionalism. Secondly, there are inadequate processes that have led to highly questionable judgements about who is best suited to provide teacher education. Thirdly, there are practical and costly implications for both institutions and schools in trying to implement an ill-conceived centralised intervention that is directed towards an inappropriate characterization of teacher educator’s work. Accordingly, a fundamental review of both the framework and the accreditation process is now required as a matter of urgency. This should include representation from subject associations, university-led partnerships with schools and school-centred ITT (SCITT) partnerships with universities together with the Universities’ Council for the Education of Teachers (UCET).

 

Brian Hudson is emeritus professor at the University of Sussex and guest professor at Karlstad University, Sweden. He is Co-I for the KOSS project: “Knowledge and Quality across School Subjects and Teacher Education” funded by the Swedish Research Council (2019-24).

 

Deb Outhwaite has been working in education for 30 years, she is currently a Visiting Senior Fellow at LSE, Chair of British Educational Leadership, Management and Administration Society (BELMAS), and Vice Chair of the Fabian Education Policy Group.