‘The Case for School-led Primary Teacher Training’, Journal of Education for Teaching, 21, 1, 25 -35, 1995, published by Taylor & Francis Ltd, PO Box 25, Abingdon, Oxfordshire, OX14 3UE

Andrew Hannan

INTRODUCTION

The reaction of the Higher Education (HE) establishment in England to attempts to shift what they call ‘teacher education’ and the government calls ‘teacher training’ away from universities and colleges of higher education and into the primary schools (for pupils in the age group of 5 to 11 years) themselves has been naturally defensive (Whitty, 1993). It is not altogether surprising to find that the research evidence which has been given the greatest prominence in the campaign against the government reforms has tended to reflect such a perspective (Carrington & Tymms, 1993; Hannan & Newby, 1993; Hodgkinson, 1992; Standing Conference of Principals, 1994), drawing on the views of students in training and teachers (mostly headteachers) in primary schools. The researchers concerned are, after all, located in the HE institutions which are under attack from the government. There is a suspicion that research has tended to express the view HE wants to hear, viz ‘schools don’t want to take it on’, ‘it’s not what schools are for’, ‘schools have got too much else to do’, ‘HE is doing a great job’.

Nonetheless, there is no doubt that the weight of evidence is behind such interpretations, despite accusations of vested interest and special pleading. We are, though, in danger of missing something significant if we only give prominence to views of those who oppose the reforms. It is important to find out about those schools which do favour a radical shift away from HE-based teacher education. These schools may represent a growing trend or even a potentially divisive force which may be exploited to bring about the sort of radical shift the government appears to favour. They may alert us to basic problems with the status quo which need to be addressed even if we don’t accept the government’s proposals. It is also important to listen to the views, both for and against, of students and tutors from HE who are involved in primary teacher education and of parents whose children are currently in primary schooling. This paper attempts to redress the balance to some extent by focussing in particular on the reactions of those headteachers who support the policy being advanced by the government that schools should be given the opportunity to take over the training of primary school teachers without necessarily involving an HE institution, with some reference also to the views of parents, students and tutors.

THE SURVEY

The research reported here was launched immediately after the Department For Education (DFE) published their consultation document/draft circular with the title ‘The Initial Training of Primary School Teachers: New Criteria for Course Approval’, dated 9th June 1993 (DFE, 1993). Questionnaires were sent to the headteachers of all the county and voluntary-aided primary sector schools in Devon (one of the largest counties in England), to parents of pupils at seven of those schools, and to students and tutors at the Rolle Faculty of Education of the University of Plymouth.

Of the 433 headteachers who were sent copies of the questionnaire, 264 replied, giving a response rate of 61 percent. The nature of the sample in terms of size of school was as follows: 77 schools with less than 100 pupils (29.1 percent); 128 with 100 to 299 pupils (48.5 percent); 41 with 300 or over pupils (15.5 percent); and 18 schools (6.8 percent) which did not provide this information. 1,040 copies of the questionnaire were distributed to parents at seven primary sector schools, 267 were returned, a response rate of 26 percent. These seven were an ‘opportunity sample’ with a reasonable degree of representativeness for Devon county schools, ie in terms of pupil age ranges, location (rural, small town, large town) and pupil numbers. The attempt to reach students in teacher training was hampered by the timing of the survey, as it took place at the very end of term when many students were without lecture commitments, so it was not possible to contact them all. None of the fourth year Bachelor of Education (BEd) students were available as they had finished their exams and had dispersed. All students who took part in the survey were undertaking courses of initial teacher education in order to work in primary schools. Those taking the BEd were engaged in a four-year honours degree. Those graduates (with BA or BSc or equivalent) taking the primary Postgraduate Certificate of Education (PGCE) could take either a one-year course or spend two years as Articled Teachers (a school-based course involving partnership between school and the University). Overall, whereas 769 students (not counting those who had just finished the fourth year of their BEd) were eligible to take part, it was only possible to distribute 593 copies of the questionnaire. Of these, 242 were returned, a response rate of 41 percent. Tutors were easier to reach making it possible to send the questionnaire to 53 full-time tutors and 18 part-time tutors of Rolle Faculty of Education, a total of 71. Of these, 50 were returned, 41 from full-timers and nine from part-timers, giving response rates of 77 percent and 50 percent respectively and 70 percent overall.

The questionnaire instrument was designed in close consultation with the Devon Association of Primary Headteachers (DAPH) who sponsored its distribution amongst headteachers and parents. The project was intended to serve a dual purpose in that it aimed to provide immediate feedback to the DFE (by 31st July 1993) from all these groups as part of the consultation exercise (on behalf of the University of Plymouth and of DAPH) and to provide valuable research evidence about the perspectives of those who would be directly affected by the reform of primary initial teacher education. The questionnaire explained the proposals to headteachers in terms which were an attempt to paraphrase the language used in the DFE document and to avoid any accusations of leading respondents towards a negative reaction.

The full results from the quantitative aspects of the surveys are published elsewhere (Hannan, 1993; Hannan, 1994). The following list summarises some of the main points:

• Headteachers (96.6%), students (89.3%) and tutors (96%) were overwhelmingly opposed to the proposal for a one-year training course for non-graduates (often known as the ‘Mums’ Army’ route) to qualify them to teach children up to seven years of age.

• Although more parents were against (48.1%) than were in favour (42.5%) of the ‘Mums’ Army’ proposal (with 9.4% neutral), the extent of opposition was significantly less than for the other groups.

• In all three of the groups asked (headteachers, students and tutors), more opposed than supported the idea of moving towards three- year BEd courses (rather than the currently dominant four-year mode), with 70% of tutors against (20% in favour and 10% neutral) compared to 40.9% of headteachers (39.7% in favour and 19.5% neutral) and 42.1% of students (37.9% in favour and 20% neutral).

• A majority of each of those three groups opposed the introduction of two-year BEd courses for students with one year’s experience of HE.

• All four categories of respondent had sizeable majorities (71.6% of headteachers, 77.3% of parents, 71.4% of students and 62.5% of tutors) in favour of increasing the period of time student teachers spend in schools (by the amounts proposed by the DFE).

• Although more parents opposed (48.3%) such arrangements than supported them (32.8%) with 18.9% neutral, the extent of opposition was significantly less strong than for the other groups.

• Both headteacher (63.7%) and tutor (57.1%) responses favoured moves to establish partnerships where schools would play a more significant role in teacher training.

• 61.8% of headteachers favoured the transfer of resources to schools to reflect their increased role in such partnerships, whereas only 26.5% of tutors did so, with 46.9% against and 26.5% neutral.

Here, the focus will be on another of the items on the questionnaire, making use of ‘further comments’ explaining the Likert scale choices made by respondents. The issue concerned is that of ‘school-led’ teacher training. Specifically, reactions to the ideas about school-led training expressed in the consultation document/draft circular were solicited by means of the following questionnaire item:

Groups of schools wishing to take the lead in designing and running their own course of training for primary school teachers should be able to obtain direct government funding for this purpose (without necessarily having to involve Higher Education institutions).

What is your view of such a proposal? (Please circle the appropriate number)

Please add any further comments:

The responses to this item from all four categories of respondent are given below:

Opposition to groups of schools taking the lead in setting up their own training arrangements was strongest amongst the tutors (94 percent) but was also high amongst both headteachers (69.9 percent) and students (76 percent). Size of intake does seem to have had some influence on headteacher response, as those schools with less than 100 pupils had the lowest overall level of support, 9.2 percent, compared to 16.5 percent of schools with 100 to 299 pupils and 17.1 percent for schools with 300 and over. None of the Articled Teachers who replied were in favour of the proposal, which may be worthy of note given that they were taking part in a programme in which schools played a strong, if not leading, role. Although more parents opposed the proposal (48.3 percent) than supported it (32.8 percent, with 18.9 percent neutral) the extent of opposition was significantly less strong than for the other groups.

‘FURTHER COMMENTS’ FROM HEADTEACHERS

It has to be taken into account that the headteachers were asked about their support of the principle involved, ie that groups of schools should have the opportunity to set up training schemes of their own. They were not being asked whether or not they wished to take on such responsibilities themselves. The Likert scale responses give a good picture of the overall pattern of response, but they do not tell us the reasons for the stance taken in each case. However, the explanations provided by the headteachers who took up the invitation to ‘add any further comments’ make it possible to generate such an understanding.

Of particular interest here are the 41 headteachers who supported or strongly supported the idea of school-led teacher training in primary schools. These were in the minority, it is true, but they may be thought to represent a vanguard of the ‘new direction’ or, at least, those who are the most dissatisfied with the HE-led form of teacher training. Nineteen of those 41 provided ‘further comments’. They explained their responses in the following terms (the comments are grouped in relation to the Likert scale response used, with respondents being given numbers for purposes of identification and explanatory information added in brackets as necessary):

Strongly support

(24) Have actually submitted our proposals already!

(56) As long as the only piece of paper is a cheque made out to the Headteacher signed by Mr Patten (the then Secretary of State for Education).

(85) Providing schools have willing staff this is a good idea.

(135) More possibility of receiving a more realistic figure without involving the middle man!

(160) If funding is enough and not teachers ‘on the cheap’.

(209) This would enable schools with expertise in running the Articled Teacher scheme (a two-year postgraduate school-based course involving partnership with an HE institution) to continue this excellent training initiative.

(223) In my opinion and generally speaking students are ill prepared on the immediately required skills involved with interview technique and completing an application form.

(255) This gives the opportunity for individual schools and/or academic council (a local grouping of schools) to tailor make their courses in partnership with HE institutions. There can be a coalition of Initial Teacher Training and INSET (in-service education and training) raising the professional development of the whole teaching staff.

The obvious disadvantage could be the additional work load on teachers already pressed with continual change in the curriculum and assessment arrangements. To some extent this will be nullified by utilising effective management of the funding to create more non-contact time.

(258) Schools 'must' not 'should' be able to obtain direct government funding for this purpose.

Support

(33) If they have enough time and expertise to do this - I know I haven't.

(78) As long as they can obtain sufficient money to do so effectively.

Mind you, any school that did it would be nutty.

(88) If the system has to be set up it would seem to me to be best funded this way. As long as the HE budget is not decreased by this amount!

(90) Excellent proposal in theory even for a CASS (Co-operative Association of Small Schools) group such as ours, but government funding level is unknown and in our experience with students and NQT (newly qualified teachers) a member of staff needs almost 0.5 teacher time to work alongside and counsel on a regular basis to make any Teacher Training practice worthwhile.

(115) Providing funding is generous this could work to the good of all and provide an impetus for growth within the school as well as realistic training for the student. Funds must be generous to provide time for discussion away from the children, etc.

(122) Realistic funding. You can't expect a teacher or senior member of staff to add this to an already full teaching load, something has to give!

(145) But with massive funding - teacher trainers should not have class responsibility. Students need to be getting experience in more than one school.

(169) If Government funding is equivalent to the cost of training in HE Institutions.

(229) Rather like Teaching Hospitals I suppose. In theory this is good. In reality I cannot see any but the largest schools going solo. Most will surely become some sort of partnership with local HE centres.

(256) I support this IN PRINCIPLE but would still wish to know the scale of resources available and a commitment to an agreed 'index linked' scale for the future.

Thirteen headteachers made explicit reference to financial matters, ten of them making it clear that the prospect would only be attractive if the funds available were generous. Their interest in finance was hardly surprising. Previously the HE institutions had decided how government funding would be spent on teacher training with very little (and in some cases, none) of that money being used to pay schools for taking students during periods of ‘school experience’ or ‘teaching practice’. The new scheme (which later became known as School-Centred Initial Teacher Training or SCITT) was intended to put schools in control of the budget, leaving it to them to decide whether or not they wanted to ‘buy in’ any kind of HE input and putting them in a dominant position with regard to the financial arrangements involved.

The other six headteachers (24, 85, 209, 223, 229 and 258) expressed, qualified or put forward various reasons for their support in non-financial terms, including mention (24) of an actual application to set up a school-led scheme (despite the exclamation mark this does not seem to be a joke as the response here was consistent with others in which this headteacher expressed strong backing for moves to give schools control of teacher training). Respondents 209, 255 and 229 were clearly of the view that school-led schemes would probably involve HE institutions in some sort of partnership in any case (although headteacher 209 was mistaken in believing that this could be done on the Articled Teacher Scheme model, since this was a two-year programme which involved the payment of a bursary to the person being trained and proved far too expensive for the government’s tastes). Headteacher 88 expressed a desire that HE institutions should retain their funding (he stated elsewhere in his questionnaire response that he strongly favoured partnership between schools and HE in teacher education). Headteacher 85 stressed the importance of having a ‘willing staff’ and 255 argued that the extra funding which would be made available could create the extra time needed by hard-pressed teachers (that such time is necessary was a point also made by headteachers 90, 115 and 145). Headteacher 78 made it clear that he thought that schools should have the opportunity to lead teacher training initiatives, but that he doubted the sanity of those wishing to take it on (implying that this would be an extra burden in a time of rapid change and increasing demands on teachers in primary education).

However, these comments are perhaps too specific to give us very much to go on. We need to place them in the context of the general position taken on the government’s proposed reforms by those headteachers who favoured this specific scheme. Of those headteachers cited above, 16 provided responses when given the following invitation at the end of the questionnaire:

C. Please use this space to add any general comments about the direction currently being taken by government policy on teacher education.

Many of the respondents used the opportunity to comment on the government’s proposal to establish a one-year training programme for non-graduates to teach children up to seven years of age (the so-called ‘Mums’ Army’ scheme). All who did so were very strongly opposed (see Hannan, 1994 for details of the responses to a questionnaire item on this issue). Comments from these headteachers on other matters were as follows:

(33) Having strived for a graduate profession, it would be a retrograde step to dilute any element of training....... As always, the success of any project depends on time, resources and clear thinking being applied to the individual steps to be taken. Unfortunately, past experience makes me sceptical about all these elements being properly provided and any training scheme is only as good as the trainers are allowed to be - the road to ruin is paved, etc, etc.

(85) I feel that it is important to stress that if you want quality teachers you should:-

a) Put quality training in.

b) Set higher standards in the PRACTICE of the profession. Perhaps one should be less kind and fail students more often?

c) Be more prepared to make students repeat their practice if necessary.

d) Be prepared to PAY schools for the time and effort put into students.

e) Only use schools that can provide QUALITY experiences for students.

f) Colleges should find a way of rewarding good practice schools - perhaps with reciprocal INSET for free?

(88) This whole idea undermines the status of the teaching profession. We need highly trained teachers of degree standard, with a BALANCED training. Yes more time in schools but this is to gain experience in the classroom teaching children. Background and understanding can only be provided by the HE institution. This MUST not be dropped.

(90) We take issue with any further government changes, without sufficient analysis and trial pilots. We KNOW four year courses are absolutely essential to provide 'professionals' who can 'manage' the National Curriculum. We also know that in our experience there are not consistent standards of training, etc. There is a wide variation in support for student teachers. The 'balance' of the course is vital. More time in schools on TP is obviously important but useless if unsupported and not 'reflective' at the end of the period. The demands on schools would be greater. Heads would need more time to manage, colleagues to support, and additional finance to deal with this. Schools could not give the academic support at the necessary intellectual level in for example child psychology, child development etc. We have a major worry that the Teacher Training could collapse on a day to day basis, and students would become 'Classroom Assistants' instead of maintaining the high standard required to develop a fully qualified-adequate-professional.

(115) I feel schools and students could gain much from closer contact. Many small schools have a low staff turnover and would welcome a young student. In return the extended practice will perhaps give the student more experience of classroom life, expose them to more teachers and classes, and help them to discover their strengths and develop their own view on good educational practice. The shared discussion needed to develop the student would also enliven mature teachers: learning is always two-way.

(135) The professional nature of teaching should be kept at degree level..... I do believe the system needs an overhaul - that students should do more teaching and do less work on specialist subjects. I believe at Key Stage 2 (for teaching 8 to 11 year olds) a broader course would be advantageous. I am concerned that Heads organising training in school will use their 'best' teachers to the detriment of the pupils' education....

(145) Government is trying to undermine professionalism and obviously has no real idea of what teaching involves.

(160) Some good ideas (for a change) in principle BUT need a lot of preliminary work, teacher organisation involvement and pilot schemes.

(209) The demise of the Articled Teacher scheme is to be lamented. This could have been modified to provide a 3 year school-based course for non-graduates, leading to degree status, validated by the colleges.

(223) ‘Schools’ should be more involved with teacher training. I have constantly suggested to various colleges my desire to support in the final stages, eg application forms and interview techniques.

(229) Professional competences do need a high profile and need to be taught. How far any course acknowledges my view I can not tell.

(255) As a headteacher I am faced with a complex curriculum and assessment procedure. I am concerned about the ethos of my school. I want to reflect the wishes of my governors and parents. I am anxious to develop continuity between all phases of education. Above all I wish to celebrate children's ability and the teachers that have achieved successful learners. Teachers are the school's most valuable resource. In general terms I support the thrust of these proposals, for they give opportunity and diversity for a variety of people in society to enter the teaching profession under strict and carefully accredited criteria allowing schools to more appropriately match the nature of the teaching force to the needs and aspirations of the children within the school.

Despite the fact that these headteachers favoured one of the most radical reforms in the government’s programme (giving schools the opportunity to lead their own teacher training schemes without necessarily involving HE institutions at all), support for the general direction of the government’s proposed changes was not strongly evident. Perhaps the responses of headteachers 88, 223 and 255 came closest to agreeing with the government’s general approach, with headteachers 115 and 229 also expressing positive views. Respondents 90, 135 and 160 offered qualified support with some criticism, whereas 33, 145 and 209 (on a specific point) were strongly opposed. Nevertheless, headteachers 85, 90, 135, 223 and, by implication, 229 voiced some strong criticisms of the part HE institutions have played in the initial education of primary school teachers.

CONCLUSION

There seems to be very little evidence here of a groundswell of support from headteachers for the underlying ideological position represented by the government’s plans to shift the location of primary teacher training from HE and into the schools themselves. Rather, there was strong backing for the notion of partnership and for the part played by HE in the process of teacher preparation. However, there was enough dissatisfaction with the status quo for 63.7 percent of the headteachers and 57.1 percent of the HE tutors surveyed to support moves to establish partnerships where schools would play a more significant role in teacher training, with 61.8 percent of headteachers favouring the transfer of resources to schools to reflect their increased role in such partnerships (for details see Hannan, 1993). It is also worthy of note that dissatisfaction with the part then played by HE was sufficient for the majority of headteachers, parents, students and HE tutors themselves to support significant increases in the percentage of time student teachers were to spend in schools. Thus, 71.6 percent of headteachers, 77.3 percent of parents, 71.4 percent of students and 62.5 percent of tutors were in favour of increasing the period of time student teachers spend in schools by the amounts proposed by the DFE (for details see Hannan, 1994).

Of the minority of headteachers who favoured the idea of schools being given the opportunity to set up training schemes without necessarily involving HE institutions (15.6% of those surveyed), there were a number who believed that schools should be given the opportunity to be very much more ‘in the driving seat’. The major reservations expressed by the headteachers who favoured the school-led option being available were about the provision of sufficient funding. These headteachers might not have wished ultimately to ‘go it alone’ but they saw the attraction of the possibility of being the major players in any partnership negotiations, where HE institutions might be invited in on terms predominantly set by the schools themselves. In general, on the evidence of this research, the overwhelming opposition to the ‘Mums’ Army’ proposal of both schools (96.6% of headteachers against) and HE institutions (96 percent of tutors against) and the shared antipathy to government education reforms disguised a willingness, particularly on the part of headteachers, to accept other elements of the government’s proposals (such as increasing the amount of time student teachers spend in schools and giving schools a bigger part to play in the training partnerships with HE institutions). The level of dissatisfaction with ‘college-led’ teacher education was not, however, enough to make school-led teacher training an attractive possibility to more than a small minority.

It remains to be seen whether that minority shrinks or grows. The government fought hard to retain the right for school-led teacher training for postgraduate students without the necessity of involving HE institutions. At the time of writing only two such schemes have been established in the primary sector, both of which have apparently chosen to work with local universities. The news from the secondary sector (11 - 18 year-olds) appears to be a reluctance from the schools to continue to take on the extra burdens they have incurred through their increased role in the partnerships established with HE institutions (Tysome, 1994; Bolton, 1994). The challenge to HE institutions is that they must convince primary schools that the partnerships which they are now obliged to establish really do give schools a sufficient say, that schools are given adequate funding for them to deliver their share of the task without endangering their more central role of educating children and that, above all, the partnerships make it possible to improve the quality of teacher preparation. The constraints in terms of the length of time for training courses, the demands for newly qualified teachers to display a wide range of specific competences to deliver the national curriculum and the overall funding available make such a challenge almost impossible to meet, although McCulloch (1993) gives some guidance on how this might be achieved. The great danger is that the wider view of what is needed to prepare a professional educator becomes mislaid amongst the specifics of bureaucratic targets and that the essential commonality of interest between schools and HE is lost amongst the struggle over scarce resources. The possibility of schools going it alone is clearly intended as a device for keeping HE institutions in line with government policy, with the schools being seen as the natural allies of reforms which are intended to give them more power and, even, resources if these are successfully switched from HE. It would be ironic if the partnerships which must now be established serve instead to strengthen opposition to the deprofessionalisation of teaching and give HE institutions the opportunity to establish alliances with schools to protect their shared vision of ‘good practice’ in primary education.

REFERENCES

DEPARTMENT FOR EDUCATION (1993) The Initial Training of Primary School Teachers: New Criteria for Course Approval (Draft Circular) (London, DFE).

BOLTON, E. (1994) One last push, The Guardian, 17th May, p. 2.

CARRINGTON, B. & TYMMS, P. (1993) For Primary Heads, Mum’s Not The Word! (London, National Union of Teachers).

HANNAN, A. (1993) The Initial Training of Primary School Teachers: Response to the DFE (An Interim Report) (Exmouth, University of Plymouth).

HANNAN, A. & NEWBY, M. (1993) Student Teacher and Headteacher Views on Current Provision and Proposals for the Future of Initial Teacher Education for Primary Schools, Collected Original Resources in Education, 17, 1,

fiche 1. (Also published by the University of Plymouth at Exmouth).

HANNAN, A. (1994) Headteachers', parents', students' and tutors' responses to the reform of primary ITE, in: I. REID, H. CONSTABLE & R. GRIFFITHS (Eds) Teacher Education Reform: The Research Evidence (London, Paul Chapman).

HODGKINSON, K. (1992) Client Opinion on the Radical Reform of Initial Teacher Training for Primary Schools: a survey of students and teachers, Educational Studies, 18, 1, pp. 71-81.

McCULLOCH, M. (1993) Democratisation of Teacher Education: new forms of partnership for school based initial teacher education, in: P. GILROY & M. SMITH (Eds) International Analyses of Teacher Education, JET Papers One (Abingdon, CARFAX).

STANDING CONFERENCE OF PRINCIPALS (1994) Education Bill - Primary ITT Questionnaire: Commentary on Findings (Cheltenham, SCOP).

TYSOME, T. (1994) Teacher scheme ‘failing’, The Times Higher Education Supplement, July 8th, 1130, p. 1.

WHITTY, G. (1993) Education Reform and Teacher Education in England in the 1990s, in: P. GILROY & M. SMITH (Eds) International Analyses of Teacher Education, JET Papers One (Abingdon, CARFAX).

Return to 'Using questionnaires in education research' home page