Teacher Training and EBAC - the DfE responds

As regular readers of this blog will know, I occasionally get a response from the DfE and, when I do, I publish it here. I thought things had gone quiet when suddenly I received this, which answers points made about teacher training and the Ebac. This comes from Pamela Kearns of the Ministerial and Public Communications Division. Although it is one of those generic replies you tend to get from government, Ms Kearns has at least got a sympathetic turn of phrase. She says...

I acknowledge and empathise with the two example cases that you have highlighted in your letter and I can appreciate how disheartening it must be for both these individuals not to be able to teach their chosen subjects and pursue their chosen career.

Initial Teacher Training continues to be a popular choice for the best graduates and experienced career changers. We expect to attract 35,000 new trainees to teaching each year from the brightest graduates and the most experienced career changers, of these places around 10,000 will come through our new school routes to teacher training. However the number of applications we receive always exceeds the number of places available. This year we expect competition to be very stringent for teacher training places with around twice the number of people applying than there are places available to train.
Well, ITT has always been competitive, ask anyone who's tried to get onto the GTP!
The Government wants to move increasingly towards a school led system of teacher training. This year the Teaching Agency has received strong demand for its School Direct places and allocated 9,500 places to just under 900 lead schools working with a partnership of schools. This shows a significant demand from schools that have the desire and capacity to take a head in the recruitment and training of their own trainee teachers. Around 400 additional schools have also registered an interest in future School Direct opportunities. But, as we have seen, it is this very fragmentation of ITT that is the difficulty; where you have fragmentation you have variation and some trainees will be well trained, others will not. This is why the system was centralised in the first place. Still, what goes around comes around... 

In respect of your comments on the English Baccalueate (EBacc), it was introduced as a measure in 2011 to encourage schools to offer more pupils the opportunity to study towards GCSEs in a suite of core academic subjects (English, mathematics, the sciences, geography or history and a foreign language). It is designed to leave 20-30 per cent of time for the study of other subjects as part of a broad and balanced curriculum. However the EBacc was and is not a compulsory requirement on all pupils; there are no targets associated with the measure and schools remain free to offer the range of subjects they feel best suits their pupils.Yes, do note the last sentence - this is the new position forced on the Secretary of State by the Select Committee.
On 7 February the Secretary of State made a statement on the future of qualifications, school league tables and the national curriculum. The announced proposals for qualifications at the end of Key Stage 4 follow on from the consultation held last year and set out plans for a comprehensive reform of GCSEs across the full range of subjects.

The Secretary of State also announced consultations on the National Curriculum (which runs until 16 April 2013) and separately on a new accountability framework for secondary schools (running until 1 May). The latter proposes that we judge schools against a threshold attainment in English and maths, and on progress based on pupils’ average scores in a range of both EBacc and non-EBacc subjects. This approach will provide a strong incentive for schools to offer a broad and balanced curriculum to all their pupils, including the academic core of the EBacc as appropriate, and to ensure high standards of teaching in a wide range of subjects

We wait and see. It's the fragmentation problem again - Academies and Free Schools can be national curriculum free zones

So, there you have it. However, I have also had a reply to Jackboot and Bribery and its very brevity smells of an uncomfortable truth. More in a week.

RE and Academies - the DfE replies

Well, full marks to the team at DfE for attempting to address concerns about Religious Education. Following their bland "REisastatutorysubject" mantra, Leona Smith of the Public Communications Unit has provided a much fuller response to the concerns expressed in this blog about the position of RE in Academies and the apparent lack of monitoring by Ofsted.  Her reply certainly explains the legal position clearly, although those who are expressing the concerns know perfectly well what the position is. However, it is at least reassuring to hear this re-statement of it. Here is Leona Smith's response:-

All academies have to provide RE under the terms of their funding agreement (FA) with the Secretary of State. The FA for non-faith academies states that they must arrange for RE to be taught to all pupils in accordance with the requirements for agreed syllabuses in the maintained sector. Academies are not required to follow a locally agreed syllabus, but can choose to do so. Where they choose to design their own RE syllabus they must ensure that it meets with the requirements of a locally agreed syllabus. Any academy which fails to teach RE is in breach of its FA, and where there is evidence for this; the Education Funding Agency can enforce compliance of the FA.

Ofsted does not inspect individual curriculum subjects, but is required to report on whether the curriculum offered by the school is broad and balanced and promotes the spiritual, moral, social and cultural development of pupils. If, during an inspection, inspectors see practice that does not conform to statutory requirements, they will delve more deeply and will report their findings. Where an investigation reveals that statutory requirements are not being met and this is a contributory factor in explaining why pupils are not achieving as well as they should, it will be considered for inclusion in the inspection report as a key point for improvement.

The trouble is - and remains - that, however the statutory position is re-stated, the law is breached and Osfted does not follow it up. Which is why, somewhere along the line, policy-makers need to have the courage to instruct Ofsted to ensure statutory compliance.  And, as stated previously, the revision of the National Curriculum looks very much as if Spiritual and Moral development will be sacrificed for personal, environmental and economic.

I may be wrong but, sadly, reassuring though she is, Ms Smith does not convince me. Suppose we start reporting schools where RE is not meeting statutory requirements to Ofsted or the Funding Agencyå?  Maybe what is also needed is an FoI request to academies about the state of their RE.  I've got a lot of writing to do this summer but, just maybe, I might construct such a survey. It will be reported here.

The National Curriculum and RE

The publication of the draft framework for the national curriculum marks yet another step in this government's determination to secularise the curriculum while pretending to protest that it isn't.

Before we even begin thinking about Religious Education let's consider the aims and purposes of the National Curriculum. As we all know, the current Ofsted framework provides for the specific inspection of SMSC - Spiritual, Moral, Social and Cultural development - however, the sharp-eyed will have spotted that, for the first time since the inception of the National Curriculum, both spiritual and moral have disappeared. Cynics might suggest that this is symptomatic of a political culture that eschews both spirituality and morality. This is, after all, the zeitgeist.

The new curriculum aims are now fivefold: economic, cultural, social, personal and environmental. So, with one clean sweep, the only parts of a school's curriculum that enable students to explore deep questions and test deeply held personal values are consigned to the scrapheap.   Justify this, as the case is made, in terms of comparability with high performing jurisdictions, and you still sweep away something that has been fundamental to British education since 1870. How does this align with injunction in the new Teachers' Standards not to undermine traditional British values?

So, what of RE? Well, those of us who have been defending the diminishing island of RE against the swelling flood of secularisation have got pretty sick of Nick Gibb's protestations that RE does not need protection because it's a statutory subject. He must know that this is utter nonsense and enough people have pointed this out to him for it to be taken seriously. Like many ministers, Gibb suffers from selective deafness. And RE seems to make ministers deaf. Why else does there have to be an all-party group of MPs, formed to promote the case for RE? And you can bet your bottom dollar that the whole of the DfE suddenly goes deaf.

If proof were needed of the increasingly perilous position of RE look no further than the draft revised framework for the National Curriculum. There you will find that RE becomes part of the basic curriculum, along with sex education and, for the time being, work-related learning.  The framework reinforces the statutory nature of RE but the detail makes clear that, while schools should implement the statutory programmes of study for the national curriculum, they are able to determine the specific nature of the basic provision for themselves. Which is why, in respect of RE, an increasing number of secondary schools and a worrying proportion of primaries simply do not deliver the expectations of their SACRE determined agreed syllabus at all.   With impunity. The RE lobby has long been pressing for Ofsted to police this statutory requirement only to be met by the bland Gibb doctrine.

Now, inject the wildcard that the non-maintained sector which, for the purposes of this discussion, includes Academies and Free Schools, will not be subject to the statutory national curriculum. So,  weak as it is in proposed legislation, the place of RE will be left unprotected in these new constituencies. It may be in their Funding Agreement, for the moment, but that is almost as laughable as the relatively recently repealed requirement for a Hansom cab to carry a bale of hay!

The proposed Framework is supposed to contribute to further debate but we all know the futility of consultation with an administration whose response is,' yes, but we're going to do it anyway'.

This is a government with a modernising agenda that is self-defeating. Real, deep societal change will not happen if we take away the very mechanisms that underpin it.