Initial teacher education framework: a report on the responses to the consultation
Updated 24 June 2020
© Crown copyright 2020
This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3 or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: psi@nationalarchives.gov.uk.
Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned.
This publication is available at https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/initial-teacher-education-inspection-framework-and-handbook-2020-inspecting-the-quality-of-teacher-education/outcome/initial-teacher-education-framework-a-report-on-the-responses-to-the-consultation
Introduction
In January 2020, Ofsted published a consultation on our draft initial teacher education (ITE) inspection framework and handbook. We were seeking the views of the public, trainee teachers and those working in the ITE sector. The consultation followed several months of informal and formal engagement with stakeholders. The consultation closed in early April.
Ofsted’s strategy sets out a guiding principle that underpinned the development of the new ITE inspection framework: to be a force for improvement through intelligent, responsible and focused inspection and regulation.
The new framework and the reforms we are making will play a significant role in enabling us to fulfil the objectives set out in our strategy. The framework is intended to:
- ensure that the inspection of teacher education focuses on the substance of the ITE curriculum
- ensure that trainee teachers have access to high-quality education and training
- shift the focus of ITE inspection away from ‘outcomes’ data
- align the curriculum focus of the ITE framework with that of the education inspection framework (EIF)
Our proposals for the new framework and handbook generated a good deal of interest. In total, we received more than 300 responses to the consultation. This report summarises those responses.
Responses to the consultation have informed the final drafts of the ITE framework and handbook, which we have combined into a single document.
Context
Three weeks before the consultation closed, the government issued public guidance to stay at home to avoid the spread of the COVID-19 virus. Soon after, the Secretary of State allowed all routine Ofsted inspections to be suspended. During this period, we had planned to provide 8 face-to-face consultation events. Because of the lockdown, we took immediate action to replace 4 of the 8 events (that should have been held in Nottingham and in London with live webinars that we recorded and published so that people could listen to them and view the slides in their own time.
We also considered whether to extend the consultation period. Given that at the point of lockdown, we had received a healthy number of formal responses, including those from associations such as the Universities’ Council for the Education of Teachers (UCET), the National Association of School-Based Teacher Trainers (NASBTT) and the Education and Training Foundation (ETF), we decided to close the consultation on the planned date. We wanted to publish this consultation response and final version of the new framework and handbook to give ITE partnerships plenty of time to familiarise themselves with it before a new cycle of inspection begins.
We have received many queries asking us to confirm when ITE inspections are due to begin. We still intend to begin the new cycle of inspection in January 2021. However, this will need to be kept under review given the impact of COVID-19 on the education sector. So, in line with all our education inspections, we are working closely with the Department for Education (DfE) to determine when regular inspections will resume.
Executive summary
The core proposals presented in the consultation received overwhelmingly positive responses.
Over four fifths of respondents supported the introduction of the 2 key judgement areas:
- ‘quality of education and training’
- ‘leadership and management’
The former was particularly welcomed and is a crucial aspect of the framework. We believe that this new judgement will help inspectors get to the heart of the quality of trainee teachers’ education.
As a result of the very positive responses to the consultation, set out in full in this report, we will introduce the proposals from September 2020. However, we have amended the draft handbook to modify and clarify some points in response to the comments received.
Importance of the ITE curriculum
The new ITE framework is aligned to the EIF and focuses on the real substance of education: the curriculum. Respondents recognised the benefit of consistency between the ITE and EIF inspections.
Inspectors will consider outcomes data but it will have less prominence than in the previous framework. Some respondents pointed out that the wording around the impact of the ITE curriculum, in particular ‘outcomes trainees achieve’, suggested that outcomes data still had too much of an impact on our key judgements. We agree. We have amended the handbook to make clear that the ‘outcomes trainees achieve’ relates to whether or not trainees know more and remember more of the intended ITE curriculum and apply that knowledge to their practice.
We understand that some partnerships will have completed new curriculum plans, to meet the minimum requirements of the DfE core content framework, but disruption to normal operations, as a result of COVID-19, means that they may not be able to deliver their new plans fully.
We are therefore introducing a transition statement that applies only to the ‘good’ grade criteria for the quality of education and training judgement. Inspectors will consider the ambition of curriculum plans and how well they have been delivered. It must be clear that the plans will be fully executed for the September 2021 academic year. To be graded outstanding for the quality of education and training judgement, a partnership must meet all of the criteria for good and should also be exceptional.
The curriculum will be explored through a ‘focused review’ method. This is similar to the ‘deep-dive’ methodology applied in the EIF, but specific to the ITE context. There was strong support from respondents for this approach. Inspectors will discuss with the partnership leaders the most pragmatic way to plan the focused reviews, being mindful of staff’s workload.
Learning how to teach early reading
We will inspect how well partnerships with early years and primary phases help trainees to teach early reading, including systematic synthetic phonics (SSP). Some respondents raised concerns about the emphasis given to SSP; we considered these views.
Teaching SSP is a requirement of the primary national curriculum and the teachers’ standards. It is also a feature of the government’s compulsory initial teacher training (ITT) core content framework.
Teachers are expected to teach phonics using SSP in schools. Therefore, the framework sets out an expectation that ITE partnerships will train teachers to teach SSP as the method to decode text successfully and so provide the firm foundations for early reading.
The inspection model
We have set a one-stage model for inspection in the new framework, following strong support from respondents. Inspectors will still meet with newly qualified teachers (NQTs) as part of evaluating the quality of the curriculum.
There will be 2 elements to the preparatory telephone conversations between the lead inspector and partnership leaders:
- a short, practical planning phone call
- a longer conversation that is educationally focused
The longer conversation will be essential in developing the inspectors’ understanding of the partnership’s context. Leaders will be able to share the strengths and weaknesses of the partnership and start to discuss the curriculum they provide.
We have extended the notification period to 3 working days before the inspection week. Many respondents agree that this will give leaders time to provide a clear explanation of the partnership’s context to the lead inspector and gather the necessary evidence before the inspection starts. In light of respondents’ comments that the list of documents required by inspectors was confusing, we have amended the handbook to clarify the information we expect to receive.
Inspections will only take place in the spring and summer terms in an academic year. Following the outcomes of the consultation, Ofsted research fieldwork and feedback from pilot inspections, we have recognised the difficulties of forming valid judgements during the autumn term. Respondents raised some concerns that much of the centre-based training takes place in the autumn term and inspectors may miss this.
The methodology explained in the handbook ensures that inspectors are able to gather sufficient evidence of what is systemic to establish the quality of the ITE curriculum. They will talk to leaders about the taught education and training programme. Inspectors will connect this to how well trainees on placement apply and build on the knowledge they have gained.
Several recurring themes arose in responses to the consultation that were outside of the consultation questions. Where appropriate, we have amended the wording in the handbook to bring greater clarity to these areas.
Next steps
The ITE inspection framework and handbook is now finalised. It is the version to be used in the academic year 2020/21. It sets out the new judgements, grade descriptors and methodology that inspectors will use.
We will continue to speak to and take feedback from partnership leaders and ITE inspectors during the summer term 2020. This is not with a view to amending the handbook, but it will help us to further refine our methodology before the implementation of the new framework.
The consultation exercise
The consultation ran from 27 January 2020 to 3 April 2020. It was open to the public, promoted through broadcast media, social media, our website and face-to-face and webinar engagement events.
We consulted on a range of proposals for changes to ITE inspection practice and methodology, including:
- the introduction of only 2 key judgement areas, with the first, ‘quality of education and training’, replacing the previous judgements of ‘outcomes for trainees’ and ‘quality of training across the partnership’
- applying a new methodology of ‘focused reviews’ for gathering evidence during an inspection
- a one-stage model of inspection
- introducing a short and longer telephone call with ITE partnership representatives
- spring- and summer-term inspections only
We published the draft ITE inspection framework and handbook (covering all phases of ITE) as part of the consultation. Our aim was to bring transparency to the consultation process and to enable respondents to consider the detail of the proposals.
Quantitative and qualitative data
The findings in this report are based on quantitative data gathered through more than 300 respondents to the consultation questionnaire, as well as qualitative feedback gathered through:
- free-text comments received through the online questionnaire
- consultation events, where we met with approximately 90 stakeholders from across the ITE sector
- consultation webinars, during which we spoke to approximately 124 ITE representatives and around 110 trainees and NQTs
- submissions from groups, representative organisations and unions
- attending events organised by representative organisations
- pilots of the proposed framework in more than 30 partnerships across all education remits
We had organised 8 consultation events during February and March 2020. The 4 events scheduled in March 2020 were cancelled because of COVID-19. We held the 4 live webinar sessions in place of these.
We carried out 33 pilot inspections in the autumn and spring terms of 2019/20, in addition to the research fieldwork. Additional pilots were due to take place in the spring and summer terms 2020 but these were also cancelled because of COVID-19.
We analysed all responses to enable us to gain a clear understanding of the issues being raised. A summary of the responses to each consultation question is set out in the following section.
The full findings
We have analysed all consultation responses. The consultation included 5 questions about the extent to which respondents agreed or disagreed with each proposal. In addition, a free-text box after each question and a final free-text box for general comments on the inspection handbook gave respondents the opportunity to make detailed comments on the proposals.
In total, we received 301 responses to the consultation. Across all 5 proposals, we received more than 450 individual free-text comments from external respondents and 80 from internal respondents (this includes Her Majesty’s Inspectors (HMI), Ofsted inspectors (OIs) and Ofsted internal staff). However, it was in the final free-text box for general comments on the inspection handbook that we received the largest number of responses – more than 120 (almost half) of external responses included commentary for the final question.
Respondents
We received responses from people across the different phases of ITE that we inspect.
ITE partnership representatives and qualified teachers (those with early years teacher status (EYTS)/qualified teacher status (QTS)/qualified teacher learning and skills (QTLS)) were the largest groups of respondents (25% and 20% respectively). Trainee teachers (16%) and headteachers/principals (9%) were the next largest groups.
Note: respondents were asked to self-identify as a respondent type and it is possible that some may not have done so accurately.
Figure 1: Respondent categories
| Respondent type | Number of responses |
|---|---|
| ITE partnership representative | 56 |
| Qualified teacher | 45 |
| Other/None of the above | 45 |
| Trainee teacher | 35 |
| Headteacher/Principal | 21 |
| Her Majesty’s Inspector (HMI) | 20 |
| Professional association representative | 14 |
| Centrally-employed teacher educator | 13 |
| Mentor | 12 |
| Ofsted Inspector (OI) | 12 |
| Newly qualified teacher (NQT) | 11 |
| Ofsted internal staff | 8 |
| Member of the public | 5 |
| Trade union representative | 4 |
Consultation question 1: To what extent do you agree or disagree with the proposal to introduce 2 key judgement areas only?
The majority of respondents (83%) were pleased with the introduction of 2 key judgement areas only. In particular, the introduction of the quality of education and training judgement was commented on as a welcome change to our inspection of ITE. The main point presented in relation to this was that it will bring inspection focus on the quality of the ITE curriculum.
Respondents also acknowledged that the criteria that sit beneath the 2 judgement areas now align with the EIF, which will offer a more consistent and holistic approach to inspection practice.
A number of respondents noted that they appreciate the shift in focus away from outcomes data, because it will allow inspectors to give greater attention to the development of the ITE curriculum, which will be beneficial to the ITE sector and trainee teachers.
Figure 2: Responses to question 1 (%)
| Responses | % of responses |
|---|---|
| Strongly agree | 31 |
| Agree | 52 |
| Neither agree nor disagree | 11 |
| Disagree | 3 |
| Strongly disagree | 2 |
| Don’t know | 1 |
What we will do in response to the consultation findings for question 1
In light of the strong support from partnership representatives, qualified teachers and trainees, we will introduce the proposed 2 key judgements for the new framework. The updated and published inspection handbook sets out how we will inspect ITE partnerships against both judgement areas, which will form the overall effectiveness judgement for each phase that the partnership delivers.
Some respondents were critical of the wording around the impact of the ITE curriculum and the phrase ‘outcomes trainees achieve’. They thought that this wording suggested that outcomes data still has too much of an impact on a key judgement. These concerns have informed our amendments to the updated handbook. In particular, we have clarified that the curriculum is the progression model and therefore the reference to ‘outcomes trainees achieve’ is whether or not ‘trainees know more and remember more of the intended curriculum and apply that knowledge to their practice’ (see pages 36–37 of the handbook).
It is important to emphasise that inspectors will still consider outcomes data in the context of the partnership’s offer on the ITE curriculum. However, this data will not be a central focus for making a judgement about the quality of education and training.
Some respondents were concerned that the new inspection focus on the ITE curriculum will mean that they have to review their current curriculum approach and that there is therefore a workload implication for partnerships. We do not expect ITE partnerships to do specific work to prepare for Ofsted inspections under the new ITE framework.
However, we understand that some partnerships will be reviewing their curriculum to ensure that it incorporates the DfE core content framework in full. Equally, disruption to normal operations, as a result of COVID-19, may mean that partnerships are not able to fully deliver these plans. For this reason, we have introduced a transition statement that applies only to the ‘good’ criteria for the quality of education and training judgement (see page 38 of the handbook). Inspectors will consider whether leaders have planned an ambitious curriculum and whether they have been able to deliver it in full.
Consultation question 2: To what extent do you agree or disagree with the proposal to change the evidence-gathering approach for inspection evidence?
There was strong support for this proposal to change the evidence-gathering approach (our methodology for inspection).
We explained in our consultation that the new ‘focused review’ method is in line with the ‘deep-dive’ methodology applied in the EIF. However, it is specifically tailored to the ITE context, to ensure that inspectors are able to gather sufficient evidence of what is systemic to establish the quality of the ITE curriculum. The majority of respondents recognised and welcomed the application of a consistent methodology between ITE inspections and those of other remits (such as schools and further education and skills) inspected under the EIF.
Figure 3: Responses to question 2 (%)
| Responses | % of responses |
|---|---|
| Strongly agree | 21 |
| Agree | 55 |
| Neither agree nor disagree | 10 |
| Disagree | 8 |
| Strongly disagree | 5 |
| Don’t know | 1 |
What we will do in response to the consultation findings for question 2
Considering the support for this proposal (76% agree/strongly agree), we will proceed to introduce the ‘focused review’ inspection methodology for inspections of ITE from September 2020.
Some respondents raised concerns around the possibility that the ‘focused review’ approach may increase workload for partnerships due to the efforts that may be necessary to arrange subject-specific visits.
We want to clarify that the focused review methodology in itself should not increase workload for ITE partnerships. Inspectors will discuss with partnership leaders the most pragmatic ways in which to plan the focused reviews, to ensure that inspection activities do not place an undue burden on partnerships.
Another concern raised by respondents was that SSP will feature as an essential ‘focused review’ for early years and primary phases of ITE. Respondents explained that this may lead to a disproportionate focus among ITE partnerships on solely teaching their trainees SSP. Concerns relating to SSP also extended beyond its relation to the inspection methodology. We have addressed this concern later in this report.
Consultation question 3: To what extent do you agree or disagree with the proposed new inspection model of a one-stage inspection process for ITE inspections?
Seventy-eight per cent of respondents agreed or strongly agreed with this proposal. Respondents recognised that the one-stage model will reduce the burden on ITE partnerships in that there will be a single Ofsted inspection rather than 2 events in different terms within a single year.
In our consultation proposal, we explained that the focus of the second stage of inspection (under the old framework), in the autumn term, was to ensure that inspectors were able to speak to trainees who had completed their training and begun their first year of teaching as an NQT. This was to determine whether NQTs had been prepared well by their training provider and whether they met the relevant standards.
However, some respondents pointed out that in practice it is difficult to attribute strengths or weaknesses to an ITE partnership in this way. Under the new framework, inspectors will still meet and discuss with NQTs their ITE experience in order to assess the substance and quality of the ITE curriculum.
Figure 4: Responses to question 3 (%)
| Responses | % of responses |
|---|---|
| Strongly agree | 34 |
| Agree | 46 |
| Neither agree nor disagree | 9 |
| Disagree | 5 |
| Strongly disagree | 5 |
| Don’t know | 1 |
What we will do in response to the consultation findings for question 3
As a result of the strong support for this proposal, we will introduce the one-stage inspection model for ITE inspections. The one-stage model also means that ITE inspections will be carried out across 4 consecutive days.
The duration of inspection under this new model has received some criticism, in that it might create undue pressure for trainee teachers and may impact on the workload of leaders within the partnership. We want to give reassurance that the purpose of our inspection is to evaluate the quality of the ITE provision within a single partnership. Inspectors will not judge the individual performance of trainees but will look at what is systemic across the partnership provision.
Although respondents have raised concerns about the potential impact on leaders’ workload, the majority recognise that a single 4-day inspection event is preferable to the previous 2-stage inspection model.
To minimise inspector workload and ensure that travel is not required on a Sunday evening, the start time will be changed so that inspectors will arrive between 10.30am and 12.00pm on the first day of inspection.
Consultation question 4: To what extent do you agree or disagree with our proposal to introduce a short and longer telephone call with the ITE partnership representative, prior to the inspection?
Respondents again agreed strongly (77% agree/strongly agree) with our proposal to introduce both planning and educationally focused telephone calls between the lead inspector and the ITE partnership’s representative.
A key reason for introducing an extended notification period is to ensure that detailed planning conversations can take place between the lead inspector and partnership before the inspection begins, and so that they can arrange visits to trainees on placement.
The large proportion of respondents who agreed with this proposal told us that it will provide the opportunity for partnerships to set the context before inspection and time to gather the necessary evidence.
Respondents who disagreed with the introduction of a lengthier educationally focused conversation were concerned that this will count as the start of the inspection. This conversation is essential because it allows partnership leaders to explain the partnership’s context and areas of strengths and weaknesses. It is also an opportunity to begin a dialogue about the partnership’s curriculum. However, although it helps inspectors to understand the partnership’s context, it is not the start of the inspection.
Figure 5: Responses to question 4 (%)
| Responses | % of responses |
|---|---|
| Strongly agree | 26 |
| Agree | 52 |
| Neither agree nor disagree | 15 |
| Disagree | 5 |
| Strongly disagree | 1 |
| Don’t know | 1 |
What we will do in response to the consultation findings for question 4
We will introduce the short and long telephone calls as part of inspection preparation under the new framework.
We received feedback that the list of information expected from partnerships for inspection preparation versus the information required at the start of inspection was confusing. We have reviewed this section of the handbook to clearly set out our expectations for the information we need to receive, and by when (see pages 10–18 of the handbook).
Consultation question 5: To what extent do you agree or disagree with the proposal that Ofsted will inspect ITE partnerships at any point within the spring and summer terms only of any given academic year?
Over three quarters of respondents supported our proposal to carry out ITE inspections in the spring and summer terms only of any given academic year.
Figure 6: Responses to question 5 (%)
| Responses | % of responses |
|---|---|
| Strongly agree | 41 |
| Agree | 36 |
| Neither agree nor disagree | 10 |
| Disagree | 8 |
| Strongly disagree | 3 |
| Don’t know | 2 |
What we will do in response to the consultation findings for question 5
Given the positive response to this proposal, the vast majority of ITE inspections will be scheduled to take place in the spring and summer terms, from September 2020.
During our research fieldwork and piloting process, we received consistent feedback regarding the difficulties of forming valid inspection judgements during the autumn term. Given the consensus from respondents on this proposal, we are reassured that this will be a positive change for the sector and Ofsted.
Respondents who agreed with this proposal noted that trainees completing a one-year training programme will have had the opportunity to settle into the ITE programme before an Ofsted inspection takes place. This will allow them to discuss their experiences with a better understanding and with more confidence.
At the same time, we recognise that in many partnerships, the autumn term is when much of the centre-based training takes place. Some are concerned that inspectors will not be able to observe this teaching. However, the partnership representative and inspector will discuss in the educationally focused conversation the planned curriculum covered through the autumn term. Inspectors can also consider the implementation and impact of the curriculum through other inspection activities, such as discussions with trainees and mentors.
Recurring themes in responses
In addition to the 5 questions about the specific proposals set out in the consultation, respondents were also given the opportunity to submit free-text comments on the draft ITE framework and handbook. We also received many responses from association and representative groups from the ITE sector via email.
These reflected general agreement with the specific proposals but went on to provide feedback on the draft handbook content more generally. We have considered these carefully and identified a number of themes that recurred in many responses.
Mentor quality and arrangements in ITE
Many respondents raised concerns about the fact that our new criteria place a great deal of responsibility on the ITE partnership to ensure that mentoring in placement settings is of a high quality.
Respondents have told us that this is a concern due to the limited control ITE partnerships have over mentor selection and arrangements, which are predominantly determined by leaders within placement settings. The view presented to us is that this may be outside the ITE partnerships’ control and this could have an impact on their ability to obtain a ‘good’ or better grading in the 2 key judgement areas.
It is important to clarify that the purpose of our criteria, in relation to mentoring, is to establish whether leaders have consistently ensured the application of effective policies and procedures across the partnership, so that trainees receive their entitlement to good-quality and regular mentoring. Inspectors will consider the systems and procedures that ITE leaders have in place to ensure and assure the quality of the mentors who work with trainee teachers. Inspectors will look to establish how any issues are dealt with by the partnership leadership team and the actions they have taken to mitigate any inconsistencies.
Systematic synthetic phonics
We have made clear within the handbook that in early years and primary phase inspections, the inspection team will always include a focused review of early reading, including phonics. We have also set out within the criteria that to be judged as good or better, training must ensure that trainees learn to teach early reading using SSP. This is based on the understanding that learning to decode using SSP is a necessary but not sufficient condition for learning to read. Trainees should not be taught to use competing approaches to SSP when teaching reading.
Some respondents raised concerns that this focus on SSP is restrictive and may undermine the academic freedoms and integrity of ITE partnerships. Others suggested that the language in the handbook relating to SSP may lead to a disproportionate focus among ITE partnerships on solely teaching their trainees SSP. Some believe that this will prevent trainees from being introduced to other evidence or effective methods for teaching reading and language development.
We have considered this view and want to clarify our stance on SSP. The new ITE framework is intended to enable Ofsted to be a force for improvement by ensuring that all trainee teachers have equal access to high-quality education and training while on their ITE programme. Given the short amount of time trainees have to become qualified teachers, it is vital that trainees become competent in the method of teaching reading that they will be expected to use within early years and school settings.
Teaching SSP is a requirement of the primary national curriculum and the teachers’ standards. It is also a feature of the government’s compulsory ITT core content framework. SSP is what NQTs will be expected to teach in schools. All of this does not mean that trainees cannot be made critically aware that other methods for teaching reading exist. However, the clear expectation in the ITE inspection handbook is that partnerships will train trainees to teach SSP in line with government expectations.
References to ‘up-to-date evidence’
The criteria in our handbook set out that inspectors will consider whether the ITE curriculum is designed to ensure that trainees:
- engage with up-to-date research
- are taught how to apply principles from scholarship that are relevant to their subject and phase when making professional decisions
Respondents questioned the meaning of the term ‘up-to-date evidence’. To clarify our stance on this particular issue, we have amended the wording in our handbook (see research criteria under the good grade descriptor in particular) to refer to ‘up-to-date and pertinent research’.
Some respondents also raised concerns that ‘up-to-date evidence’ might be interpreted to mean that the research references within the government’s ITT core content framework should be embedded within the ITE programme in an uncritical and inflexible way, and that this is how it may be interpreted by the inspector workforce. In primary and secondary phases, this was raised in reference to the reading list available within the core content framework.
Our position on this is clarified within the handbook itself:
Trainees learn how to assess the appropriateness and value of new approaches that they might encounter in future by: considering the validity and reliability of any research on which the approach depends; considering its context in existing community debates (for example, subject, phase, SEND, psychology); and by relating it to their professional experience.
Approaches to trainee assessment
Some respondents raised concerns about the expectations around trainee assessment within our draft handbook. They were concerned about the appropriate use of the teachers’ standards for assessing trainees.
The handbook states that inspectors will consider the quality of the assessment process for trainees as part of the implementation of the ITE curriculum. A degree of clarity can be obtained by distinguishing between formative and summative assessment.
These considerations of the quality of assessment include:
- evaluation of the quality of summative assessment
- whether the partnership makes accurate and rigorous final assessments for the award of QTS in relation to the teachers’ standards for primary and secondary trainees, and the award of EYTS for early years trainees
Inspectors will also consider the quality of ongoing formative assessment of trainees. This assessment should be used to check that trainees are gaining, applying and refining the knowledge and skills set out in the ITE curriculum.
The teachers’ standards:
- provide an end-point assessment for QTS in the primary and secondary phases
- are not a curriculum and so cannot be used as a means of formative assessment of the curriculum learned
- are statements of high-level outcomes for trainees and do not cover the specific curriculum content that trainees need to learn
Therefore, partnerships should avoid the premature use of these summative assessments for formative purposes.
To provide further clarity, we have amended the handbook so that we make distinctly separate references to formative and summative assessment.
Subject specialism among Ofsted inspector workforce
Although we received many positive and encouraging responses about the focus on the ITE curriculum and emphasis on subject specialism under the new framework, respondents raised concerns about how our inspector workforce will carry out focused reviews when they may lack subject specialisms. Respondents asked that we take into account that effective pedagogical practice can vary significantly for different subjects.
We have listened to these views. Our inspection workforce is experienced and highly trained in order to carry out ITE inspections. The focused reviews in individual subjects are not subject inspections. They provide evidence that, when brought together, allows inspection teams to identify what is systemic across the relevant phase(s) within the partnership. This approach ensures that we can make reliable and valid judgments about the quality of education and training.
Teacher education versus training
The introduction of the new ‘quality of education and training’ judgement was positively received. Respondents agreed that this will be beneficial for the sector and ITE more generally.
However, a number of responses to our consultation asked for clarity around the meaning of and difference between teacher education and training. We are aware that different areas of the sector refer to initial teacher ‘education’ or initial teacher ‘training’. We have attempted to amalgamate both references. For some partnerships, the teacher ‘education’ happens during the centre-based input and the ‘training’ happens while trainees are on placement. In others, it is a combination of both.
Research summary
Before launching the ITE framework consultation, we published:
The findings set out in these documents informed the development of the new ITE inspection framework. The intention of this research was to develop and test a research model that assessed the quality of an ITE programme’s curriculum. We expected the research to identify valid components of the ITE curriculum quality, which could then be refined and used to inform the development of the new inspection framework.
We received minimal feedback relating to the research document during the consultation. This feedback included concerns about the validity of lesson observations and the accuracy of inspection judgements made by non-specialists or subject-specific inspectors. Respondents referred to our report on lesson observations and work scrutiny in school inspections.
We want to clarify that the research referred to in these instances is separate to the research findings that have informed the ITE framework development.
In addition to this, it may be helpful to clarify the following: our lesson observation research identified that inspectors were much more reliable than non-inspectors when using a generic observation rubric across different subjects. There were no subject-specific criteria used in the process, as the indicators in the research highlight.
Lesson observation is only one inspection activity that contributes to the evidence base. On this basis, a team of well-trained inspectors applying a standardised framework across multiple focused reviews will still be able to identify the systemic strengths and weaknesses of the training provision to produce a reliable judgement on the quality of education. Also, inspectors will not make subject judgements. This is not the purpose of the focused review methodology.
Issues out of scope or outside Ofsted’s remit
A number of issues were raised in consultation responses that fall outside the scope of the consultation or raised concerns about topics that are outside Ofsted’s remit.
For example, respondents raised concerns about the research references within the government’s ITT core content framework, as well as concerns regarding the requirement for the core content framework to become mandatory from September 2020, amid the impact of COVID-19 on the education sector as a whole.
Where a significant number of concerns have been raised in relation to the core content framework, we have shared these with the DfE for consideration.
However, we want to emphasise a misconception that has been referenced in some consultation responses. A concern raised with us is that the requirements for ITE partnerships to embed the minimum entitlement set out in the core content framework limits the focus of the ITE curriculum to that framework. We want to reassure the sector that we acknowledge the emphasis of the core content framework as a minimum requirement and expect that partnerships will strive to provide a high-quality ITE curriculum beyond the expectations in that framework.
Equality, diversity and inclusion
As part of the ITE framework consultation, we published a draft equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI) statement. Through the consultation process, we received feedback on the content of the EDI statement as well as on the aspects of the handbook that relate to EDI.
We have carefully considered this feedback and reviewed every response and free-text comment relating to EDI concerns. We have published a revised EDI statement alongside the consultation outcome report and the framework and handbook document.
Overall, respondents were positive about the specific references to EDI within the inspection handbook, which aims to establish the extent to which trainee teachers are prepared to be able to support pupils with special educational needs and/or disabilities (SEND).
A small number of respondents requested further references regarding trainees teaching pupils who speak English as an additional language (EAL). We have considered these requests and checked that there is appropriate reference to this in the handbook. For example, during the reflective, educationally focused conversation, there is an expectation that programme leaders will be able to articulate:
How trainees are taught to promote pupils’ positive behaviour and attitudes, and how their practice in meeting the needs of pupils who speak English as an additional language (EAL) and pupils with special educational needs and/or disabilities (SEND) is developed throughout the ITE curriculums offered.
Others raised queries about the new inspection methodology and wanted clarity about whether SEND would be an area of focused review during an ITE inspection. We have clarified within our EDI statement that SEND will be a consideration of all focused reviews, regardless of the subject being discussed. This is exemplified in the criteria for good under the ‘quality of education and training’ judgement, which states:
Inclusion and teaching pupils with SEND are meaningfully integrated into all aspects of the training programme.
We recognise the importance of ensuring that trainee teachers are taught how to recognise whether pupils have SEND and can support their learning. This is reflected in the fact that a criterion for being inadequate under the ‘quality of education and training’ judgement is:
The ITE curriculum does not teach trainees how to promote inclusion. Trainees are not taught to recognise signs that may indicate SEND and know how to help pupils overcome barriers to learning.
We received some specific feedback relating to the wording in the draft handbook, and we carefully considered whether the proposed amendments were appropriate. Where the request to be more explicit regarding SEND was appropriate and did not change the meaning of the intended wording and criteria, we have added the relevant references. An example of this is the fourth bullet under ‘intent’ under the outstanding grade descriptor in the ‘quality of education and training’ judgement. We have added ‘to all pupils, including those with SEND’ to provide further clarity:
Designed to consistently give trainees necessary expertise in the subject(s) they teach to all pupils, including those with SEND and those who speak EAL.