While teaching is referred to as a “profession”, it is not treated in the same way as other professions such as medicine or engineering: with the assumption that there are “experts”.
Comparing education with medicine:
- Government has very little input into day-to-day medical practice. Professional opinion is highly valued and utilised. Medical practitioners are closely involved in decision-making which affects medical practice
Teachers teach what government tells them to. There is no structured way for teachers to contribute their experience/opinion to national decision-making.
- Medical training is based upon a shared, evidence-based model of best practice.
Teaching uses various models, of varying efficacy, with varying amounts of evidence to support them. There is no agreed evidence-based model for learning — (or, indeed, the wide-spread desire to provide one).
We propose two major, interlinked reforms:
Proposal 1: An evidence-based teaching qualification
Towards a Science of Learning
The professional and respected status of medicine dates from the adoption of the scientific, evidence-based models of organisms and disease which developed in the 19th century. Before education can be afforded the same respect and status it must move from a model of learning based in social science (where there are range of theories and only limited testing) to a rigorous evidence-based model.
We propose a new qualification which demonstrates knowledge of the evidence about how learning happens and the teaching techniques which promote it effectively.
Sources of evidence
Two important sources of evidence are:
- classroom experiments which show a correlation between some lesson styles/activities and more effective learning
- neuroscience research which provides a causal explanation for the classroom observations
The former now comprises a vast wealth of consistent data from which reliable conclusions have already been drawn. The latter is progressing through techniques such as fMRI and are allowing neuroscientists to make definitive statements about how the brain creates and accesses memories, about the nature of "learning" and about some of the reasons for poor performance. more details here.
Taken together, these constitute the basis for a "science of learning": the foundations of a valued and respected profession.
Existing qualifications in Education do not require knowledge or expertise in the evidence. To achieve professional status, therefore, we need a new qualification (for instance "Masters in Evidence-based Education"). We would anticipate that, as evidence-based practice proves its value over current decision-making, that this new qualification would develop a status for teaching comparable to that of professions such as medicine, engineering or law.
Proposal 2: The Professionally Contributing Teacher (PCT)
(This proposal is made here as applying generally to all teaching. However, since this site is concerned with science teaching, we are particularly concerned that it be applied in this area.)
We propose that it should be a normal encouraged practice (and part of School Teachers' Pay and Conditions) for large numbers of teachers to work part-time (perhaps 0.8 or 0.6) in schools and part-time (0.2 or 0.4) in areas which affect teaching nationally.
Elsewhere on this website, we have identified and recorded the problems with contemporary Science education. We believe that these flaws would be considerably reduced if the curriculum was put together with input from practicing Science teachers.
At present most contributors are ex-teachers, university Education lecturers, consultants and government department bureaucrats. While such people have their own expertise and remits that are necessary for such enterprise, we consider that this set of expertise is quite insufficient on its own.
A Professionally Contributing Teacher's (PCT) remit would be to contribute to the development of education policy and/or provision on a national scale in the following areas:
• research into best classroom practice or pedagogy.
• a greater role in teacher training (both initial and in-service).
• national projects, such as the National STEM Centre's resources project.
• curriculum maintenance and redesign (including programmes of study, subject criteria and schemes of learning).
• textbook and resource authoring.
• exam development and scrutiny
A PCT would be attached to a university Education department, exam board, publisher or DCSF department (or, in the case of Science, perhaps the National or nearest Science Learning Centre). There would be a statutory requirement to involve PCTs in all areas which affect teaching (see list above). While administration tasks would continue to be carried out by non-practitioners, the majority of decision-making should be made by PCTs. For the individual teacher, taking part as a PCT would be a recognised and valued component of their career. It could contribute to a Masters qualification.
Advantages
For the school, it would be seen as impressive for schools to have Professionally Contributing Teachers on staff. PCTs would become experts in their field and provide the lead for best practice. Teachers would spend less time working around errors and more time helping their pupils.
Cost effectiveness PCTs would help prevent many of the errors which are imposed on teachers which result from unfamiliarity with ordinary school-age pupils. In science these errors include:
• Underestimating the ability of the most able
• Overestimating the ability of the non-academic pupils (particularly in abstract thinking)
• Failing to check the reading age of text
• Impractical tasks in SoW or textbooks
• Ambiguous questions and errors in textbooks and exam papers
Further advantages
• Making good use of currently-untapped professional skill.
• A more stable curriculum and education system supported by proven methods, better schemes of learning and tested resources.
• Improved learning, as pupils would be studying material more closely matched to their ability.
• Research would become less theoretical and academic and more focused on application in the classroom.
Read what Estelle Morris wrote in The Guardian on 27 October 2009.
Contribute your opinion
Please click the link below to add your own opinion on the Increased professionalisation of teaching.
It will be very helpful to those reading your comment if you have altered your Forum signature to include your Science specialism, your number of years of teaching experience and any post of responsibility that you hold. Click here and then select My Profile to do this now.
Much better title……but i think it needs a lot of slimming down and include working for the government on curriculum development.
I don't think it could be a general entitlement for every teacher to do it every year. You would need to apply and the places would, by definition, be limited.
and i don't see why it has to be upper pay spine as this just shows how long you have been around. Often its the new people who have thew insights as they haven't "got used to" things they way they are..
Mike Bell, science teacher and trainer in evidence-based practice
If not a genuine entitlement it misses the point, doesn't it? If I have ideas to contribute, shouldn't I have the right to join the party? If made rigorous and structured I don't imagine that there would actually be that great an uptake initially — look at the trouble we've had trying to engage teachers in this project.
I don't like the idea of having to qualify the right to become engaged in the debate.
I suppose we could have wikis like this one…contribute enough in a positive way and you get an invite…? Seems full of dangers, though…?
UPS means a minimum number of years of experience (at least 4) and the meeting of slightly more demanding professional criteria. I suppose we could just go with "in fourth year or more of teaching" and "has demonstrated good ideas on a wiki over a period of 6 months". "Good" is, of course, subjective, though.
The rules are now getting complicated and away from the pure notions of "entitlement" and "encouragement".
Needs thought!
Stuart Billington is a Head of Science in an 11-18 new Academy in the North West of England. He has 11 years of teaching experience.
I had originally considered that "Chartered" was a good description of an experienced knowledgeable teacher helping to steer the future course of their profession. It has been pointed out, however, that this term can only be applied by certain organisations and also that there are existing "Chartered Teachers" schemes that are quite different to that described above. It seems a shame to me that these existing schemes seem to lack vision or any deep meaning, but that is just my own opinion.
Perhaps the move is for the best, as "Professionally Contributing Teacher" leaves little doubt regarding what such a status means!
Stuart Billington is a Head of Science in an 11-18 new Academy in the North West of England. He has 11 years of teaching experience.
These are the criteria for achieving "Chartered London Teacher" status:
http://www.clt.ac.uk/how-do-i-achieve-clt-status
It doesn't seemed to be aimed at improving teaching as much as at giving long-serving teachers a few quid (one-off payment of £1000) and a bit of paper. As with a bunch of the other schemes, you submit a form saying how brilliant you are, probably along with some "evidence" and your headteacher signs a "declaration" - there is no external examination as far as I can tell. None of these schemes seem to be aimed at enhancing the profession in the way we have discussed above. Is there is a fear of alienating / offending those teachers who would not meet the high standards required of a "real" enhanced status qualification? I have noticed a reluctance on the part of teachers to apply for "AST" status because they don't want to seem like they think they're better than their colleagues. It would be interesting to see the data on the uptake of AST positions - and even moe interesting to see what non-AST teachers think of their AST colleagues.
Alom Shaha is a science teacher, writer, and film-maker
The London scheme embarrasses me, simply through the association of being a teacher myself. You're right — just another way to recruit and retain. So short-sighted.
ASTs have to engage with their colleagues in a coaching capacity ("I'm the expert and these are my ideas…"). The scheme described above would not require this (otherwise we might as well just recruit ASTs) and so perhaps this wouldn't be an issue with our scheme?
Stuart Billington is a Head of Science in an 11-18 new Academy in the North West of England. He has 11 years of teaching experience.
I don't think the requirements for chartered status are strong enough. It should be granted following a qualification in evidence-based teaching and evidence of successful practice in the classroom. I suggest:
• Be able to demonstrate above average teaching skills from observation grading and exam results
• Have a working knowledge of the major evidence about what works in the classroom
• Have an interest in participating in the development of education through research, curriculum development or policy
Mike Bell, science teacher and trainer in evidence-based practice
I'm happy to support this and for this to be the meaning of "chartered" — but this isn't what I was originally aiming for. This route supports the professionalisation of teaching via evidence-based research underpinning the profession (number 1, above). I think that my original wish for a path to encouraged and supported national contribution for all teachers that want to (number 2, above) need not require such formal qualification, however.
I think we need a lesser 'status' that simply allows a teacher to obtain the paid day away from school per week to contribute to the curriculum nationally. Perhaps "chartered" is not the right name for number 2, above, but whatever name we give to it, it is independent of number 1, which is what the qualification you describe focuses main on.
This just acknowledges that any teacher on the upper pay spine ought to be as qualified to contribute to national curriculum matters as some of the people who already do so who aren't teachers. Continuing contribution (a second year) could then be judged on how well the first year went? Beyond 3 years, anyone wanting to contribute would have to obtain the "chartered" qualification you describe in order to continue to do so? In fact, perhaps working towards this could be part of the time-away-from-school spent during the year.
So what's a good name for 'UPS teacher contributing towards the national education debate in some way, working towards a chartered teacher qualification"? "Provisional" chartered teacher status?
Stuart Billington is a Head of Science in an 11-18 new Academy in the North West of England. He has 11 years of teaching experience.
I'm not sure "chartered" is the right word. Doctors become "consultants" once they reach a certain level and I think that there could be a similar role for suitably qualified teachers. Also, "chartered teacher status" already exists, doesn't it? (At least in Scotland - http://www.ed.ac.uk/studying/postgraduate/finder/details.php?id=91 and London -http://www.clt.ac.uk/)
Alom Shaha is a science teacher, writer, and film-maker
If chartership for teachers (broadly as described above) became a reality, would it succeed in solving the issues raised above?
Would a shared evidence-based model of learning become more likely to be agreed and adopted?
Would problems with curricula (as described here) be resolved?
I think that probably they would, but then I helped to write it!
What do other people think?
Stuart Billington is a Head of Science in an 11-18 new Academy in the North West of England. He has 11 years of teaching experience.
Is it really the case that education is suffering from a lack of input from practicing teachers?
Is it really the case that a lack of evidence-based model for learning is preventing teaching from focusing on the most effective strategies?
I think that the answer the first question is unequivocally "yes" and am in the process of being convinced of the second "yes" by both Mike and reading Geoff Petty's Evidence-based teaching.
But what do others think?
Stuart Billington is a Head of Science in an 11-18 new Academy in the North West of England. He has 11 years of teaching experience.