h1

Those Backing the College Of Teaching Still Don’t Get It

September 25, 2015

You may recall that some time back I expressed concern that an attempt to set up a new professional body for teachers (the College Of Teaching) was being hijacked by non-teachers, vested interests and in one case a private company (SSAT) who sell consultancy services to schools. Particularly scandalous was the proposal to let anyone with an interest in education join the College Of Teaching, regardless of whether they were a teacher. Every so often they cross my radar again, although it’s been ages since I blogged about it, so I’ll catch up now.

The first bit of news (now somewhat out of date), is that the Claim Your College Coalition held an event last June to inform people about the College Of Teaching. Again SSAT were heavily involved. More surprising though was that, despite previous bad publicity, they decided to hold it on a school day. To be fair, they didn’t pretend this event was for teachers, and listed the intended audience as:

Those who work closely with local networks of teachers and schools, and who are keen to facilitate teacher and leader engagement with the College of Teaching discussions. For example, Chairs of Headteacher Associations and School Partnerships, Strategic Alliances, CEOs of MATs.

I suppose this could be interpreted in many ways. Perhaps we teachers love our bosses so much that they are the first people you would contact if you wanted to reach out to us. Or perhaps the intended audience of the College Of Teaching are those who control schools rather than those who teach in them. Or perhaps if you are a private company selling consultancy services to schools there are going to be much greater commercial opportunities in talking to headteachers and CEOs of MATs than talking to somebody who would spend their Wednesday in a classroom with children. Please feel free to suggest other explanations.

The second piece of news is that the make up of the board of trustees of the College of Teaching has just been announced. Remember, this is the body governing an organisation that is supposed to represent teachers. 5 of the trustees are non-teaching “experts”. This means a management type, a surgeon (with experience of professional bodies) and 3 people from existing educational charities. While I’m sure the idea is that these three will have the expertise needed to govern a new educational charity, it essentially means that far from representing a shift in power from existing institutions to a profession-led body, existing institutions are well represented in the new structure. Worse though is the selection of teachers. Of the 8 “teachers”, 3 are heads, 3 hold management positions (that could well be SLT) and only 2 are classroom teachers without a promoted post. None, as far as I can tell, are known for challenging the existing power structures in education (although perhaps the fact that one works in a special school is a positive development). Again, some are heavily involved in existing quangos, educational bodies and sources of “expertise”. Far from being a shift in power, this seems to be an attempt to replicate existing power structures. Those who currently tell teachers what to do are to dominate an organisation that was meant to help teachers reclaim their autonomy.

Yes, I am aware of the counter-arguments. Sure, it looks like only one of the trustees is a teacher with a full teaching timetable, but where would such teacher find the time? Sure, the committee is a bit management heavy, but aren’t the trustees meant to be managers? Sure some of the non-teaching experts are familiar establishment figures, but don’t you want people who know how to run a large educational charity? However, the problem with all these arguments is that they are not only assuming that frontline teachers do not have the capacity to govern a professional body for teachers, but that the sort of body that frontline teachers could not govern is the sort of body teachers should have representing them. If teachers cannot govern the professional body that all those vested interests designed, those vested interests got it wrong. Let’s try a different model. Or not try at all. Anything would be better than the professional body for teachers being governed on the basis of teachers not being professional enough to govern their own professional body. This cannot empower us or improve our status as professionals.

What both these bits of news have in common is the flawed thinking behind the plans for the College Of Teaching. People are signing off on the idea of professionalisation without realising that any autonomy given to teachers, any power given to the profession, has to be taken from somewhere. For us to regain our professionalism we have to be able to tell consultants that their expertise is not required; micro-managing bosses have to be told that some decisions are best left with autonomous professionals, and a whole bunch of vested interests have to be told that they do not speak for the frontline of the teaching profession. Instead of claiming more power for teachers, the current plans for the College Of Teaching are based on building around those who already have power over education and making sure they keep it within the new structure. A so-called “professional body” that actually just replicates existing power structures, while keeping teachers in their place, has been tried before; it was called the GTCE and it didn’t work. Until those behind the College Of Teaching stop trying to repeat the same errors, they can add nothing to our professionalism.

9 comments

  1. We could form our own teaching organisation. Seriously though, if we put aside any concerns about royalty, I reckon Prince Charles would be up for supporting a college of traditional, serious, down-to-earth and pragmatic teachers. Ha!


    • Do you know what, I would be quite happy to have Charles campaigning for a straight forward down to earth teacher led profession. Whatever we might think, his voice is listened too and he has plenty of clout!


      • “His voice is listened to and he has plenty of clout!” What kind of argument is this?

        The guy’s an arrogant and ignorant muppet. He’d have homeopathy, crystals and spiritualism on the curriculum in no time then bring in that lunatic Camilla Kid’s Company woman to run CPD on classroom management. Seriously, if being listened to and clout are your criteria, I’d sooner go for a Stalin, Putin or Ghengis Khan type. They’d do little for the workload issues but I think we could assume discipline issues would be a thing of the past and we might get some teaching done.

        Honestly, no offence, but your suggestion disgusts me.

        Good article btw. The whole Teaching College idea is a total sham. I’ll go for it once the BMA board is fully comprised of GlaxoSmithKline execs, faith healers and a smiley upper-middle-class charity bod who once put a plaster on baby sparrow…and when the Law Society has its AGM in D wing of Wormwood Scrubs.


      • If you haven’t come across them, look up the Prince’s Teaching Institute. I observed one of their first ever summer schools. The highest quality CPD any teacher is ever likely to get.


        • No thanks. I’m not impressed by the idea of royal patronage or the munificence bestowed by a talentless, over-privileged parasite. If their stuff is so good it should be available through organisations and channels which don’t depend ultimately on an institution underpinned by deference, servility and justified by the vestiges of mediaeval politico-theocratic casuistry.
          I’ll stick with reading the findings of objective research studies and watching and talking to good full-time practising teachers.
          But don’t let me stop you. Each to his/her own, no?


  2. Is there an educational specialist on the board of the Royal College of Surgeons? Answers on a postcard.

    The whole thing stinks of corruption before it’s even opened its doors.


    • Are you sure you want one? I can do most things around the house,DIY wise, but I’m hopeless at plastering. Luckily there’s a plasterer around the corner who’ll do it for me pretty cheaply. If there was someone with a PhD in The Built Environment who’d come around and do it for free, I’d still pay the plasterer.

      To be honest, I’ve had enough of these types as it as..and consultants, most of whom you can just tell couldn’t get out of the classroom fast enough and would fall flat on their smug shiny coupons if they ever tried to pull off some of the stupid stunts which they suggest I should try. I actually met a new variety the other week: a Teach First something or other…’ambassador’ or ‘special adviser’ or ‘nuncio’ or something equally silly and pretentious. Looked all of 17, dripping with sincerity and concern, bolstered in her certainties by 3 years’ ‘experience’ before ‘moving on’ into an advisory role and seemingly driven by the conviction that being poor and Northern is some kind of morbid affliction requiring the intercession of a sainted caste of motivational Norodniks like herself.
      I’m rarely lost for words but she had a chat with me the other day and I was literally speechless. I could only mumble “well erm yeah…” then stood dumbstruck wondering if it had really just happened and I’d really heard what I thought I’d heard.

      No, a teaching college should be made up of practising full time teachers..end of. I personally think the odd outspoken cynical type would be a bonus but, tbf, they’d never apply in the first place and even if they did they’d be chucked out at the first hurdle for failing to match some fatuous criterion about ‘promoting and enhancing the status of the profession’ or some such. Either that or they’d have ketchup spots and gravy stains on their sleeves. But, either way, to paraphrase the mad old woman who once enlightened Bertrand Russell, it’s gotta be teachers all the way down. The present set of appointees just says: keep clear of the whole thing, it’s another Trojan Horse to smuggle in more corporatism.


  3. Reblogged this on The Echo Chamber.


  4. […] you may recall that I pointed out that the “teachers” among the trustees of the College consisted of 3 heads, 3 middle […]



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: