Paula GladwinHCUK Online

Relational Tensions in Partnership Thursday 20th March 2014

Working within a changing landscape

• My background– GTP Manager for 200 primary and secondary trainees in Outstanding Local

Authority Provision– Ofsted inspector- schools and ITE– LA Primary Science Adviser– School Development Adviser– Executive Director for elearnITT – maths, chemistry, physics, trainees and SKE,

SKE Plus and School Direct primary and secondary

• “deconstruct, confront, theorise and then, think otherwise”

•

“

“The high quality provision worked well – Ofsted, schools and trainees were happy – trainees got jobs - the system was working effectively”

Why do we need to change ?

“Perfect partners don’t exist.

Perfect conditions exist for a limited time in which partnerships express themselves best.”

Wayne Rooney

Changing landscape - School Direct

Base point - •High quality provision to ensure trainees meet the Standards at a good or better level and become good teachers •We chose to work with high quality known partners who we knew would provide high quality in-school placements and training and with whom we had worked before

Partnership established

• We provide an overview plan for training across subject knowledge, subject pedagogy and professional studies using online blended learning

• Work with schools to enable them to use their knowledge, skills and capacity to deliver those aspects of the agreed overview that they could

• Finance percentages agreed according to split of above with an agreed split as a starting point

• Trainees can have equivalent of a day a week day release when it suits all parties to study the online materials and blend with in school planning, teaching and reflection. Mentors, Pathway Tutors, and school colleagues can all view and discuss training

HCUK - Our Side (in agreement with partners)

• Administration • UCAS• Handbooks (in agreement with schools) • Bursaries• Fees • Offer letters• VLE- e-portfolio • Pathway Tutors (training, tracking)• Tracking of trainee progress • Blended online weekly training programme • QA • Arranging PGCE with additional partner• Design of overall training • Some training depending on partnership agreement

School Partner’s responsibilities

• Recruitment in terms of school interviews • Mentors and on going training (HCUK- VLE and initial half day)• Induction (HCUK- VLE and initial half day with school• Tracking trainees , pastoral support • Weekly mentor meetings• Face to face delivery of their agreed training• QA internally

So what happened…

The following are examples of tensions from providers such as ourselves but may not have occurred in all cases -During the design phase:•School willingness not in doubt•School capacity changed and dwindled in terms of running training for subject knowledge, subject pedagogy and some aspects of professional studies – we picked up those elements from overall design plan•School leadership changes – large hole in leadership from school side in some cases•Schools need to keep recruiting and interviewing until places filled- (a new issue for them capacity wise)

Tensions arising:

• Previous experience of ITT - Schools realised that this is not a course where trainees are parachuted in for a placement- they have to take responsibility for training

• Compliance and equal opportunities- • Our tutors carry out rigorous half day visits and expect mentors to be

doing an expert role – (teacher educators )• Trainees couldn’t be used as class cover • School leaders took on additional schools and their own capacity was

reduced • A bonus- lead mentors introduced - schools responded positively to the

issues

PGCE Partner tensions- some feedback experienced

• Don’t always recognise that experienced school colleagues (EG SLEs) can design, plan and deliver provide high quality training- and that the ITT partner is quite capable for ensuring high quality by blending training from a variety of experienced professionals (They have to for Ofsted purposes in nay case)

• A training course will be reflective and high quality whether PGCE or not PGCE – it is often only way the assignments are marked that is the only difference- tensions with some HEI s as they want the courses for PGE and non PGCE to be different when high quality pedagogical training should be just that whatever the route

• Different ways of working – modules long and thin with School Direct programmes ; short and wide with many HEIs and never the twain shall meet! – tensions with assignment hand in dates that don’t always help trainees but fit with organisation for HEI courses

Sustainability tensions

• Two ways- schools decide to go for Teaching School Status – “We can do this on our own”. – and partnership falls apart as schools build on the experience and knowledge provided by provider in first year.

• Schools realise they don’t have capacity or staff leave and they have NQTs so cant take placements the following year – less capacity in a small partnership to find new partners especially where some schools dip in an out and across.

• Schools fail to recruit or lose trainees- budget dwindles rapidly but outgoings stay mostly the same . This can happen part way through the year once costs incurred

• Or• Partnership grows from strength to strength- some good examples here

Tensions with funding

• Where do I start?– Schools have not yet realised the costs involved with senior leadership

management in running a high quality outstanding programme – doesn't matter if 6 or 60 or 600 trainees

– Funding reduced for lower recruitment which is often the case so budget deficit before you start and reduces as you proceed although costs do not

– Schools working as a team to plan for subject needs in locality but then allocated different subjects – which school then has the 1 History trainee. NCTL allocates.

Core places outside School Direct/SCITT- placement tensions

• On the radar….. I hear that some newly formed school chains are holding the ring for placements even though not filling them themselves - this prevents providers using /finding placements eg in London for trainees that are recruited.

Solutions

• Look at the strengths in what we have and move forward (deconstruct )

• Use existing materials to diversify to meet changing needs- SKE plus, from SKE (confront, think …otherwise)

• Flexibility to act quickly to respond to changes and anticipate market influences and needs (think and confront)

• Provide what schools and other users need- advice, support and resources (deconstruct , confront and move forward)

• Ability to blend what schools can offer with a core high quality programme overseen by experienced Provider (think ..otherwise)

• Develop bespoke programmes (within a parameter) to meet schools and ITE provider needs (think ..otherwise)

• Develop online materials for new subjects such as History and English (think …otherwise)• Cost effectiveness- Using on line materials with some face to face is more cost effective

after initial production costs – (think …otherwise)• Senior Management team who are forward thinking and willing to invest and trust in their

Managers.

Think …otherwise. Our outcomes-

• Maintaining and improving key provision ITE in STEM subjects in a difficult market

• Building new relationships• Extending SKE materials to support other Providers and Schools - “good

subject knowledge is for everyone”• New partnerships eg SCITTs and School Direct • Experienced school colleagues share and take a lead in writing new material

to share expertise – funding shared• Worked in partnership to develop bespoke training programmes for trainees

and their NQTs • Support others with small subject cohorts or where their existing partners no

longer train those subjects through licensing model• Develop CPD material library from all of above to market • New partners and growing market for ITE as a result of all of above.

• “Perfect partners don’t exist.

• Perfect conditions exist for a limited time in which partnerships express themselves best.”