Teacher-training review risks being exercise in right answers

Published on Friday 20 November 2009 21:46

AMID the continuing debate over Scottish education, one aspect has, until now, been overlooked: the question of how to train the teachers.

Yesterday, Fiona Hyslop, the education secretary, sought to address that point, announcing a review of both the education of student teachers and professional development during teachers' careers.

The aim of the review, led by the chief inspector at Her Majesty's Inspectorate for Education, Graham Donaldson, will be to meet the needs of pupils in the 21st century and prepare teachers for the challenges of the forth- coming Curriculum for Excellence reforms.

In principle, Ms Hyslop's announcement is sensible as it is clear that as the world changes, and teaching with it, there is merit in re-examining how Scots teachers are taught.

However, the announcement provided little detail of what will be expected of Mr Donaldson, other than a platitudinous statement saying he will be "tasked with determining whether our teacher education system can develop the flexible, creative and learner-centred teaching profession we need".

So, beneath the jargon, what can we detect? First, it is questionable that Mr Donaldson, though highly respected, is the right person to lead the review.

He is the chief professional adviser to ministers on all aspects of education outside the university sector and so has been intimately involved in the development of the much-criticised Curriculum for Excellence. Yesterday, both Professor Lindsay Paterson, a highly respected academic, and the main teaching union, the Educational Institute of Scotland, expressed doubts over whether the review could address the magnitude of its remit in the timescale set by Ms Hyslop of reporting to ministers by next autumn.

Prof Paterson made the point that primary teachers need a much firmer grasp of the subjects they teach. He also advocated transferring the practical training of teachers to schools, in a model akin to that of apprenticeship. The EIS, meanwhile, said it would expect a much greater level of engagement with the profession than has been in evidence so far.

Both Prof Paterson and the EIS have a point. Although Mr Donaldson is a man of the utmost integrity, there should not be even the suspicion that this process has been established to get the answers that the education secretary wishes to hear.

If his review is to have credibility, Mr Donaldson must be joined by experts from outside the policy-making sphere of government, by teachers, by academics and parents.

Teachers have become weary of endless change and reform. If they – and those who hope to follow them into the profession – are not to be further disillusioned, the Donaldson review will have to be explained properly by Ms Hyslop and given time and latitude to perform a vital task in the interests of the people it is designed to help: the pupils in Scotland's schools.