What is the current “flavour/slant” of Ofsted inspections of PE ITTE in HEIs?

Inspectors will, if appropriate, be looking first and foremost for responses to the recommendations from any previous inspection. As regards any current “flavours”, inspectors will probably be looking at the ways in which training programmes are structured to meet the individual learning needs of trainees. Evidence should be available of the ways in which trainees’ knowledge and skills are audited at various points prior to, during and at the conclusion of the training programme, and how well the programme responds to the results of those audits. Are trainees able to identify at any point in the programme their current learning needs and are they able to articulate the ways in which those needs are being/are going to be met? Do they maintain a record of their progress to date which shows their previous learning needs, the ways in which those needs were addressed and evidence for that learning having taken place (and, ultimately, particular Standards having been met)? Remember, the trainees should carry a deal of responsibility for this process. A learning partnership should be created between tutors/mentors and trainees.

How do we go about setting up Individual Training Plans?

· audit trainees’ skills, knowledge and understanding against the Standards identify the areas requiring development

· help trainees to prioritise the order of any developmental work required and to identify the types of evidence that will demonstrate the learning having taken place

· help trainees select from a range of learning activities those they believe will be most effective in helping them achieve the required learning – remembering also the potential of trainees’ “out of hours” learning, e.g. NGB courses, booster courses

· set challenging but achievable time targets

· with larger groups of trainees, accept that there may have to be some degree of compromise but the more mature the attitude and the greater the degree of responsibility trainees are prepared to take, the greater the chance of tutors/mentors and trainees being able to work together to achieve the desired aims.

How do I achieve with trainees adequate coverage of all the NC activity areas before they go out on School Experience (core programme in place for PGCE subjects, which limits subject-specific time)?

How can we manage coverage of all 6 areas of activity both within college and school placement (and therefore meet the Standards)?

Be careful with notions of “coverage” and set hours, and with the areas of activity coming to dominate interpretations of NC. In essence, trainees should be able to help pupils make progress in relation to the four NC strands, utilising a range of athletic “activities”, dance “activities”, games “activities”, gymnastic “activities”, swimming “activities” (and water safety) and outdoor and adventurous “activities” – this implies that trainees do not have to know everything there is to know about athletics, dance, all sorts of games, gymnastics, swimming and OAA. More importantly, they need to know “how” a range of physically-based activities can be utilised to enable pupils to develop their knowledge, skills and understanding in relation to acquiring and developing, selecting and applying, evaluating and improving, and fitness and health. Of course, the greater the trainees’ knowledge of the areas of activity, the more confident they will feel and the more options they will have from which to select. Consequently, all opportunities should be taken to help them develop on this front, using pre-ITTE courses, booster courses, NGB courses and school placements, in addition to any institution-based training, as vehicles for this. Remember that School Experience is not simply a testing ground for trainees – it should continue to be a learning experience, but in a school-based context. One of the criteria governing the selection of trainees’ placement schools should be the potential of the school for helping with the development of weaker activity area knowledge. In essence, though, the development of “activity area” knowledge will have to be seen as part of trainees’ eventual CPD as well as their ITTE. Look carefully at points in time during their training programme at what it is that trainees actually NEED in terms of activity area knowledge to enable them to provide meaningful and worthwhile PE experiences for pupils, and utilise the time available to address that need first and foremost. We can’t get a quart into a pint pot – and this is finally being acknowledged – so make sure the pint that quenches the thirst best is the one that finds its way into the pot!!

Useful References
Breckon, P. (2001) “Further Opportunities for Learning Available to Secondary PGCE PE Trainees in the school-based part of their course”, BJTPE, Vol.32, No.1.

Breckon, P. (2000) “Opportunities for Learning available to secondary PGCE PE trainees in the school-based part of their course”, BJTPE, Vol.31, No.3.

Capel, S. & Katene, W. (1999) “Secondary PGCE PE students’ perceptions of their subject knowledge”, European PE Review, Vol.6, No.1.

Hardy, C. (2000) “The School Experience as a Working Laboratory”, BJTPE, Vol.31, No.3.

Katene, W. & Faulkener, G. (2003) “Peer Teaching – A Case for Collaborative Learning Between Trainee Teachers”, BJTPE, Vol.34, No.3.

Katene, W. & Capel, S. (2000) “How can PGCE PE Students Develop Subject Knowledge?”, BJTPE, Vol. 31, No.1.

Morgan, I. (1997) “The preparation of physical education teachers during initial teacher training”, Bulletin of PE, Vol.33, No.2.

Smith, K. (2001) “PGCE Trainee Teachers’ Views on the Development of Subject Knowledge in Physical Education: Issues to consider in initial teacher training”, BJTPE, Vol.32, No.1.

What is the minimum level of knowledge/experience in each area of activity on entry to the course?

During the selection process, providers have to try to satisfy themselves that every trainee offered a place has the potential to benefit from the type of training experience on offer. In this light, there can be no hard and fast rule about the minimum levels of knowledge and experience necessary prior to entry. There are few, if indeed any, potential trainees who have breadth of experience across all areas of activity, so knowledge and experience in at least three areas of activity would probably be a useful rule of thumb in this process. However, if a potential trainee is able to demonstrate that they learn easily, quickly and deeply, a provider might accept less prior knowledge and experience than they would from someone who learns more slowly. Obviously, the nature of the first degree (for entry into GTP, SCITT and PGCE programmes), other qualifications, personal participation experience, prior work in teaching/coaching/organising roles, references, personal statements and the like will all need to be taken into account, along with general demeanour and the level of commitment to learning, but providers might ask themselves one simple question before offering a training place, i.e. just how easy (or difficult) is it going to be to help this person develop an appropriate level of subject knowledge under the conditions of our programme and in the time available?

How do I overcome the problem of limited resources (books, DVDs, equipment, facilities) when helping trainees develop subject knowledge and understanding?

Plan the training programme initially around what you DO have in place, whilst remembering opportunities for learning that may exist beyond your own institution. Plug into any local networks, endeavour to create partnerships with any relevant bodies/colleagues, and don’t forget the wider support networks that exist within PE ITTE specifically and the PE profession more broadly. Rather than thinking about the type of programme you would like to have in place, consider what it is your trainees need to learn and then plan their programme according to the resources available. In this way, you can begin to identify what it is you really NEED in terms of additional resources. Creative thinking, along with a genuine commitment to learning from tutors and trainees, can be more important resources than a library full of books or a store cupboard full of equipment!

How do SCITT programmes with small cohorts arrange/structure subject studies/subject enhancement work?

Look to the advantages of a small cohort. There should be better opportunities to ascertain exactly what it is the trainees need to know at given times and there is the chance of much more personalised contact between tutor and trainees. It will be easier to respond to trainees’ immediate concerns and, from there, to build in additional requirements. With some SCITT programmes there will be specific time dedicated to subject studies work, whilst, within others, knowledge might be allowed to evolve as the trainees develop. Where expertise might be lacking amongst tutors in the programme, some SCITTs have bought in outside expertise or formed links with a local HEI which then provides particular aspects of the training. Plug into any local networks and endeavour to create partnerships with any relevant bodies/colleagues. This might enable larger training groups to be formed at those times when trainees would benefit from a learning environment wherein there are more than a handful of peers.

Assessment in PE – how best can we develop trainees’ skills?

Refer to the attached Advice page where there are details of issues to consider, learning activities that might be used, and supporting publications/resources. There is a new publication due for release early in the new year (commissioned by baalpe and authored by QCA which will include a CD-rom, with supporting text, demonstrating the characteristics inherent with NC levels of attainment.

Breadth and balance in the curriculum – college v school?

It is important to ensure trainees are aware of the issues related to breadth and balance and are able to rehearse accompanying arguments. In addition, there is a need to map trainees’ learning across their training programme to ensure their overall experience is broad and balanced. Not always easy as there are so many factors to take into account when planning the programme and organising school placements. Remember, trainees need essentially to know “how” a broad and balanced range of physically-based activities can be utilised to enable pupils to develop their knowledge, skills and understanding in relation to acquiring and developing, selecting and applying, evaluating and improving, and fitness and health.

Can I have some advice on problem areas for meeting Standards and how to overcome these, especially providing evidence e.g. EAL?

Read through the Standard carefully. Do trainees actually need to be teaching pupils in a school to achieve the particular Standard? If not, then it should always be possible to help trainees at least develop the knowledge required and to practise any related skills (albeit under simulated conditions). Evidence in this respect might be notes within their files, an AV presentation, a response to an assignment, or the like. Take the specific EAL Standards as an example, i.e.

3.2.5 (Those awarded QTS) can, with the help of an experienced teacher, identify the levels of attainment of pupils learning English as an additional language. They begin to analyse the language demands and learning activities in order to provide cognitive challenge as well as language support.

3.3.5 (Those awarded QTS) are able to support those who are learning English as an additional language, with the help of an experienced teacher as appropriate.

It is possible to see how both these Standards could be met, even if trainees weren’t able to have direct contact with EAL pupils. It might require tutors to have video material/copies of pupils’ work and/or to enlist the help of colleagues with expertise in this particular area, but it should be possible for trainees to begin to identify levels of attainment of EAL pupils, to analyse language demands, and to show that they are able to support EAL pupils as and when the necessity arises.

Where can I find guidance on using video with trainees?

Useful References
Beashell, P. & Sibson, A. (2000) “ICT in Physical Education – Help or Hindrance?”, BJTPE, Vol. 31, No.2

Becta (2003b) Secondary Schools- ICT and Standards: an analysis of national data from Ofsted and QCA, Coventry: Becta

Cox, M. et al (2003) ICT and Pedagogy- a review of the research literature, Coventry: Becta

Cummings, M. (2001) “Internet, Goal net or Both – PE and the Introduction of ICT into the Curriculum”, BJTPE, Vol.32. No.3.

Elbourn, J. & Cale, L. (2001) Selecting Computer-Based resources to Support learning in Physical Education, BJTPE, Vol. 32, No.4.

Green, N. (2002) “Using ICT within PE – its impact on a working department”, BJTPE, Vol. 33, No.2.

Koh, M. & Khairuddin A. (2004) “Integrating video and computer technology in teaching”, BJTPE, Vol. 35, No.3

Stratton, G. & Finch, A. (2001) “ICT in PE – An ITTE-school partnership perspective”, BJTPE, Vol. 32, No.1.

TTA (1999) Using Information and Communications Technology to meet teaching objectives in PE, London: TTA

What is a reasonable workload? Balance between research, teaching and admin? How do you equate expected working hours (37?) with expected output? Educationalists always overwork and therefore perpetuate the scenario and are therefore their own worst enemies and make this whole issue very difficult to discuss.

One tutor’s excessive workload and accompanying stress is another tutor’s vocation from which they derive immense joy! Demands upon tutors will also vary from institution to institution. Some educationalists do overwork, but for a variety of reasons – some conscious, some subconscious. Tough, therefore, to define “reasonable” workload (which isn’t much help!!). A lot will depend upon the nature of the contract and how specific it is in laying down time commitments. Many tutors will have stipulated teaching hours, but this doesn’t always cover any tutorial work, or additional help offered, outside of “teaching” time. In addition, specific time allocations for research and admin aren’t always laid down – and even if they were, there is no guarantee that the output expected could be achieved in the time allocated. There is no doubt that the (financial) pressure has increased in institutions during recent years and this has led to the increasing demands felt by many tutors. A lot can also depend upon the tutor’s view of their role, and conflict can often arise between this and the expectations of the employer. Both can feel they are making reasonable demands of the other, but both feel the other is being unreasonable in not responding fully to their (reasonable) demands. The most important thing is for a tutor to be able to demonstrate they are working as effectively as possible on all the fronts stipulated by the employer. If this can be shown, and the expected “output” is not being achieved, there will be a strong case to present to a line manager or appraiser. Being told by an employer to “work smarter” is of little help, but an employer who offers practical support for a tutor to help them work more effectively should not be shunned, even if any suggestions appear to take the tutor away from any idealised view of their role. If you feel that you do not have enough time, try asking yourself the following questions:

On a more practical level, the following strategies may help to ensure that you fulfil all the requirements of the job:

How can I be sure that the experience we are providing at our school for our GTP is comparable to other routes into PE teaching?

Opening up your practice seems to be an issue amongst HEIs. The broad view is surely about helping to produce the highest quality teachers. Institutions are rather guarded about what they do and reluctant to share “best practice” e.g. professional induction, consistency of judgements about trainees’ progress against QTS Standards. How can I overcome this?

Greater access to mentor training – would like a “lever” to improve quality and consistency particularly across departments – time/cost issue.

The central answer to these questions lies, like the answer to so many others, in genuine collaboration. Indeed, the New Tutors’ Networking Days and the PE ITTE website are attempts to ensure that best practice is shared across the profession, as is the extension of the PE ITTE Network. The principles underpinning these attempts are simply those that have governed good collaborative ventures in the past. If ITTE tutors are involved in networks and partnerships within which there are shared visions, where all parties make a genuine commitment to collaboration and sharing, where all parties play a role in determining policies and strategies, and where there is opportunity for open and frank professional debate, it should be possible to evaluate the effectiveness of particular programmes against the effectiveness of others, to share best practice, and to address and overcome problems related to poor and/or inconsistent standards of mentoring. It is the creation of the partnerships that is key – but this can require great skill. Too often, the notion of partnership is banded about but the reality is often that of unequal alliances, power/responsibility imbalances, feathering one’s own nest on the back of others, and the like. Without doubt, an increased feeling of competitiveness within education hasn’t helped the situation but it is probably people’s attitudes that lie at the heart of any problems. Some people are predominantly co-operative whilst others favour a competitive ethos.

The best thing for a new tutor to do is to keep casting around for the co-operative colleagues (there are many out there) (don’t forget the PE ITTE Network and the subject associations) and to not become downhearted if you seem to encounter competitive, obstructive and/or unhelpful people (there are some of them out there too!). Do try to stretch your own viewpoints to enable you to encompass the many and varied viewpoints you will encounter. In this way, you might be less inclined to take personally any negative attitudes you encounter. The only effective long-term “lever” to apply to partners who might not appear to be pulling their weight is to develop a co-operative working ethos that eventually envelops them or causes them to drop away. HEIs cannot “force” school-based colleagues to do anything (nor vice-versa), but they often need their help in terms of school placements. This has often led to uneasy alliances, which tutors have had to manage diplomatically, but tutors should never give up on honest and frank exchanges with other ITTE partners. Clear communication and a willingness to face up squarely to any issues can go a long way to forging long-term working partnerships.

Try to have the training partnership recognise any mentor meetings or school visits as opportunities for all parties to learn from each other. Beware of any partners who want to put their intransigent stamp on any aspect and who don’t appear willing to grow and develop. Trainees often provide insights into particular issues affecting particular partners in the training programme and tutors/mentors should keep eyes and ears open to these and, wherever possible, look for ways to help. Above all, set your own example as a helpful and collaborative colleague. At least you’ll be able to sleep easy in your bed!

Equity amongst schools in terms of how training money is used – where does it go? Central fund? To the PE department? Need for consistency i.e. a level playing field for the mentors.

An old chestnut. It is a long-running problem, with no real solution, as HEIs who are leading partnerships cannot really dictate to schools how the money is allocated. Consequently, there are as many ways of distributing training money as there are partners in ITTE. In essence, the money was originally intended to provide cover for time spent by mentors in contact with trainees. Some school-based colleagues have benefited personally, in other instances the money has gone to the PE department, and in others it has gone to a central fund in the school. It always helps if the lead tutor has an idea of the many ways training money is allocated within the partnership as they can then advise mentors who never see the money of alternative arrangements – although this can sometimes lead to them becoming even more dissatisfied; but at least mentors can then go back to their SMT or ITTE Manager with alternatives as they are working elsewhere.

Why are routes into ITTE so difficult? Members of staff typically require teaching experience and a research profile. Are there sufficient people around with that status?

It is the HEI-based ITTE programmes that continue to set such seemingly stiff criteria when looking to employ tutors. This is linked obviously to the fact that the majority of lecturers in HEIs are expected to teach and research, and the institutions generally want to employ people who can make a strong contribution to both areas. Sadly, this has put something of a hurdle in the way of many teachers who have wanted to move into HE and they are now even less inclined to try to overcome this hurdle when the financial rewards in school have begun to outstrip those in HEIs. Consequently, there may now be even less people around who will want to satisfy what are to some degree the unrealistic expectations of HEIs when they look to employ good quality ITTE tutors. Sadly, some HEIs aren’t always that keen to review their policies on the recruitment of ITTE tutors because teacher training has become a bit of a thorn in their sides and quite a few of them would drop it tomorrow given the chance. As a result, we are left with just one more little game to play, alongside a lot of others, which can sadly drain the energy if we are not fully committed to ITTE. Thankfully, many colleagues continue to champion ITTE, but this doesn’t help with the workload issue raised in an earlier question. Without doubt, an ITTE tutor does need a touch of the “vocation” about them and this is probably why the quality remains generally high amongst those who stick it out. It’s a great job if you don’t weaken and if you have a real commitment to it.

As a lecturer in PE ITT I would appreciate diplomatic advice about how I can be allowed to dictate my own professional development, rather than have it dictated to me by persons without a PE ITT background (i.e. line managers in Sport Science).

Obviously, a supportive line management system and/or an effective appraisal process should prevent the occurrence of such a situation. A lecturer should be involved fully in decisions about their own professional development although they have to be aware that line managers may be more concerned about the priorities for their department as a whole, sometimes to the seeming detriment of individuals. In the harsh light of day, the one who pays the piper calls the tune, but it would be an ineffective manager who forced the piper to constantly play tunes with which they failed to resonate. Without doubt, an individual’s case will be strengthened greatly if they have a cogent plan for their own professional development that demonstrates clearly the resulting benefit to the development of the department/school to which they are attached.

How can school-based tutors access funding to pursue a higher degree, particularly from an international provider that tends to be more costly than a UK provider?

Whilst funds might be accessed for specific research projects, it is not particularly easy to access funding for a personal higher degree. Much would depend upon the nature of the research being done, and the length of time anticipated for findings to appear, and funding is generally made available to cover the costs of carrying out the research – not to cover the costs of following a Masters or Doctoral programme (even if they are predominantly research-based). Perhaps part-funding could be secured to cover the costs of the research project itself, and this might be accessed through bursary or scholarship schemes, DfES or TTA grants, or as part of a larger research project of which the personal research formed a part. The Advice page on PE ITTE Tutor and Research provides further details of potential funding bodies.

School-based tutors making time to undertake research – release from school – will schools embrace dedicated research time?

Workforce reform and research for other professionals – what would this look like?

Given the desire to move closer to evidence-based practice, some of the “vanguard” schools, e.g. Training Schools, should begin to look more closely at the roles of their staff and how those roles might begin to move away from what the have been traditionally. At such a point, it might be hoped that schools would begin to seek funding to enable teachers to conduct more research or that the partnerships formed, between say Training Schools and HEIs, might make for a more fluid movement of staff between different roles. Genuine workforce reform should be welcomed in this respect, but workforce reform that might be implemented predominantly as a money-saving scheme would not hold out as much promise. A project researching the principles behind workforce reform and the impact upon both workforce and standards might be timely.

The Teachers’ Learning Academy (http://www.gtce.org.uk) could certainly help school-based colleagues to identify the potential of their daily professional work as a basis for research and to establish links with other colleagues who might support their work. In many ways, the process followed in gaining recognition through the TLA is very similar to that followed within a research-based degree so if a teacher’s main aim was to gain a higher degree, they would have to decide whether or not work for TLA recognition would support that aim or not.

Frequently Asked Questions