Posted by: mrlock | November 29, 2015

The Cambridge History PGCE

I’m really proud to have started as a Headteacher this term. I’m particularly proud of my new school – Cottenham Village College.

The whole experience has been a whirlwind and I’ve barely had time to return to my blog – though I am hoping to more regularly. Its been 57 days of work so far, and I’ve loved every minute.

I’ve had my eyes opened to many things on top of what I was expecting: I hadn’t anticipated the extent to which local newspapers would take interest; the local television station turned up; dealing with parents less happy with changes to the school; managing a wide variety of staffing issues; public relations; and most recently an OFSTED inspection have contributed to my personal learning.

But I have to blog about some of the recent changes to Initial Teacher Training (ITT).

As I said to the staff on my first day in post, I want my school to be world-class. I want it to deliver a knowledge based, knowledge rich curriculum encompassing the best humanity has passed through the ages to all pupils, regardless of background or ability. To paraphrase Matthew Arnold, our pupils are entitled to the best that has been thought and said. It is in this arena that I agree with Michael Gove. And I feel like I always have to repeat this: I have never voted Tory and never intend to.

I also know that this is a challenge. Teachers often arrive in schools predisposed to promote ‘child-centred’ progressive ideology. This is still, in my experience, the primary perspective of many ITT courses.

However, I have found that many of those colleagues in my new school who understand this and can challenge these orthodoxies have been trained at the Cambridge Faculty of Education’s secondary history PGCE. This course, I have learnt from trainees and ex-trainees, promotes a knowledge led curriculum and is highly subject-specific in absolutely the right way – in a way that assists me as a Headteacher to promote a knowledge rich curriculum. Lee Donaghy writes about this here.

This is the sort of course I want to be training my teachers: one that is challenging; recruits the very best graduates with the best qualifications; one that is unapologetic in expecting exceptional subject knowledge and subject pedagogy; one that, frankly, makes a difference to the schools it works with as well as expecting the school to make a difference with the trainees. Two weeks ago, I cancelled an SLT meeting to attend a seminar on whole-school curriculum leadership run by the same people who run this course – knowledge based, challenging of the orthodoxy, and related closely to school leadership I have already used this seminar to direct our leadership of my school. This sort of opportunity would not exist without this course. One of the Assistant Headteachers at Cottenham Village College works, mentors and delivers seminars on this course. This course is one of the main reasons the History department at Cottenham Village College is so strong.

Last week, I was aghast when I discovered that caps on admissions to university based ITT would mean this course closed. It would mean that the network of Cambridge history mentors in Cambridgeshire, Peterborough, Suffolk and Hertfordshire schools that I have been lucky enough to find myself in the middle of, would wither and die. It would mean that the task of batting back some of the damaging orthodoxies of generic skills and dubious pedagogies becomes harder. It would mean that my school, and I, would be more isolated in Cambridgeshire and the argument for a knowledge rich curriculum would be harder.

There was widespread disgust in the staffroom on Thursday morning as we met to discuss the OFSTED inspection over the previous two days. Certainly, amongst some, this was more of a topic of conversation than the inspection. There had been similar disgust on twitter the night before. There is similar disgust about Oxford’s History PGCE closing. And this course would be closing because they’d been discerning about who they interview and had taken their time to get the best possible graduates into teaching.

Since then, the course appears to have a stay of execution. The course can now recruit 11 new teachers under a rule that says it can recruit 75% of the candidates it recruited last year. But that’s 11 (last year was already down to 16 due to all HEI institutions having had 33% sliced off). I don’t know, but I speculate that we’re missing out on a great deal of knowledgable graduates – who could walk into other better paid occupations but have chosen to go for one of the most rigorous courses to enter a truly noble profession – who will be going somewhere else. And what does this mean for next year? The way that university based ITT has been attacked and continues to be (and I get the reasoning) means that this course could be collateral damage. It really could just be a stay of execution.

And what if there were (say) 10 great candidates interviewed on the first selection day? The climate this ridiculous rush has caused means that not offering to all 10 would risk losing them to another training route. But what if there are more candidates the next selection day? What if they’re even better?

Finally, what of the history mentors who have helped to shape this very school-based, subject-specific course, and made it their own? In two years’, that team of history mentors will have been halved.

The fact that this course is under threat at all has got me beyond angry.

The fact that recruitment for this course is a mess, through no fault of the brilliant people who run the course, has me fuming.

The fact that this is very likely to make developing a knowledge rich curriculum (that I know ministers would approve of) in my school more difficult makes this a disgrace, and a massive own goal.

The recent shifts to save the course, possibly for one year only, are not enough. I hope that the storm, on twitter and elsewhere, doesn’t die down until proper moves are made to save this course.

 

 

 

Please note: I am not saying there are not other courses that deserve saving, just that the Cambridge Secondary History course aligns with our agenda for our school and is nearby.

Advertisements

Responses

  1. I’m a Cambridge History PGCE mentor. The latest news, that we will have just 11 trainees, is unbelievable and will have a significant impact on our own development as a department.. Our community (of c.25 mentors two years ago), has worked together for years to produce a totally integrated uni-school course that is unique in its attention to historical knowledge. We make huge demands on ourselves for knowing about history education research as we mentor. Such a community and its course will take a decade to rebuild and set back the professional development of our own staff who benefit from such an integrated approach.

    Like

  2. Reblogged this on The Echo Chamber.

    Like

  3. I’m a Cambridge History PGCE mentor. The latest news, that we will have just 11 trainees, is unbelievable. Our community (of c.25 mentors two years ago), has worked together for years to produce a totally integrated uni-school course that is unique in its attention to historical knowledge. We make huge demands on ourselves for knowing about history education research as we mentor and seek to pass that on to our colleagues as a significant subject-specific component of their professional development. Such a community and its course will take a decade to rebuild and the lack of such an integrated approach will be detrimental not only to the provision of training but to those schools and departments who see themselves firmly as part of a wider mentoring community.

    Like

  4. I wholeheartedly agree. I am shocked that the capacity for the course is 11. That’s staggering. When I trained at Cambridge, there were over 20 trainees on the course, and that was only six years ago. The people I trained with, and the mentors who trained me, have had a huge impact on history education – and education as a whole. This PGCE course has filled Senior Leadership Teams with people who are determined to achieve excellence for their pupils; it has produced teachers who deliver and drive history-specific CPD across the country and world; it has created networks of teachers who collaboratively re-think and reinvigorate history teaching… I could go on!

    The Cambridge History PGCE delivers an approach to history teaching that is knowledge-based, provides ALL pupils with access to history, and allows pupils to contextualise the world they live in today. Isn’t this exactly what the government wants to achieve? Of course, there is a substantial range of successful ITT courses, but I can safely say that existing school-based routes fail to engender either the substantive or conceptual subject specificity that allows pupils to meet the demands of such a crucial academic subject – both up to 16 and beyond.

    I am very happy that the course has been ‘saved’, but there is simply no way this is not enough. Funding for 11 trainees is nothing like an adequate appraisal for what this course has done for history education.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. Educators should be open to change, even when it takes an abrupt and radical form. And yet is the very concept of change that demands an interplay of the old and the new, the proven and the innovative, the baby and the bathwater.

    It is most regrettable and discouraging that the recent decisions concerning the Cambridge History PGCE (and similar courses) seem to be based on one-dimensional quotas instead of data that is more meaningful for the quality of teacher training.

    I have greatly benefitted from a course with such a close-knit community that allowed the integration of myself as an EU trainee. It was not only the renowned quality of this particular course that made me apply, but also the international reputation of the PGCE and its compatibility with the German equivalent of a 1-2 year course that integrates school-led mentoring with seminar-based reflection. While my own experience might be somewhat unique, the principles of outstanding mentoring and training apply to the needs of every history trainee. To stay in tradition with Counsell’s five Rs, I am going to present them in the same mnemonic way:

    Rigour: an unapologetically comprehensive take on the philosophy of history education, subject knowledge and educational research
    Reflection: this is delivered in study sessions led by experts and individual tutorials that supplement the school experience. This cannot be shouldered by school mentors or week-end seminars.
    Relationships: the course lives and breathes through the relationships between lecturers, mentors and guest-speakers that have been built for years, fostering a community strong enough to include trainees from all walks of life.
    Routines: in order to achieve the very ambitious goals of the course, it relies on routines that emerged from years of meticulous planning and collaborative work with local schools.
    Reach: some might not realise that almost all trainees escape the Cambridge bubble and make use of the ties with schools all over Cambridgeshire and beyond. Even wider is the reach of individual course leaders and practitioners who share their work at conferences and in journals. The reach of these conference outcomes and publications goes beyond national borders and contributes to a European and global discourse of history education.

    Those principles are not only true for the Cambridge History course, but all other courses that are run with enthusiasm and track records of excellence. I am yet to see an alternative that would justify their extinction. Losing the CamHist PGCE in its current form is an unprecedented act of sabotage that undermines the very principles needed to create meaningful change in education. On a personal level, it is heartbreaking and ethically questionable to deprive candidates, former trainees and established mentors of this cornerstone of their professional development and practice at such short notice.

    As an incredulous bystander, I can only hope that the decisions will be reviewed – this time with quality of teaching and learning in mind – and that the course will be allowed to be a motor of change, not a casualty.

    Like


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

Categories

%d bloggers like this: