I’ve never been one for being shy when I have had an opinion. This is a good and a bad thing. Because of my professional contacts and friendships, the areas where I have spoken out and some of the targets I have openly set people within the education sector some might be mistaken that I am a teacher.
I am not. I openly say that I am an Education Technologist. I’ve been a qualified coach (Judo, Ju-jitsu), a validated instructor and examiner for IT courses (aimed at IT Support staff and validated by the awarding body to instruct other instructors and examiners), a mentor dealing with the pastoral care of prisoners (soldiers) and a Play Leader (mainly specialising in working with children with special needs). I say this in the tone of talking about one of my favourite subjects (me!) and only so that my background and position is clear to those that may not know me that well.
The reaction from the teaching profession has been mixed.
Many are repeating the article from The Guardian, possibly as a show of support.
Andrew Old’s reaction is quite detailed and it seems a good number of folk agree about the proposal not being a good thing.
There are still those questioning political motives (3 main parties all *support* the idea), that it is just reinventing the wheel (isn’t there a National College of Teaching and Leadership?), that it has no real teeth or that it will fall short of membership targets.
For me, as an educationalist, it is a good proposal.
At the heart of it there is the recognition that the core of membership *has* to be practicing teachers, that this is recognised as a Chartered Status and that it has a collected approach to Professional Standards and Development.
The added bonus is that there is recognition that others also work in education. The idea of Chartered Teaching Assistant and Chartered Examination Officer sound good to me on paper, but I know they will be a long time in coming (if ever) and will be fought tooth and nail. As a start though, as soon as Chartered Teacher is in place I would expect professional recognition of any equivalent Chartered Status.
Why is this a passion for me? Simply put, it will help break down the two-tier mentality in many schools. There are many other organisations that have Royal Charters, and for IT Professionals working in education the most common one would be BCS, the Chartered Institute for IT Professionals. The days of getting chartered status and it being a lifelong right are gone with BCS. You have it for 3 years and have to be accredited again and again. Fail to adhere to the professional standards of BCS can see the status removed (and membership revoked) or simply the status is not renewed.
At this point I have to say the same should apply to Chartered Teacher status. Reapply after 3 years and prove you are worth it.
Some people will not like this idea as it attacks the comfort position that some teachers can get into, and the lack of unequivocally support from NASUWT makes me believe that this could be a problem down the line. But if people think about it for a minute … this helps to weed out those who have retired (more on this later), those who have left the classroom to become consultants, those working for commercial companies in sales/training/etc … and even SLT who have no timetable any more.
This is not too dissimilar to arguments against open membership to be honest, and a few folk have pointed out the gaps. There are those working with ITTs who deserve the same professional recognition, after all … they will be installing the standards in new teachers … and I think the proposal covers that well enough now.
What about those who are outside the classroom but have years of good practice and knowledge to bring? Looking at other bodies, that is why you have Fellows. Often a more academic slant, this can allow noted members to stay in a recognised position within the membership without stepping on purist toes, as well as giving those with Chartered status something to aim for.
The other side of the proposal is that it gets rid of the idea of needing a Master’s degree, of teachers with an already busy workload being forced into the typing hell of poorly thought out Action Research and standardises the CPD needed for recognised status in a world where political targets shift things about.
My recommendation for the varied folk who read my blog, follow me on Twitter or occasionally listen to my rants is to work with the current proposal, accept that this is a long term investment (so some existing teachers might never see the full benefit but those new or in the middle phase of their career should) and be proactive in your involvement.
Those who follow me who won’t get Chartered Status do not panic. If you feel that there is never going to be a chance of being recognised within the membership of the College, then aim for chartered status elsewhere. IT Professionals should now be pressing BCS to recognise the specialisms required to work in the education sector, and get BCS to press for equal recognition of Chartered Status between bodies.
Other than teachers then next Chartered Status I can see coming from the College of Teaching will be for School Business Manager. This is already a well recognised role, releasing senior and middle leaders from a lot of administration so they can focus on teaching and learning. It covers a wide range of specialisms and has significant levels of accountability. To do the job properly you *have* to understand schools though.
So, there you have my thoughts.
The proposals are workable, need to be viewed in the long term, have to have some measure of accountability for Chartered Status and has to include recognition for equivalent statuses (in my opinion).