How a ‘College of Teaching’ would work

blog 2 050215 255

Supporters of the new professional body have published a paper, ‘Claim your College’, and say it could be fully open by 2018.

‘Claim your College was written in response to a consultation launched by the government in December and outlines the vision, implementation plan and detailed proposals for funding the ‘College of Teaching’.

Its supporters say that without a professional body, teaching practice has been determined more by the political cycle than by research and evidence. It would aim to protect standards and raise the status of teaching and has the backing of ministers and leading professionals, the BBC reports.

The ‘Claim your College’ authors want the new body to be autonomous, voluntary, independent of government and to “be developed for teachers by teachers”. They say it will need about £12 million seed funding for the first five years until enough teachers have joined – they’re suggesting an annual membership fee of £70 per year for an individual teacher.

The college would:
• accredit members against “respected sector-led standards”
• give teachers a career pathway and access to “high-quality professional development”
• draw on academic research to build a “quality assured and diverse professional knowledge base”
• develop a code of practice for teachers

Teacher Eugene Dapper said the college would allow teachers “to take control of their own destiny” and called on other teachers to get involved. “We have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to shape the direction in which the profession is heading and to establish a clear vision that will help attract and develop top teachers.”

Will you be joining the College of Teaching? Share your views with the Eteach community!

7 thoughts on “How a ‘College of Teaching’ would work

  1. Sounds familiar.

    Would this be any different to the GTC?
    What would teachers actually get for their £70 a year?
    Where will the power lie? With the members or the committee?
    Will membership be optional?
    I’m cautious and sceptical, I’m afraid. 20 years of teaching has made me this way.

    ‘Only a fool does the same thing twice and expects the outcome to be different.’

  2. Any plan that keeps the virus of politics and the politicians out of Education is the starting point for any valid project .

  3. I wouldn’t join in no. I have attended cpd which was led by people who knew less than me and experts supports in schools who haven’t taught a real flesh and blood pupil for years , no good to any of us.
    I would keep my £70 membership , to buy well researched literature, plus this rings a bell … the thirty odd pounds annual membership we used to pay the gtc for no reason or service received whatsoever.
    Another unproven untested money costing initiative ?

  4. The last I heard, someone in this Government was promoting it as an alternative to Unions.
    Anyone able to update me?

  5. I agree about attending CPD led by advisers ‘in a job for life’ who’ve not been a real classroom teacher for many years. The practise has been allowed to develop where these consultants/advisers, merely act as intermediaries passing on good teaching strategies they’ve seen in teachers they’ve observed.

    Marie’s right to say keep the £70 fee and use it to buy well researched literature. Giving teachers the time to read research is the issue. Teachers learn best from each other – the best way to achieve that is by using Inset Days to allow groups of teachers to observe good teachers in action. Those LEAs which allow schools the freedom to set their Inset Days independently, rather than having common days local-authority wide can be very successful in cascading skills. Of course sh** rolls downhill, and this is the risk when it is a local authority adviser selecting what s/he passes on in Inset training.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>