knightrider (13th January 2014)
IMO it's not necessarily a bad idea. We all know there are teachers who qualified in 1970 and now struggle with technology (not all, but there are some). On the other hand, teachers are regularly observed both by their managers, the head and externally by Ofsted. They are scrutinised on results and they need to be able to show their charges are making progress. It's possible that a teacher could be demonstrating exceptional progress of their students and yet fail and 'MOT'. That might just show poor implementation but, if an MOT simply confirms what the other data tells us, what is the point.
When I was a trainer for apprentices I had to be registered with IfL and had to pay (my company at the time decided they would not pay despite it being part of my job... less said there the bettwe). For that I had to submit CPD records each year. I got no direct benefit, didn't do any direct training or skills improvement, and it was clear it was very easy to say you did CPD hours without technically doing any... not that I am saying I did or any of my colleagues did of course.
There are so so many questions around how this will work...
A good school does all this anyway - maybe regulation might be a way of making sure they all do but with OFSTED the way it is, any school that doesn't keep on top of each and every teacher's training and competency is going to end up failing.
As I am sure @bodminman 's wife will tell us, the next step would be to work with each teacher individually on their skills and competencies, with targets etc for improvement. This could involve training, mentoring, CPD, or anything and will be closely monitored.
Any school that does not do this will fail. Maybe some are doing it because they haven't had OFSTED for a while but when they do, the axe will fall.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)