The setting up of a SCITT in 1994

Doug Rowe was instrumental in setting up Mid Essex SCITT Consortium (as it was known) back in 1994. Here he tells his story to Sophie Allchin, as part of the 30 Year celebration:

Click here to read Doug's story...

Back in the early 1990s I became aware that the D.F.E.S. (or whatever it was called then) had a number of select direct Headteacher contacts in various schools across the UK and, via various meeting formats, used these Heads as discrete sounding boards to test out and glean ideas relating to school development. One such Headteacher I met was at Portsmouth Grammar School and another was S. Upton at Colne High School in Brightlingsea in Essex.  

In my teaching career from the 1960s I had always welcomed B. Ed and PGCE Students into my schools, establishing a mentoring structure for them and providing full reports to the relevant Schools of Education. However, by the early 1990s there was considerable dissatisfaction at the time, and not just from me, regarding the deteriorating quality of some PGCE Students coming from some of the various University Schools of Education.

 At that time we had the experience of having twice delivered the in-school Licensed Teacher Scheme, but little did I know that other such school-based ideas were already being trialled. Then, through the Essex Dept Headteachers' Network, I heard that Colne School was quietly piloting a one-year, school-based, teacher-training programme in the 1992/93 academic year, and I was keen to find out more. I can't remember whether it was via a public advertisement in the educational press or via a LEA release or by direct letter from the DFES, but in late Autumn 1993 we (myself and Peter Jackson from Rainsford School who had similar supportive thoughts) attended a meeting of like minds in London with the DFES representative and some HMls, who kept well in the background. Mike Berry, a Opt Headt from Luton, was also in attendance and in the following months he was to play a major part in getting SCITT off the ground in his area of Bedfordshire. He was a lot more vociferous and challenging to the establishment than me!  

In the meeting Upton told of his experiences at Colne School, which I must say were not exactly 100% supportive but he did identify operational basics and which weakness areas needed further addressing, and the DFES Rep did identify what support grants and HMI guidance would be available. All of it was conditional on interested groups formulating and submitting a SCITT delivery programme which the DFES could approve. Peter and I came away heartened and on the train journey home started knocking an action plan into shape. In the event it transpired that the DFES was no further forward than we were and constantly changed its demands and expectations as their ideas firmed up so that all communications and plans were constantly adapting. A good idea for a programme put forward by one group would be adopted by the DFES who then notified other groups to include it, and so on. We felt that the best way was to quickly knock a programme into shape and get it to the DFES before other groups could do so.  

December '93 and January/February '94 were hectic. Five Essex Schools were keen to form the group (Chelmer Valley, Hylands, Rainsford, MouIsham, Helena Romanes. Interestingly Colne School was approached but was not interested; Mr Upton having left by then.) and between them offered 6 Subject areas of Arts, English, Geography, Maths, Mod Langs and Sciences. Other interested Schools and Subject Areas on hearing what we were doing were keen to be involved but were kept informed at arm’s length (as the programme was implemented 8 schools eventually became involved). Meetings, telephone calls (no e-mails then) and letters abounded; Subjects and Subject Mentor Leaders and Professional Mentors were identified (1 of each per school, some being interviewed); Programmes for Subject and Curricular Studies and General Professional Studies were designed and written, all to be sequentially progressive in individual development; School and Subject Information Packs relating to Resources and the National Curriculum were compiled. 

A Delivery/Lecture Room and catering facilities identified at Rainsford School; liaison maintained with DFES and other new SCITT Groups; and all this whilst we were still awaiting approval from the DFES and with the activities all being funded from school funds including Tina Weaver's secretarial costs. Obviously Chelmer Valley bore the brunt of this much to the Head's annoyance with me being frequently asked to justify it all. Luckily the school had a very supportive Governing Body which trusted me to see it all through. Chelmer's Governing Body became the responsible SCITT Body and the Chair of Governors, a University Lecturer, was extremely supportive.  

Our draft SCITT Programme was forwarded to the DFES either in late February or early March '94 (I have no record of when) and was approved by the end of that Spring Term with funding details released, including the grants structure for the new trainees (Tina Weavers had to quickly gain accountancy and DFES Treasury communication skills) and the designated HMI for our group named. He turned out to be very supportive of our plans and implementation but sadly in just a few short weeks in early October injured his head by slamming his car boot lid down on it whilst hauling a box of papers out of his car boot and had to take early retirement. His replacement was more obstructive, probably resistant to being catapulted in at such short notice, and she gave me initially a really hard time but eventually did come round and worked very well with Mike Whalley, becoming very supportive of our SCITT Group. 

The Summer Term of '94 was filled with advertising in local Essex, North London and South Suffolk newspapers; holding briefing/marketing meetings with interested graduates; supplying information packs; interviewing (according to a structure we had designed) and appointing trainees; giving feedback for disappointed applicants and guidance for their next steps (approx half the interviewees were turned away); firming up details re the grants structure; and establishing a fair spread across the five base schools for the 34 trainees we took on for the September '94 start. This latter task also involved some appropriate car sharing arrangements which Tina organised.  

We also had to finalise with each of the five schools their commitment to trainee support (Even in later years it was still difficult for some schools NOT to see the trainees as extra staff and free supply teachers!) and allow release for each Thursday's Professional and Subject Studies Day, which also meant that the Mentoring Staff had to be off school timetable for that day which was fixed on each Thursday. These "negotiations" proved hard and over the years stayed so but had to be successfully won. Establishing the sequential development of the whole programme of 180 days over the 3 Terms of the year and the supportive roles of the schools within it was particularly demanding of information details and firm negotiating skills.  

The rest of the Summer Term was filled with finalising the details of the programmes to be delivered and who was to lead them (some Presenters needed to be booked from outside the five schools); planning the structure details of the Induction Fortnight; the timetabling schedules; establishing appropriate themes for essays/dissertations; identifying reading lists and establishing a texts library; formulating the daily experience Log Book/Diary for each trainee to carry; confirming the locations and booking alternative venues where necessary. Maintaining links with the trainees and responding to their questions re the September start was also quite demanding for Tina. Most of the 34 appointees were leaving existing employment to take up this training year so in their eyes there was an element of personal risk-taking.  

In our pre-interview marketing meetings with interested graduates we had assured them that the PGCE Programme we were starting in September '94 would be quality-assured by Cambridge University School of Education. At Chelmer Valley we had over the years developed an intensive in-house staff-development programme which had on many occasions been led by staff from Cambridge, even to the point of planning an in-house Master’s Course. From my discussions with these staff about our SCITT proposals I had been led to believe that Cambridge would fully support and validate our PGCE Programme and so formally submitted a request for them to do so to the validating committee in the Summer Term. In the event it had been submitted too late and so was not to be considered until their Committee Meeting in November/December '94, but I was not duly concerned. To my utter horror they rejected the proposal (though not the quality of the programme) as their School of Education opposed school-based teacher training. The Cambridge staff we had worked with had given me no inkling at all of what was in their thoughts. We were now one-third of the way through delivering a training programme with no prospect of it being validated and having already scheduled the PGCE Presentation Evening for the Summer Term '95. The trainees were furious and certainly let me know it!  

In some desperation I contacted other Universities but met the same resistance blocks with only the University of Greenwich School of Education saying they might consider it after I called in favours from our previous good links. They made me jump through a number of hoops, including agreeing to accept at Chelmer Valley their PGCE Students on school placements, having to submit copious loads of programme documents for them to see along with pleading letters from the five School's Headteachers, holding face to face discussions, and agreeing fees, before they approved and said they would validate the course and design the Certificate. In the event and over the following years persevering with Greenwich proved to be the best outcome, and they also successfully later led the in-house Master’s Course at Chelmer Valley School.  

This furore over the validation process was taking place during the first two terms of the programme delivery. At the same time in the Autumn Term Chelmer Valley was undergoing its first OFSTED Inspection and over both the Autumn and Spring Terms our SCITT Group was being inundated with HMI visits. They took 39 full days in the programme, with a number of the HMls seemingly determined to prove that we were wrong to take this school-based teacher-training route, though others were actually encouraging and helpful. We had Subject HMls who mostly went away impressed, though English based at Hylands School came in for some harsh criticism and we had to take remedial action and change the Lead Mentor. The speed with which we reacted, redrafting the English Programme and bringing in new personnel, thoroughly satisfied the English Subject HMI and the issues were quickly resolved. As SCITT Programme Leader I was subjected to a harsh day-long questioning over the programme structure and the rationale for it and the content of the Professional General Studies Programme, along with other aspects of the course outside of the Subjects' Content. When at one point I mentioned that University Schools of Education did not get the grilling we were getting the response I got was "If you cannot stand the heat then you should not have entered the kitchen". The five Schools' Headteachers and Chelmer's Chair of Governors were also questioned. Making sure that we were getting it right and to a high standard was only proper but Leeds and Hull Unis were not being so thoroughly examined.  

In hindsight I can see why they had to be so thorough but at the time it would have been better to let us have the inaugural year to iron out the issues which arose and fully liaise whilst doing so with other SCITT Groups for mutual support along with HMls and DFES, and then fully inspect us having done this, but at that time a number of powerful bodies did not want SCITT to succeed. In the period 1996 to 2002 I was also undertaking some regular supportive work on behalf of a Teacher Marketing/Recruitment Agency based in Hertfordshire who organised presentations throughout the counties of the East Midlands, East Anglia and North London. My particular brief in these was a presentation on "Different Routes Into Teaching" and on each occasion I always spoke after a University School of Education Rep had disparaged SCITT. I particularly enjoyed giving a more balanced view to the audience members in presenting those BEd, PGCE, L TS, SCITT, UQTS routes and leaving the audiences to make their own choices. Some of those people later joined our SCITT Programme. But even as late as 2018 I was talking with an Advisory Primary School Headteacher who scoffed about SCITT, describing it as "teacher-training on the cheap".  

In this early 94/95 testing/proving period Mike Berry over in Luton proved to be a tower of strength in organising morale-boosting SCITT Group meetings, spreading publicity especially via newspaper articles, rebutting arrows from hostile University Schools of Education, "bullying" the DFES when it was proving difficult, and in sharing good SCITT practices at meetings and via the beginnings of a SCITT Newsletter. Mike later had to have a lower SCITT profile when he became Headteacher at a demanding school in Bedfordshire.  

In general we came thro' this initial 94/95 raft of inspections very well and it was very noticeable that when Mike Whalley was later leading the successful programme he had a very good rapport with the Inspectorate, and that at SCITT Conferences the lead SCITT HMI would often defer to him for support, answers and confirmation when fielding questions from both existing SCITT Groups and newly forming groups. Based on all of the 94/95 teacher training cohorts, in 1996 or 1997 the first League Tables appeared relating to all Teacher Training Institutions. The Mid Essex Secondary SCITT was placed 10th out of about 190 ITTs; well above Cambridge and London Schools of Education and many other Universities. A Primary Schools SCITT based on Billericay in Essex was also in that top ten. We would have been placed even higher but the rankings were assessed on 3 criteria - degree Levels of the trainees (we had several with only Thirds); the Quality of the Course Programme where we were rated very highly indeed for its content, delivery and support; and the numbers of Trainees dropping out or not taking up teaching positions after gaining their PGCE. Four of our trainees did not immediately take up posts, preferring to wait until the right school came along for them! Which did happen eventually for all 4 of them but at the time of the rank evaluation, with 4 out of 34 not being in post, this 12% of our intake lowered our ranking in the table to 10th.  

Mike Whalley's appointment as SCITT Programme Leader was an excellent choice. He brought a keen and full-time focussed and experienced inspectorial eye to the programme, ensuring all the appropriate documents and procedures were in place at the right time and at a high standard, and having Tina Weavers as full-time secretarial help. His working relationships with both HMls and OFSTED were exceptional and fruitful and Mid Essex SCITT had a high profile at conferences. As a superb professional he was a real loss when he retired.  

My own working links with SCITT ended in about 2002 when I, along with several other experienced Mentors, was no longer required to help in programme delivery and when the sequential/progressive nature of the programme was being broken up by the new Programme Leader. At a later date Chelmer Valley ceased to be the lead school and all responsibilities were passed over to Shenfield School which, at the time, was keen to have them. 

Which all now begs the questions "Would I do it all again"? and "Was it all worthwhile"? Without any hesitation the answers are an unequivocal "YES" despite all the huge pressures we were under at the time. I remain firmly convinced that teachers trained through the school-based route "hit the ground running" as they have been fully exposed to the daily issues, pressures and routines in the working environment of schools. The key is that the trainees must experience a vocationally-based and professionally mentored, carefully sequenced, developmental programme over their training year which each school must ensure is implemented correctly.  

Additionally, numerous benefits have accrued for the participating schools who put in the efforts - a ready source of new staff for recruitment; identifying which trainees would be most appropriate to appoint without the 'hit and miss' of interview appointments; new staff who hit the ground running as they know the school routines and layout and already have developed some working relationships with pupils; stimulation for existing teachers who have trainees working alongside them and asking thought-provoking questions; additional teaching help in the classrooms; morale-boosters for jaded teachers who are told by the trainee that they admired the lesson and learned a lot from watching; trainees who are a source of future Mentors as they have experienced the processes themselves; and above all the self development in skills of those staff undertaking the mentoring processes. A Head of Mathematics arriving late for a Departmental Meeting in 1997 - "Sorry I'm late but I've just had a SCITT trainee in my lesson and the questions she asked me after the lesson have really made me think about my teaching"!  Added to the above are the personal benefits gained by working from 1994 to about 2002 with keen trainees who were bringing many fresh pairs of eyes and ideas into schools. It was a real pleasure to meet and work with them and see them progress when working full-time as teachers; to see the developing professional skills and standing of my colleagues who delivered and mentored in the programme (and promotion opportunities open up for many of them); and all with the self­satisfaction of knowing that we were right to fight for this training route opportunity and did a good job in getting it off the ground and running successfully. 

As a footnote to all this the one issue we forgot to address in those early formative years related to Insurance Protection and the issues which could arise, though thankfully they never did. But there were never any trainee-school signed contracts and always the issue of who takes responsibility when trainees are not part of an established school staff and its premises; are not under the protection of a specific School Governing Body; are exposed to a number of different programme presenters with some coming from outside of the group; are moving frequently over the year between the placement schools; may come across disciplinary issues in individual situations; and are not yet qualified teachers but do teach. My own granddaughter in her first enthusiastic term at a secondary school in 2013 was "taught" by SCITT trainees who were being used to cover as supply teachers and who frequently explained to the class that they were not specialist subject teachers but were "doing their best if the class would let them". Not an auspicious start to secondary school life for her and for them! Her enthusiasm quickly dimmed, as I suspect theirs did too.