Professional Standards in Scottish Education by pptfiles


									           GTC Scotland
Review of the Professional Standards

            February 2012

Reviewing the Standards-the context

n   GTCS move towards independence (April
n   Teaching Scotland’s Future (Donaldson
n   Work of the National Partnership Groups
n   Advancing Professionalism in Teaching
    (McCormac Report)
n   Professional Update

  Teaching Scotland’s Future
Recommendation 36:
The Professional Standards need to
 be revised to create a coherent,
 overarching framework and
 enhanced with practical illustrations
 of the standards. This overall
 framework should reflect a
 reconceptualised model of teacher
National Partnership Group –
        sub group 1
n More  rigorous selection to ITE
n Reconceptualised model for early
  phase of teacher education
n Proposals on nature of degrees
n Focus of early phase work
n Effectiveness and impact of
National Partnership Group –
        sub group 2
n   Develop proposals on how the balance of
    professional learning can continue to shift to
    more collaborative, sustained approaches,
    centred on self-evaluation and outcomes for
n   Develop guidance on how teachers and schools
    can more clearly identify the intended
    outcomes of CPD in relation to teachers’
    learning and how this can be evaluated more
    directly, including through professional review
    and development processes

n   Develop proposals for models that will ensure
    that online CPD becomes part of the blended,
    tailored approach to CPD for all teachers.
n   Develop proposals for how priority areas can be
    systematically identified and promoted within
    systems for professional learning at national,
    local authority, school and individual levels.
n   Develop proposals for building greater
    accreditation and Masters level credit into
    continuing professional development.
n   Develop proposals for gaining improved clarity
    in relation to, and impact from, mentoring
    across the teacher education system.

 National Partnership Group:
  sub group 3 – Leadership
n Development    of clear, progressive
  educational leadership pathways
n Evaluation of the impact of routes
  to achieving the Standard for
n Scheme for national leaders of
n Virtual college of school leadership

     Agreed principles in the review of the
n   Simultaneous review
n   Coherent, overarching framework
n   Professional values and personal commitment, professional
    skills and abilities and professional knowledge and
    understanding remain central
n   SfR – remain the benchmark for teacher competence in
n   The Standard for Initial Registration and the Standard for Full
    registration reviewed jointly
n   Enhanced focus on leadership across all standards
n   Sustainability at the heart of the standards
n   Process of learning and teaching
n   Linked to the work of Teaching Scotland’s Future National
    Partnership Groups

n Sub-Group   to explore, examine and
 promote the wider concepts,
 principles and practices of
 sustainability through the
 Standards framework.

Plan for review

            Timescale for review
n   Initial meetings to gather early thinking (17/11 – Local Authority
    Induction Managers’ Seminar, 23/11 - Accomplished Teaching Strategy
    Group, 28/11 - National SQH Steering Group)
n   Initial meeting of steering group, to clarify purpose of review, core
    principles and possible participation in sub-groups (January 2012)
n   Initial meetings of writing groups, to look at current content and agree
    revisions (February / March 2012)
n   Period of writing and review, liaising across sub groups as appropriate
    (February / March 2012)
n   Further meeting of steering group, to review progress (April 2012)
n   Further writing and review, as required (April / May 2012)
n   Formal consultation process (May 2012)
n   Final writing stage (June – August 2012)
n   Final agreement by steering group (August 2012)
n   Publication of revised Professional Standards (Autumn 2012)

             Key questions
n   Do we need two separate standards for
    SITE / SFR, or should this be one
n   Do we require a further standard for
    active registration?
n   Should we be considering the
    development of a standard for
    leadership or headship?
n   Do we require practical illustrations of
    the standards?

To top