TES Institute

TES Institute TES Global, 26 Red Lion Square, London WC1R 4HQ

p.1

Inspection judgements

Overall effectiveness Requires improvement Requires improvement

p.1

Inspection judgements

The quality of education and training Good Good

p.1

Inspection judgements

Leadership and management Requires improvement Requires improvement

p.1

Inspection judgements

Overall effectiveness at previous inspection Good Good

p.1

What is it like to be a trainee at this ITE partnership?

Trainees and assessment-only route candidates praise the support they receive from leaders, centre-based pathway tutors, school-based mentors and schools.

p.1

What is it like to be a trainee at this ITE partnership?

Candidates on the assessment-only route are particularly positive about the ease with which they can submit information and evaluations about their teaching experience via the online platform. However, partnership leaders were unable to provide evidence that the moderation of candidates’ final assessments is carried out with sufficient rigour.

p.1

What is it like to be a trainee at this ITE partnership?

Trainees on the School Direct programme appreciate the guidance they get from teachers and mentors, who are specialists in their subject. Trainees welcome the partnership’s focus on their well-being. They feel well prepared for the challenges that teaching may bring. Despite the COVID-19 (coronavirus) pandemic, the partnership has helped trainees gain experience of a range of schools and pupils of different ages.

p.1

What is it like to be a trainee at this ITE partnership?

The School Direct programme supports trainees to gain the knowledge and skills they need in a structured way, starting with the theory of teaching and moving to classroom practice. This includes managing behaviour and safeguarding pupils’ welfare. Early reading and systematic synthetic phonics are taught carefully. All trainees develop their subject knowledge well. They also learn how to meet the needs of all pupils, including those with special educational needs and/or disabilities (SEND).

p.1

Information about this ITE partnership

◼ The TES Institute is a school-centred initial teacher training (SCITT) consortium, which opened in September 2014. It provides primary- and secondary-phase teacher training in south and east London, Essex and Kent. The SCITT is based at TES Global, in central London. ◼ The SCITT provides the one-year School Direct and the 12-week assessment-only routes. ◼ Trainees who successfully complete the course are awarded qualified teacher status (QTS). Trainees on the School Direct route can also choose to complete the Postgraduate Certificate in Education (PGCE) with the University of East London. ◼ During the inspection, 256 trainees were on the School Direct programme. The subjects being studied were:

p.2

Information about this ITE partnership

– art and design – biology – chemistry – computing – design and technology (D&T) – drama – English – geography – history – mathematics – modern languages (French, Spanish and German) – music – physical education (PE) – physics – primary mathematics – religious education. ◼ During the inspection, 68 candidates were on the assessment-only route. A further 622 candidates completed the route during the academic year 2019/20. There were a total of 801 candidates in 2019/20. ◼ The partnership works with eight teaching school alliances, which between them have 64 secondary and 80 primary schools and provide placements for trainees. All the schools visited were judged as good or better at their last Ofsted inspection.

p.2

Information about this inspection

◼ The inspection was carried out by eight of Her Majesty’s Inspectors (HMI). ◼ Inspectors visited some schools to talk to trainees, school-based mentors and SCITT coordinators. Many discussions, including those with partnership leaders, were carried out remotely. ◼ Inspectors held meetings with six partnership leaders, 56 trainees on the School Direct route and 20 candidates on the assessment-only route. Inspectors also spoke to early career teachers (ECTs), pathway tutors, school-based mentors, school leaders and the external moderator. ◼ Inspectors carried out focused reviews in English, mathematics, science (biology) and PE in the secondary phase. In the primary phase, focused reviews were carried out in early reading, English, science, art and design, history and geography. ◼ Inspectors considered a wide range of documentation, including details of the central- training programme, course information for subject and primary programmes, the

p.2

Information about this inspection

assessment-only route programme, the partnership’s self-evaluation document and improvement plan, published information about the partnership, and the SCITT’s records of trainees’ achievement. On the assessment-only route, this included records of candidates’ suitability for the award of QTS. ◼ Inspectors visited or spoke with staff and trainees at 32 schools in London, Essex and Kent. ◼ Inspectors considered the results of online surveys completed for the inspection by 114 trainees and 29 members of staff. Primary phase report

p.3

better?

The central training for School Direct trainees is of high quality. It prepares trainees well to teach in the primary phase. Collaboration across the partnership is strong. The School Direct training programme complies in full with the core content framework. However, the partnership has not ensured that the assessment-only route is compliant with all of the statutory requirements for initial teacher training (ITT) providers.

p.4

better?

The assessment-only route has grown exponentially over the last few years. Leaders are knowledgeable about the process. They check carefully that candidates are eligible to enrol on the programme. However, leaders were unable to provide sufficient evidence that assessments leading to QTS had been moderated appropriately. In some instances, leaders could also not provide the evidence that underpinned some candidates’ final assessments. This limits partnership leaders’ ability to assure themselves about the consistency and robustness of candidates’ final assessments. Nevertheless, leaders demonstrate the capacity to address the weaknesses found.

p.4

better?

On the School Direct route, leaders are clear about partnership’s strengths and areas for improvement. They plan and sequence the central-training programme carefully. They ensure that trainees develop strong foundations in the theory and practice of teaching the primary phase. In-person sessions help trainees share and reflect on their experiences. Trainees observe and receive feedback from expert colleagues on school placements. As a result, trainees have a secure understaning about learning and how to adapt teaching to meet pupils’ needs. In some cases, feedback does not align completely with the central- training programme. As a result, trainees sometimes do not fully consider the most up-to- date research, and how this might shape their practice.

p.4

better?

On the School Direct route, leaders oversee trainees’ experiences in different subjects carefully. They use the ‘subject tool-kit’ to ensure that trainees develop appropriate subject knowledge. For example, subject-specific training on history helps trainees to understand how to build pupils’ knowledge using historical sources. Trainees also carry out a detailed study in one other subject. This enables trainees to deepen their understanding of how to plan and sequence pupils’ learning.

p.4

better?

The School Direct programme prepares trainees well to teach phonics. Trainees apply and deepen their knowledge of early reading throughout the course, for instance through the use of ‘reading buddy’ case studies. Trainees who have had limited early experiences of phonics teaching during the pandemic received personalised support to develop their knowledge.

p.4

better?

Pathway tutors keep a close eye on how trainees are progressing through the School Direct programme. They identify early any gaps in trainees’ experiences and knowledge. This means that trainees get the support they need to succeed on the course. Leaders’ checks on the quality of the School Direct provision are rigorous. New mentors are trained well. Guidance for mentors is regular and effective. This ensures that mentors carry out their roles in line with the partnership’s expectations. The partnership ensures that trainees are matched with mentors who have expertise in their phase and subject. This helps trainees to develop their own subject and pedagogical knowledge well.

p.4

(Information for the partnership and appropriate authority)

◼ Trainees develop strong pedagogical and subject knowledge, as set out in the partnership’s ITT curriculum. However, feedback from school-based placements is sometimes not carefully aligned to the intended curriculum. This limits trainees’ ability to deepen their knowledge and understanding. Leaders should ensure that school-based training and feedback are fully joined up with the content of the central-training programme, particularly the content informed by the most up-to-date research. This will support trainees to embed their understanding of the essential content of the training programme. ◼ The partnership does not fulfil all of the Department for Education (DfE) compliance criteria for the assessment-only route in the primary phase. Leaders could not demonstrate that they had robust assessment and moderation arrangements in place for primary-phase candidates. In some cases, leaders could not provide evidence to

p.5

(Information for the partnership and appropriate authority)

support candidates’ assessments for the award of QTS. Leaders must put rigorous procedures in place for the moderation of candidates’ assessments. This includes making sure that moderation arrangements are effective in checking and standardising the accuracy of leaders’ assessments.

p.5

compliance criteria?

◼ The partnership does not meet the DfE statutory compliance criteria.

p.5

compliance criteria?

The partnership does not meet the following criteria:

p.5

compliance criteria?

◼ criterion A3.4: All ITT providers must ensure that rigorous moderation procedures are in place to assure the reliability, accuracy and consistency of assessments of candidates against the teachers’ standards. Secondary phase report

p.5

better?

The partnership provides School Direct trainees with carefully planned and sequenced training. The curriculum for trainees is ambitious and complies in full with the minimum entitlement of the core content framework.

p.6

better?

However, as with the primary phase, leaders have not ensured that all compliance criteria for the assessment-only route are met. Candidates’ final assessments incorporate their reflections, as well as feedback from school leaders, direct employees of the TES Institute and independent assessors. However, SCITT leaders do not moderate this evidence with sufficient rigour. They have not ensured that rigorous moderation procedures are in place to assure the reliability, accuracy and consistency of assessments of candidates. This includes making sure that external moderation arrangements are suitable. In contrast, an assessment board is in place for the School Direct route. This helps leaders to assure the reliability and consistency of these trainees’ assessments.

p.6

better?

In the School Direct programme, leaders know the strengths and weaknesses of the partnership well. As a result, they have improved the curriculum. Leaders are clear about the essential knowledge and skills that they want trainees to develop. Throughout the year, trainees revisit and practise this essential learning. For example, trainees develop a strong understanding of adaptive teaching and the importance of memory in pupils’ learning. Trainees talk about these principles confidently and apply them in their professional practice.

p.6

better?

Trainees receive effective support from their pathway tutors and school-based mentors to develop their subject knowledge and teaching skills further. Regular ‘professional practice conversations’, for instance, review the gaps identified by trainees in their subject knowledge tool-kit. Pathway tutors use this to signpost trainees to additional central training in their curriculum subject. This approach is effective in deepening trainees’ subject knowledge in most subjects. In science, however, guidance for trainees is not as well focused and specific.

p.6

better?

Leaders check trainees’ progression through the programme. The information gathered for each trainee is extensive. It is used well by leaders to adapt the training, as well as provide ongoing, focused support for trainees. On the few occasions when trainees are at risk of falling behind, leaders ‘catch them before they fall’ through two weeks of targeted support. Leaders routinely prioritise trainees’ mental health and well-being.

p.6

better?

In-person sessions in partnership schools align well with the centrally delivered training. This typically helps trainees to make strong connections between theory and practice. Mentors are carefully chosen and trained well by partnership leaders. Partnership leaders’ quality assurance of mentors’ work is well planned and rigorous, with due consideration for mentors’ workload. In addition, leaders check that staff across the partnership have the appropriate level of subject and phase expertise. These checks are thorough and are an established feature of the programme.

p.6

phase?

(Information for the partnership and appropriate authority )

p.7

phase?

◼ Science trainees, like others, have access to a wide range of additional subject-specific sessions to deepen their subject knowledge. However, sometimes, trainees are not always guided to select suitable additional training. As a result, trainees’ subject knowledge does not deepen as well over time. Leaders should ensure that science trainees are signposted to, and complete relevant additional subject training, based on gaps in trainees’ knowledge and understanding. ◼ The partnership does not fulfil all of the DfE compliance criteria for the assessment-only route in the secondary phase. Leaders could not demonstrate that they had robust assessment and moderation arrangements in place for secondary-phase candidates. In some cases, leaders could not provide evidence to support candidates’ assessments for the award of QTS. Leaders must put rigorous procedures in place for the moderation of candidates’ assessments. This includes making sure that moderation arrangements are

p.7

phase?

effective in checking and standardising the accuracy of leaders’ assessments.

p.7

compliance criteria?

◼ The partnership does not meet the DfE statutory compliance criteria.

p.7

compliance criteria?

The partnership does not meet the following criteria:

p.7

compliance criteria?

◼ criterion A3.4: All ITT providers must ensure that rigorous moderation procedures are in place to assure the reliability, accuracy and consistency of assessments of candidates against the teachers’ standards.

p.7

ITE partnership details

Unique reference number 70275 Inspection number 1016784 This inspection was carried out by Her Majesty’s Inspectors (HMI) in accordance with the ‘Initial teacher education inspection framework and handbook’. This framework and handbook set out the statutory basis and framework for initial teacher education (ITE) inspections in England from September 2020.

p.8

ITE partnership details

Type of ITE partnership SCITT Phases provided Primary Secondary Date of previous inspection 19 November 2014

p.8

Inspection team

Overall lead inspector Brian Oppenheim, Her Majesty’s Inspector Phase lead inspector (primary) Noeman Anwar, Her Majesty’s Inspector Phase lead inspector (secondary Nasim Butt, Her Majesty’s Inspector Team inspector Helen Matthews, Her Majesty’s Inspector Team inspector Alison Colenso, Her Majesty’s Inspector Team inspector Lisa Strong, Her Majesty’s Inspector Team inspector Adam Vincent, Her Majesty’s Inspector Team inspector Jasper Green, Her Majesty’s Inspector

p.8

Annex: Partnership settings, schools and colleges

Inspectors contacted trainees and staff at the following schools, as part of this inspection:

p.9

grade

Davenant Foundation School 136625 Secondary 2016 Outstanding Great Baddow High School 136904 Secondary 2016 Good Passmores Academy 137445 Secondary 2016 Good Stewards Academy – Science Specialist, Harlow 137552 Secondary 2016 Good

p.9

grade

The Boswells School 137874 Secondary 2016 Good West Hatch High School 136758 Secondary 2016 Good Greenacre Academy 138046 Secondary 2016 Good Aylesford School 118882 Secondary 2016 Good Brompton Academy 136107 Secondary 2016 Good Brompton-Westbrook Primary School 141467 Primary 2018 Good Cornwallis Academy 135371 Secondary 2018 Good Hoo St Werburgh Primary School and Marlborough Centre 143262 Primary 2018 Good

p.9

grade

Maidstone Grammar School for Girls 118836 Secondary 2018 Outstanding St Mary’s Catholic Primary School 118782 Primary 2018 Good Temple Hill Primary Academy 143219 Primary 2018 Good Warren Wood Primary Academy 140989 Primary 2018 Good The Highway Primary School 142743 Primary 2016 Good Chelsfield Primary School 142694 Primary 2016 Good Pratts Bottom Primary School 142721 Primary 2018 Good Darrick Wood Junior School 142697 Primary 2018 Good Haberdashers’ Aske’s Knights Academy 135070 Secondary 2019 Good

p.9

grade

Haberdashers’ Aske’s Hatcham Temple Grove Free School 139672 Primary 2019 Not yet inspected Engayne Primary School 132766 Primary 2016 Good Upminster Infant School 138943 Primary 2016 Outstanding Ardleigh Green Junior School (Ardleigh Green Learning Federation) 102270 Primary 2016 Outstanding

p.9

grade

Broadford Primary School 102317 Primary 2016 Good The Appleton School 136579 Secondary 2016 Good Kingston Primary School 137220 Primary 2016 Outstanding The Sweyne Park School 139534 Secondary 2016 Outstanding Thundersley Primary School 141626 Primary 2016 Good Woodlands School 141214 Secondary 2016 Good St Clere’s School 137456 Secondary 2016 Good Plume School 137790 Primary 2016 Good guidance ‘Raising concerns and making a complaint about Ofsted’, which is available from Ofsted’s website: www.gov.uk/government/publications/complaints-about-ofsted . If you would like Ofsted to send you a copy of the guidance, please telephone 0300 123 1231, or email enquiries@ofsted.gov.uk .

p.9

grade

achieve excellence in the care of children and young people, and in education and skills for learners of all ages. It regulates and inspects childcare and children’s social care, and inspects the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (Cafcass), schools, colleges, initial teacher training, further education and skills, adult and community learning, and education and training in prisons and other secure establishments. It assesses council children’s services, and inspects services for children looked after, safeguarding and child protection. If you would like a copy of this document in a different format, such as large print or Braille, please telephone 0300 123 1231, or email enquiries@ofsted.gov.uk . You may reuse this information (not including logos) free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence. To view this licence, visit www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-

p.10

grade

government-licence , write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: psi@nationalarchives.gsi.gov.uk .

p.10

grade

Interested in our work? You can subscribe to our monthly newsletter for more information and updates: http://eepurl.com/iTrDn .

p.10

grade

T: 0300 123 1231 Textphone: 0161 618 8524 E: enquiries@ofsted.gov.uk W: www.gov.uk/ofsted

p.10