How may Taylor’s critical policy analysis framework be used to enhance the potential impact of the Core Content Framework and what are the implications for organisational policies and practice?
Kimberley Edwards
MA Education
Abstract
This article critically examines the implications of the Initial Teacher Training (ITT) Core Content Framework (CCF), introduced in England, on organisational policies and practice, particularly within teacher training Higher Education Institutions (HEIs). Using Taylor’s Critical Policy Analysis Framework, the article explores how the CCF, a result of political shifts since 2010 favouring a school-led, apprenticeship model of teacher education, challenges the pedagogical autonomy and research-based approaches of university-based teacher educators. The analysis highlights that while the CCF offers some flexibility, its statutory authority and alignment with Ofsted inspections enforce compliance, often marginalising the expertise of HEI staff and failing to adequately support subject-specific pedagogy. Ultimately, the article suggests policy and institutional recommendations to mitigate the framework’s limitations and strengthen partnerships between HEIs and schools.
Critiquing the theme
As Cochran Smith (2005) has explored, when policymakers want to improve school outcomes they seek to enhance and focus on teacher quality. One method of improving teacher quality is through teacher education. This poses teacher education as a policy problem that needs to be solved; governments seek to improve pupil outcomes through policy changes to teacher education. This policy agenda has been a significant focus for both teacher education and school policy for decades (Mutton et al., 2017). For this paper, due to the scope available, context will be examined from the 2010 election and the formation of the Conservative-Liberal coalition. This election saw a shift in the political landscape and had a substantial impact on policy. Since 2010, and the formation of the new government, the policy focus for teacher education has been radical, resulting in a centralisation of power to the state through policy initiatives. A result of this shift has been in the creation of the Initial Teacher Training Core Content Framework (ITT CCF) in 2019, which was promoted as a minimum requirement for trainee teachers (Department for Education [DfE], 2019, p. 3). For this study, the CCF will be examined through Taylor’s Critical Policy Analysis Framework, with a focus on the implications for teacher educators within a university setting whose curriculum is now underpinned by the CCF.
Taylor’s Critical Policy Analysis Framework (1997) has been chosen as the lens for this study as it is essential that teacher educators are able to recognise how to both enhance and acknowledge the challenges of this policy as they implement it on a micro level. Taylor’s framework is conceptualised as a discourse theory (Taylor, 1997), which considers policy making at all levels with recognition of policies as ideological texts that have been created within a context. To fully understand a policy, the context must be deconstructed (Codd, 1988; Taylor, 1997). Furthermore, as the CCF is a policy from the DfE, discourse theory can be used to analyse the workings and consequences of the state in policy creation. Taylor (1997) also recognises that consideration should be given to the language and meaning of policy, and as such recognises that policy research may be utilised by teachers, therefore understanding the ‘politics of discourse’ (Taylor, 1997, p. 34) can be useful for those implementing policies.
Taylor’s framework has been utilised over that of Bowe, Ball & Gold’s Policy Cycle Model (Bowe et al, 1992, p. 20). This policy cycle focuses on the interactions between the context of the influence, text, and practice to understand a policy. Taylor suggests it is imperative to consider a deep textual analysis when highlighting and drawing out policy discourse (Taylor, 1997, p.27), especially when analysing the development and implementation of a specific policy. This deems Taylor more suitable than Bowe et al.’s (1992) Policy Cycle Model, as the latter fails to fully recognise the links between different levels and contexts, and they how relate to each other (Vidovich, 2001). Therefore, for the purpose of informing a teacher educator on the enhancements and challenges of the CCF, it can be argued that Taylor’s Framework (1997) is more appropriate, especially when evaluating the relationship and consequences of macro policy on a micro level.
The repositioning of Initial Teacher Education (ITE) began to take shape during the policy discourse between 2010-2015 from the coalition government’s reforms of teacher education (Mutton et al., 2017). This discourse centred upon the government’s prioritisation and preference of school-based experience for teacher development (McIntyre et al., 2019; Mutton et al., 2017). This was evident from the comments of the Secretary of Education, Michael Gove, who stated: ‘Teaching is a craft, and it is best learnt as an apprentice observing …Watching others… is the best route to acquiring mastery in the classroom’ (DfE, 2010). This priority was established within the Government’s 2010 White Paper ‘The Importance of Teaching’, whereby it made clear that ITE reform was necessary so that there was more training in the classroom and ‘on the job’ rather than in a university setting (Mutton et al., 2017). This set the foundations for the Carter Review, an independent review of the quality and effectiveness of ITE provision within England. One of the recommendations from this review set out for the development of a framework of ‘core content for ITT’ (Carter , 2015, p. 5). The CCF was created to provide a ‘structured introduction to the core body of knowledge, skills and behaviours that define great teaching’ (DfE, 2019, p. 3). One challenge of the CCF is that it was created as a framework for all types of ITE, but arguably, as suggested by Brooks (2021), there are many different routes of ITE, each requiring different pedagogical approaches. Upon analysis of the recruitment data for entrants from the Initial Teacher Training Census for 2019-20, 45% of trainees were completing their teacher education with a Higher Education Institution and 48% were completing a school centred approach (DfE, 2019). Therefore, one framework for all types of ITE potentially could pose challenges for providers.
However, the CCF does offer flexibility and autonomy for providers, which is a potential opportunity, as it states that it is not the ‘full ITT curriculum for trainee teachers’ (DfE, 2019, p. 4). Although providers are encouraged to ‘craft the experiences and activities detailed in the ITT Core Content Framework into a coherent sequence’ (DfE, 2019, p. 4), the DfE do specify how providers have autonomy when designing curricula for their relevant subjects and age ranges (DfE, 2021, p. 5). This autonomy suggests flexibility for providers to adapt the CCF to their approach to teacher development. However, although this autonomy presents itself as an opportunity, the authority of the CCF poses challenges to this. Initially, in 2016, the CCF was introduced as a guide to providers. That notwithstanding, in 2019 it was made statutory for ITT. This meant that the policy now carried immense authority (Hordern & Brooks, 2023, p. 2), which was further solidified in 2020 when Ofsted, a non-ministerial department responsible for education standards, used the CCF as a benchmark for inspection. Their ITE inspection framework specifies that inspectors will assess how providers have incorporated the CCF into their ITE curriculum (Ofsted, 2020). This poses a challenge to the autonomy of teacher educators when designing and implementing their curriculums as when decisions must be made on curriculum content, and where time is limited, it is inevitable that the default will be to ensure that the CCF will be covered (Hordern & Brooks, 2023, p. 802).
The CCF is set out into sections that align with the Teachers’ Standards (DfE, 2011) and within each of these sections are ‘Learn that’ evidence statements which are ‘drawn from current high-quality evidence from the UK and overseas’ (DfE, 2019, p. 4). There are also ‘Learn how to’ statements which are designed for the trainee to practise key skills and to ‘work with and learn from expert colleagues’ (DfE, 2019, p. 5). One of the challenges that the CCF poses is how the document perceives teacher development to take place. The ‘Learn that’ statements are intended for the trainee to accept without question, evaluation, or reflection, and the ‘Learn how’ statements are fixed practices for the trainees to develop.
Furthermore, the CCF does not consider learning models such as Clarke and Hollingsworth’s (2002) model of teacher professional growth. This model promotes the trainee’s own agency and perception of their own learning; this is lacking in the CCF. There is little opportunity or encouragement to reflect on their own development. Indeed, the verb ‘reflect’ is only used five times within the document (Brooks, 2021). This leaves little room for professional reflection or development of a professional identity. Arguably, it reduces teaching to a generic technical performance (Hordern & Brooks, 2023) which further shows the impact of the political discourse on the CCF. Upon textual analysis of the Subject and Curriculum area of the CCF (DfE, 2019) it is apparent how it omits the development of the professional identity of the trainee. Every ‘Learn that’ statement is directed at the pupils’ learning rather than the trainee’s own development. Also, despite this section focusing on the trainee’s subject, there is no subject specific pedagogy listed. The majority of the ‘Learn how’ statements focus on learning directly from the mentor, which does provide an opportunity to promote the value and importance of the school-based mentor, but as McIntyre et al. (2019) demonstrate, this reinforces the political discourse and belief that teaching is a ‘craft best learnt through observation and imitation of teachers in school settings’ (p. 1). Textual analysis of the entire CCF found that the term mentor or mentoring was used 23 times and the use of ‘expert’ (in guiding trainees to learn from) was used 107 times (Brooks, 2021). This further demonstrates how the CCF is set up as an apprenticeship model (Brooks, 2021; Mutton et al., 2016), with the trainee learning mostly from their mentor. This signifies the marginalisation of HEIs that deliver ITE and demonstrates how the CCF is a product of the DfE’s commitment to a school-led system of ITT (Mutton et al., 2016).
Applying the insight to my setting
As a teacher educator, within a higher education institution that delivers ITE, the CCF offers both opportunities and challenges. When delivering ITE within a university setting, one of the key advantages is having subject specialist lecturers in teacher development. As a teacher educator who specialises in secondary school history, my expertise is in both history teaching and developing trainee teachers’ subject specific pedagogy. One of the opportunities that the CCF presents is the autonomy for designing a subject specific curriculum. This opportunity presents agency for teacher educators, on a micro level, to make decisions about the pedagogies and practices that are explored within their own subjects. For example, within history, it is vital to ensure that during the Postgraduate Certificate in Education (PGCE) year, trainees learn, process, and reflect how to teach disciplinary concepts. However, this does take considerable amounts of course time, and as previously discussed, the CCF framework does need to be evidenced within the provider’s curriculum. As a provider, we have 42 days to deliver our curriculum. As a subject specialist, this equates to just 72 hours across the academic year. This is not a vast amount of time, so it is crucial that it is used appropriately, but also, with the CCF content being accommodated. This presents a tightrope for the teacher educator, balancing both a substantive subject specific programme whilst ensuring the inclusion of the CCF. Ultimately, although it is an opportunity in having the autonomy to ensure that subject specific pedagogy is embedded within the curriculum, this time is limited and somewhat governed by the statements set out in the subject and curriculum section of the CCF.
A further challenge presented by the CCF is its omission of content that reflects different routes into teaching, as each route follows and requires a different pedagogical approach to teacher development (Brooks,2021). This presents a direct challenge within my setting; as a provider who delivers PGCEs, we utilise an approach that favours a research-based pedagogy (for example, utilising learning frameworks such as Clarke and Hollingsworth’s (2002) model of teacher professional growth. This approach of connecting research and practice is integral to a PGCE (Brooks, 2021), and it is an approach that is held in high regard within our institution. This pedagogy, of connecting research and practice, is agreed as significant in the beginning stage of a teacher’s development (Brooks, 2021; Burn & Mutton, 2015; Conroy et al., 2013). But the CCF by design values more of an apprenticeship model, whereby the trainee observes and imitates their mentors; it leaves fewer opportunities for the development of the trainee’s own preferred pedagogy and teaching style. In contrast with the PGCE that is offered within my setting, this results in direct tension between the pedagogical approach of the CCF and the PGCE that the institution has historically offered. Therefore, this brings challenges for our setting given the authority of the CCF and the pedagogical tension that it creates.
The CCF highly values the pedagogy of the trainee learning from their mentor; this is something which can be enhanced within my setting. School-based mentors are fundamental to the delivery of PGCEs; our trainees have mentors assigned to them whilst on supervised teaching practice. Trainees work alongside these mentors through observation to discuss, reflect and enhance their teaching within their subject; without the mentors, the PGCE would not function. However, not every aspect of teaching development comes from the mentor. For example, when considering subject specific pedagogy, there are significant considerations to be made. The Carter Review had recommended the establishment of stronger subject communities and access to subject experts for trainees (Carter, 2015). It identified the importance of both trainees and mentors having a strong understanding of subject-specific pedagogy (Carter, 2015, p. 27). Whilst the CCF’s commitment to the importance of the school-based mentor works in alignment with the PGCE that our institution offers, it is important that the mentor’s subject-specific pedagogy is robust. For example, one area of subject-specific pedagogy that is integral to the history teaching is having a deep understanding of disciplinary concepts. It is clear from recent Ofsted reviews (2023) that the teaching of these concepts is not consistently good across all schools within England. Therefore, although mentors are integral to a trainee’s development, on occasion trainees could be placed with mentors whose teaching of disciplinary concepts is not strong. Therefore, although the CCF can be enhanced through highlighting a focus for the mentor and trainee to work on; it fails to acknowledge that some mentors’ subject-specific pedagogy may be inconsistent. As a HEI that is committed to delivering robust subject-specific pedagogy, this presents a challenge.
Implications for policy and practice
As the CCF has now been statutory for ITE since 2019, the first recommendation for policy developments would be to advise the DfE to complete a review and consultation of the implementation of the CCF on a micro level. This would require insight and feedback from all providers. As a teacher educator who experiences the challenges of the CCF as an individual within a HEI, one policy recommendation would be to remove the ‘Learn that’ and ‘Learn how’ statements. Although the statements are designed to be a pre-requisite of the Early Careers Framework (created to provide professional support and learning for Early Careers teachers), policy makers need to recognise how these statements limit providers, both in terms of time and the misalignment between the CCF and the provider’s pedagogy. Despite the political discourse favouring a school-led approach, HEIs are still training 44% of new trainee teachers (DfE, 2023). Policy thus needs to ensure that their preferred pedagogies are not marginalised. To meet the needs of all providers the CCF should focus on trainees working towards the Teachers’ Standards with suggested research and suggested teaching opportunities.
Whilst these recommendations at a national level are difficult to achieve, at an institutional level, there are practices that can be implemented which could enhance the CCF within the organisation. Firstly, it is recommended that HEI providers ensure that their own research-pedagogies lead their practice, and thenexplore how the CCF fits in with what is already being delivered by the provider. Then, where necessary, embedding the areas that have not been previously covered through efficient, time appropriate sessions. For example, within one statement in the ‘Learn that’ column from ‘Managing Behaviour’, it specifies that trainees need to know that ‘Teachers can influence pupils’ resilience’ (DfE, 2019, p. 26). If a provider was not directly teaching about influencing resilience, this is something that could be reasonably included during a wider session on behaviour management. Although this is not an optimum solution, by analysing the ‘Learn that’ statements, providers could check where they are already covering the CCF and establish which areas need to be embedded within the programme that they already deliver. The priority would be to lead with the established, proven pedagogy and align the CCF to what is already delivered.
One final recommendation, at an institutional level, would be to advocate for subject-specific partnerships between teacher training providers and schools. This stems from the CCF failing to fully explore how to support trainees’ subject specific pedagogy, despite being a key recommendation of the Carter Review. Therefore, subject-specific partnerships would aim to provide the school-based mentors with subject-specific CPD, with a focus on enhancing the subject-specific pedagogy of the mentors and the departments that they teach in.
On an individual level, to support this subject-specific partnership, the teacher educator could collaborate with the school-based mentors to put together an annual CPD programme. This could be designed to offer access to a local subject community and subject experts, as per the recommendations of the Carter Review. Furthermore, the teacher educator could offer to provide subject-specific CPD sessions for the mentors and their schools. For example, within history, this could be on the pedagogy and research into how to deliver disciplinary concepts within the history classroom. At a time when opportunities for subject-specific development is scarce due to funding constraints (IFS, 2022), this would offer schools an opportunity to improve teacher quality within their respective subjects. Through a partnership between the school and HEI, the department could have access to high quality subject-specific CPD. Regarding the CCF, this would enhance the subject and curriculum aspect of the policy; trainee teachers would be mentored by teachers whose subject-specific pedagogy is strong and in alignment with the teaching from their teacher educator.
References
Berry, A., Loughran, J., & Mulhall, P. (2007). Pedagogical Content Knowledge: What Does it Mean to Science Teachers?. In: R. Pintó & D. Couso (Eds.). Contributions from Science Education Research. Springer. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-5032-9_7
Bowe, R., Ball, S. J., & Gold, A. (1992). Reforming Education and Changing Schools: Case studies in policy sociology (1st ed.). Routledge..
Brooks, C. (2021, November 3rd). Would an ITE curriculum be a ‘good’ thing? Ideas in progress. https://www.clarebrooks.com/my-blog/would-an-ite-curriculum-be-a-good-thing
Brooks, C., McIntyre, J., & Mutton, T. (2021). Teacher education policy making during the pandemic: shifting values underpinning change in England? Teachers and Teaching, 30(7–8), 953–970. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2021.1997984
Burn, K. (2007). Professional knowledge and identity in a contested discipline: Challenges for student teachers and teacher educators. Oxford Review of Education, 33(4), 445-467. DOI: 10.1080/03054980701450886.
Burn, K., & Mutton, T. (2015). A review of ‘research-informed clinical practice’ in Initial Teacher Education. Oxford Review of Education, 41(2), 217-233. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2015.1020104.
Carter, A. (2015). Carter Review of Initial Teacher Training (ITT). https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/carter-review-of-initial-teacher-training.
Clarke, D., & Hollingsworth, H. (2002). Elaborating a model of teacher professional growth. Teaching and teacher education, 18(8), 947-967.
Cochran-Smith, M. (2005). The New Teacher Education: For Better or for Worse? Educational Researcher, 34(7), 3-17. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X034007003.
Conroy, J., Hulme, M., & Menter, I. (2013). Developing a ‘clinical’ model for teacher education. Journal of Education for Teaching, 39(5), 557-573. https://doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2013.836339.
Codd, J. A. (1988). The construction and deconstruction of educational policy documents. Journal of Education Policy, 3(3), 235-247. https://doi.org/10.1080/0268093880030303.
Denscombe, M. (2021). The Good Research Guide: Research methods for small-scale social research projects (Seventh ed.).Open University Press, McGraw Hill.
Department for Education. (2010). Michael Gove to the National College Annual Conference, Birmingham. HMSO. https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/michael-gove-to-the-national-college-annual-conference-birmingham.
Department for Education. (2010). The importance of teaching: the schools white paper 2010. A white paper outlining the government’s proposals to reform the education system in England. HMSO. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-importance-of-teaching-the-schools-white-paper-2010.
Department for Education. (2011). Teachers’ Standards. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/teachers-standards
Department for Education. (2013). History programmes of study: key stage 3 National curriculum in England.https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7c66d740f0b626628abcdd/SECONDARY_national_curriculum_-_History.pdf.
Department for Education. (2019). ITT Core Content Framework https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6061eb9cd3bf7f5cde260984/ITT_core_content_framework_.pdf.
Department for Education. (2019). Initial Teacher Training (ITT) Census for 2019 to 2020. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5dde8357ed915d016960f229/ITT_Census_201920_Main_Text_final.pdf
Department for Education. (2021). Government response to the initial teacher training (ITT) market review report. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6228a549d3bf7f1582bc5f71/FOR_PUBLICATION_Government_response_to_the_initial_teacher_training__ITT__market_review_report.pdf
Department for Education. (2023). Initial Teacher Training (ITT) Census for 2023 to 2024. https://explore-education-statistics.service.gov.uk/find-statistics/initial-teacher-training-census/2023-24
Hennink, M. M., Kaiser, B. N., & Weber, M. B. (2019). What influences saturation? Estimating sample sizes in focus group research. Qualitative Health Research, 29(10), 1483-1496. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732318821692.
Hordern, J., & Brooks, C. (2023). The core content framework and the ‘new science’ of educational research. Oxford Review of Education, 49(6), 800-818. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2023.2182768.
Hordern, J., & Brooks, C. (2023). Towards Instrumental Trainability in England? The ‘Official Pedagogy’ Of The Core Content Framework. British Journal of Educational Studies, 72(1), 5–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/00071005.2023.2255894
Institute for Fiscal Studies. (2022). Annual report on education spending in England: 2022. https://ifs.org.uk/sites/default/files/2022-12/Annual-report-on-education-spending%20-in-England-2022-Institute-for-Fiscal-Studies.pdf
McIntyre, J., Youens, B., & Stevenson, H. (2019). Silenced voices: The disappearance of the university and the student teacher in teacher education policy discourse in England. Research Papers in Education, 34(2), 153-168. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2017.1402084.
Mutton, T., Burn, K., & Menter, I. (2017). Deconstructing the Carter Review: Competing conceptions of quality in England’s ‘school-led’ system of initial teacher education. Journal of Education Policy, 32(1), 14-33. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2016.1214751.
Ofsted. (2012). Maintained schools inspections and outcomes. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7d518fed915d28e9f39931/Ofsted_Annual_Report_201213_Schools.pdf
Ofsted. (2021). Research review series: history. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/research-review-series-history/research-review-series-history.
Ofsted. (2023). Initial teacher education (ITE) inspection framework and handbook. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/initial-teacher-education-ite-inspection-framework-and-handbook
Ofsted. (2023). Rich encounters with the past: history subject report. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/subject-report-series-history/rich-encounters-with-the-past-history-subject-report
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those Who Understand: Knowledge Growth in Teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14. DOI: 10.3102/0013189X015002004.
Taylor, S. (1997). Critical Policy Analysis: Exploring contexts, texts and consequences. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 18(1), 23-35. https://doi.org/10.1080/0159630970180102.
Tuithof, H., Van Drie, J., Bronkhorst, L., Dorsman, L., & Van Tartwijk, J. (2023). Teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge of two specific historical contexts captured and compared. Educational Studies, 49(4), 686-711. DOI: 10.1080/03055698.2021.1877621.
van Driel, J. H., Verloop, N., & de Vos, W. (1998). Developing science teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(6), 673-695. DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199808)35:6<673::AID-TEA5>3.0.CO;2-J.
Vidovich, L. (2001). A Conceptual Framework for Analysis of Education Policy and Practices. The University of Western Australia. Paper proposed for presentation at the Australian Association for Research in Education, Fremantle, December 2001. vid01267.pdf (aare.edu.au).
Whitty, G., & Wisby, E. (2016). Education in England – a testbed for network governance? Oxford Review of Education, 42(3), 316–329. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2016.1184873.
Wilson, S. M., & Wineburg, S. S. (1988). Peering at history through different lenses: The role of disciplinary perspectives in teaching history. Teachers College Record, 89(4), 525-539. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146818808900403.
