Why I think we need a note of caution regarding ITE statutory guidance

By Jamie Pearson, Senior Lecturer in Education and Training, Darlington College

The plan to re-reform Initial Teacher Education (ITE) in FE, outlined in Ben Ramm’s piece in the latest edition of InTuition is both timely and important. Like many FE teacher educators, I welcomed the introduction of the Diploma in Teaching (DiT) last year, but quickly found the qualification framework offered little guidance in terms of curriculum planning and sequencing. So with that in mind, the introduction of guidance is, of course, welcome. However, I want to raise a note of caution about the direction of travel, particularly the intention to identify and codify “what works” through statutory guidance as alluded to a few times in Ramm’s piece. While I support the ambition to raise standards, a new framework risks oversimplifying the complex, relational and situated work of FE teachers.

Actor-Network Theory (ANT) shows us that education is not simply a matter of transmitting pre-defined knowledge or applying a set of best practices. Teaching and learning are networked practices, co-constructed by teachers, students, curriculum, policy, technology and the myriad of the other stuff that colleges are made up of. To reduce this to a minimum standards checklist risks missing the way practice emerges from contextual and dynamic interactions. Therefore, the new guidance must be sensitive to the multiplicity of contexts in which FE teachers work, be it 16-19 study programmes, T-Levels, pre-16 provision, apprenticeships or professional qualifications, where “what works” in one area may well unravel in another.

This concern resonates with Gert Biesta’s critique of the “what works” agenda. Biesta warned that framing education through the lens of evidence-based practice alone treats it like a technical problem with a single fixed solution. But FE teaching is not like that, it is always a normative and relational practice. As Biesta shows us, the question can not simply be “what works?”, but what is it working for and who gets to decide? He shows us that education always involves values, purposes and judgements that cannot be captured in a statutory guidance document.

If the new ITE guidance is to genuinely support professional practice, it must acknowledge these nuances. Here, I agree with Gavin Lumsden’s argument. Writing in response to Ramm’s piece via his Educators Empowered Network substack, Lumsden argues that guidance should avoid being “prescriptive in a way that stifles innovation”. Rather than a prescriptive model of effective pedagogy, it should create an open space for teachers and institutions to exercise professional judgement, to adapt and to empower teachers to respond to the needs of their students. I'm pleased that the DfE is inviting input from the sector, because codifying minimum standards without space for dialogue would risk creating a professionalism of compliance, rather than one characterised by situated, reflective and adaptive expertise.

As much as I welcome further guidance and as much as I support the goal of raising standards, we must resist any document that requires script-like adherence to a pre-defined set of action statements. Instead, a living document that can be shaped and reshaped by the diversity of expertise, that is sensitive to context and attentive to the ethical and technical dimensions of teaching across FE is favourable. In short, we don't need a singular answer to “what works,” we need a framework that supports teachers to ask the right questions, in the right contexts, for the right reasons.