Should it be easier to sack poor teachers?

The education secretary believes it takes too long for teachers who are not up to the job to be dismissed in England and wants to speed up the proess so that these people can be sacked after just one term.

He says it can currently take a year to weed out a bad teacher, while the so-called “three-hour observation rule”, which limits how long a teacher can be monitored in the classroom, should be overhauled.

He also argues that weak teachers should not simply be allowed to leave one school and join another, without questions being asked about their abilities.

Alison

Alison has a history degree and spent a year gaining her post-graduate certificate in education (PGCE) before starting her first teaching job.

At the age of 23, she was taken on by a primary school in Leeds, teaching a class of 30 pupils. Although academically able, she found it hard to cope with the behaviour of some of the boys. Jonathan, whose parents had recently broken up, was a particular problem. His aggressive outbursts were making it difficult for Alison to teach, and within weeks she had lost control of the class.

The head realised action had to be taken and thanks to Michael Gove’s reforms, was able to dismiss Alison at the end of her first term. Despite the thousands spent on her education, her pupils’ education was deemed the priority. Fair?

No, but then Alison’s story is made up. Mr Gove is not proposing that new recruits to the teaching profession should be treated this harshly.

‘Alarm bells’

The Department for Education says his initiative is aimed at teachers who have been under-performing for some time and have been given a chance to improve – those cases where, in Mr Gove’s words, “the alarm bells are ringing and red lights flashing”.

Alison’s route into teaching is typical: degree, PGCE and a year’s induction in the classroom, with this on-the-job training overseen by a mentor. Most trainee teachers survive; few fall by the wayside.

The government says its plans are supported by the profession, citing research from the Sutton Trust showing that 57 per cent of teachers agree that schools do not have enough freedom to dismiss those who are not doing a good job, while 21 per cent disagree.

Union divisions

The National Association of Head Teachers and the Association of School and College Leaders are also supportive. But the NASUWT and National Union of Teachers (NUT) are opposed.

The NUT’s head of employment rights, Amanda Brown, told Channel 4 News: “Our view is that, apart from serious cases, given the investment put into teaching training, we would want to go for improvement rather than dismissing people.”

Ms Brown said there were already quick procedures for dealing with poor teachers. “Under current procedures, in serious cases there’s a four-week period and an expectation it can be dealt with in a month.”

But it was important to recognise that like anyobyd else, teachers’ performances could be temporarily affected by events outside their professional lives.

“In most cases, it is going to be a temporary blip, rather than someone not able to teach in the long term. We would suggest they’re treated in a supportive way to bring them up to scratch.”

Very few teachers are dismissed because they are not “up to scratch”. In the last decade, 17 people have been barred from teaching on competence grounds, 14 have been suspended for up to two years, and 31 have been allowed to continue teaching as they long as they meet certain conditions, such as undertaking further training.

‘14,000 incompetent teachers’

Sir Chris Woodhead, the former head of the schools inspectorate, Ofsted, famously said in 1995 that there were 40,000 incompetent teachers in England. But these days the organisation will not be drawn on numbers, saying its role is to assess teaching, not teachers.

Ofsted’s latest report says: “The quality of teaching in our schools is still too variable: too much is satisfactory and too little outstanding teaching was seen in the schools inspected this year.

“Although teaching has been judged to be inadequate this year in just 3 per cent of schools, it is a serious concern that teaching in over 40 per cent of primary and secondary schools is no better than satisfactory and is only outstanding in around 4 per cent.”

Ofsted told Channel 4 News that while it was responsible for ensuring that teacher training was of a high standard, it was the job of schools and local authorities to monitor trainees through their induction year.

But as part of its monitoring of teacher training institutions, it also looked at “whether trainees are of the highest quality and are well prepared for employment as a newly qualified teacher”.

An Ofsted spokeswoman said it assessed “a selection of trainees” to make sure they were being given the support and education they needed.

Sackings

Questions have been asked about whether a lot of teachers are likely to lose their jobs when the new rules are in place – and whether there are enough recruits to replace them.

The Department for Education says it does not expect “that head teachers will immediately start to dismiss many more teachers”, and that “teacher recruitment is buoyant and there is healthy competition for most positions”.

During an interview on Friday, Mr Gove was unwilling to comment on how many teachers were likely to be affected, saying it was up to heads.

On the abolition of the “three-hour rule”, the department says: “The most successful education systems in the world are characterised by high levels of lesson observation. We want to ensure that teachers are able to benefit from observing each others’ practice in the classroom.”