undergraduate degrees, at least 24 weeks, spread over the courses of study are
spent in gaining experience in different schools. All these are partnership models
between schools and educational institutions. The conservative coalition expanded
the school-based routes (SCITT), despite the fact that the English Inspectors found
the university-based courses to be generally of a better quality than those offered in
schools. One way this was and is being managed is through extending the School
Direct route, another school-led programme (see http://www.education.gov.uk/
get-into-teaching/teacher-training-options/school-based-training/school-direct). The
conservative coalition envisaged a larger number of training schools, on the model
of teaching hospitals, where schools would lead on pre-service and in-service
professional development—and I will come back to these later on in this chapter.
One particular form of school-based training—the‘Teach First’scheme has been
extended. This is the English version of a global travelling policy that originated in
the USA as‘Teach for All’ and which recruits‘outstanding graduates’from
prestigious universities. These graduates teach in challenging schools for 2 years
and are expected to progress onto leadership roles on other careers; hence the UK
name,‘Teach First’. In England, a fast-track route,‘Teach Next’, recruits profes-
sionals in other careers who want to move into teaching; and the‘Troops to
Teachers’ programme supports suitable candidates leaving the armed forces to
move into teaching (http://www.education.gov.uk/get-into-teaching/troops-to-
teachers.aspx). The numbers that are proposed for these routes are small (at least
at the moment). However, the impact of these proposals for additional SCITT lies in
the way in which they discursively break up, disturb, disrupt and displace current
patterns of pre-service university-based teacher education and training—extending
diversity—all part of a market economy. As another aside, some of these policy
moves may be counterproductive in practice because of the way in which they may
be encouraging high teacher turnover by design:
Recruiting policies that tolerate and even encourage high numbers of young and inexpe-
rienced teachers to move in and out of the job within 3–5 years might keep down
short-term costs, but they squander taxpayer’s investments. They also sell disadvantaged
students short by condemning them to inexperienced and less effective teachers who leave
long before they reach their potential. (Hargreaves and Fullan 2012 : 76)32.3 Why Is English Teacher Education so Susceptible
to Reform—or to‘Multiple Forms of Constraint’?
While there are many questions that can be raised about the substantive proposals
for reforming teacher education provision in England, what I want to do now is
consider two fundamental points. These are as follows;first, teacher education has
alwaysbeen regarded by various Governments as a‘suitable case for reform’and
second, allegations of‘necessity’because of alleged low standards and matters of
economic expediency have consistently driven policy attention in this sector.
32 Reforming Teacher Education in England... 485