publish) and those who just teach (mainly those whose research was not judged
good enough for submission to the REF subject panels). A recent example brought
to my notice is that of a well researched paper, arising from work in several schools,
concerning transition from primary to secondary school. Such research is relevant
to current policy deliberations on an issue of importance. But it was judged
internally not to be of 3* quality because, without international reference or sig-
nificance. It was therefore denied permission to publish. This young lecturer
therefore has to remain in a teaching only contract—lower pay and three hours only
a week for engaging in research.
Third, research seeking assessment as internationally excellent is unlikely to be
pursued in partnership with local schools, and thus to focus on the kind of school
improvement arising from teacher based research. There becomes a growing gap
between pursuing research of international significance and the original mission of
education departments, namely, that of serving the schools and colleges through
initial training and professional development of teachers—where theory (what
universities are good at) is tested against practice (what schools are good at) and
practice informed by theory. When the establishment of a department for the
training of teachers wasfirst mooted at the University of Oxford in the 1890s,
against the views of many at that university, it was Mr. Haverfield of Christ Church
who foresaw the possible integration between theory and practice and between the
academic concerns of the university and the practical purposes of schools.
The object seems to me to get the future teacher thinking about teaching; then being (on the
whole) an educated and capable man, he will probably be able to take his own line. (Bryce
report 1895 , v. 167)Fourth, the competition between universities for league-table rankings inhibits the
collaboration between disciplines within and between universities. Better to keep
the research and publication‘within house’.
The implications of all this for the role and funding of university department of
education is considerable, leading to questions over the viability of some and over
the relevance of many to initial training and professional development of teachers.
Especially is this the case when the Government is supporting routes other than
through universities for the training of teachers.
How far can the close relationship between departments of Education, rooted in
the practice and experience of schools as well as relevant theory, now be maintained
in the modern university, given the changing pressures on them? Should we not
learn from Chicago? There the once prestigious School of education, under pressure
to produce world-class research, found less and less time to be in schools. It joined
the University’s School of Social Sciences. The social scientists did not care much
for the research of the erstwhile educationists. Educational studies, without friends
in schools and without friends in the university, closed down.
41 Research and the Undermining of Teacher Education 619