teachers' experiences of mentoring on a flexible initial teacher education programme:...

This article was downloaded by: [Texas A & M International University]On: 07 October 2014, At: 23:01Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Education for Teaching:International research and pedagogyPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjet20

Teachers' experiences of mentoringon a flexible initial teacher educationprogramme: implications forpartnership developmentMaggie Pitfield a & Liz Morrison ba Department of Educational Studies , Goldsmiths College ,University of London , London, UKb School of Education and Training , University of Greenwich ,London, UKPublished online: 22 Jan 2009.

To cite this article: Maggie Pitfield & Liz Morrison (2009) Teachers' experiences of mentoring on aflexible initial teacher education programme: implications for partnership development, Journal ofEducation for Teaching: International research and pedagogy, 35:1, 19-32

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02607470802587095

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjet20

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02607470802587095

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tex

as A

& M

Int

erna

tiona

l Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

3:01

07

Oct

ober

201

4

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Teachers’ experiences of mentoring on a flexible initial teacher educationprogramme: implications for partnership development

Maggie Pitfielda* and Liz Morrisonb

aDepartment of Educational Studies, Goldsmiths College, University of London, London, UK;bSchool of Education and Training, University of Greenwich, London, UK

(Received 8 August 2007; final version received 19 June 2008)

This article investigates school mentors’ perspectives on their role in trainingstudent-teachers following an initial teacher education (ITE) programme via aflexible learning route. The paper draws upon data gathered from focus groupsand interviews to examine how mentors are redefining their role in response to theopportunities and challenges presented by flexibility. Discussion focuses on thewider discourse around models of partnership and considers the effect of keygovernment policies on partnership development in recent years. The paperconcludes by highlighting some implications for both the role of the mentor on aflexible ITE programme and the future evolution of the partnership betweenGoldsmiths College, University of London, and the schools.

Keywords: teacher-mentors; flexible initial teacher education; partnership withschools

Introduction

At the beginning of the academic year 2000/01 the government regulatory and

funding body for initial teacher education (ITE) in England and Wales issued

guidance for the introduction of flexible Postgraduate Certificate in Education

(PGCE) courses. Previously the traditional pattern in England and Wales of

postgraduate teacher training had been the 1-year, full-time course (September to

July) provided by the universities, also known as higher education institutions

(HEIs). The aim in offering a flexible route to Qualified Teacher Status (QTS) was to

widen access to teacher training for particular groups such as mature students, career

switchers, students with childcare responsibilities, those with some teaching or

teaching-related experiences, and those with a settled base in the area so likely to

take up posts in local schools on completion of their training. Thus, for the first time

in 2002/03 a flexible PGCE route at secondary school level (11–18 years) in four

subject areas was offered at Goldsmiths College, University of London.

Flexibility in ITE is defined by a number of measures including: a needs analysis;

the use of an individual training plan to plot the student-teacher’s route and pace

through the course; a choice of course entry and exit points; some flexibility as

regards deadlines for completion of self-study modules and assignments; opportu-

nities to organise work and/or childcare commitments around self-study; and finally

the recognition of prior relevant experience leading to exemption from particular

aspects of the PGCE course (Teacher Training Agency 2001).

*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

Journal of Education for Teaching

Vol. 35, No. 1, February 2009, 19–32

ISSN 0260-7476 print/ISSN 1360-0540 online

# 2009 Taylor & Francis

DOI: 10.1080/02607470802587095

http://www.informaworld.com

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tex

as A

& M

Int

erna

tiona

l Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

3:01

07

Oct

ober

201

4

In a previous article (Morrison and Pitfield 2006) we explored the implications of

flexibility for both HEI tutors and student-teachers at an early stage in the

development of these courses. We turn our attention in this paper to the experiences

of the school mentors, the teachers in schools who are ‘not only expected to provide

guidance and support for their proteges, but are also required to act as their

assessors and as gatekeepers to the teaching profession’ (Jones and Straker 2006,

166). The responsibility for the education of student-teachers on all PGCE courses in

England and Wales is shared between the HEI and the schools, with the extent of the

collaboration between these partners determined by the particular model of

partnership employed. Flexible learning in ITE would, however, appear to offer

new challenges for both partners.

Interest in the effects of flexibility on the mentoring role in partnership schools

arose from the research we undertook with the early cohorts of flexible PGCE

student-teachers at Goldsmiths. Those taking part in the survey all fitted the profile

of a ‘typical’ flexible PGCE student-teacher in one or more ways (see Morrison and

Pitfield 2006, 188), and from their questionnaire responses it was apparent that the

main concerns as regards school placements were to do with the timing of teaching

practices, and the willingness of schools to offer part-time training opportunities.

When setting up school placements for the flexible PGCE programme, we found that

schools had similar concerns, but viewed from their own distinct perspective. Thus,

through a series of focus group discussions and one-to-one interviews conducted

during 2006 and 2007, we set out to probe further the issues for the mentors in

managing the school-based training requirements on a flexible PGCE course.

The background to partnership in ITE

Partnership offers a fruitful area for exploration. It is one in which successive English

governments over some 15 years have sought to intervene, demonstrating that

teacher education sits firmly within the political arena. The central control of a

framework for partnership goes back to the then Conservative Government’s policy

document Circular 9/92 (DfE, 1992). Even though, ‘prior to 1992 many teacher

education courses had close working relationships with local schools’ (Furlong et al.

1996, 41), the then Secretary of State for Education for England and Wales, Kenneth

Clarke, sought to implement a range of measures which would limit the influence of

the teacher education institutions and give schools the lead in all the important

aspects of the training process. In his analysis of the reasons for these interventions,

the limitations of the rationale underpinning them and the lack of a genuine

consultation process involving the professionals in the field, Gilroy (1992) lays bare

the ideological influences at work at this time.

The mentors involved in our study are all familiar with a model of partnership

which is essentially HEI-led but with some aspirations towards a more collaborative

model (Furlong et al. 1996). A collaborative partnership presupposes no hierarchy in

the different types of professional knowledge contributed by both higher education

tutors and school staff, and this joint and equal responsibility impacts upon the

design and delivery of both the HEI- and the school-based elements of the training.

Despite clear advantages to this model in terms of the integrated teacher education

curriculum it provides and the professional development opportunities afforded by

collaboration, it nevertheless has time, cost and resource implications for both

20 M. Pitfield and L. Morrison

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tex

as A

& M

Int

erna

tiona

l Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

3:01

07

Oct

ober

201

4

partners. In the HEI-led model, ‘Course leaders have a set of aims which they want

to achieve and this demands that schools act in similar ways and make available

comparable opportunities for all students’ (Furlong et al. 1996, 45). Clearly in this

model quality assurance is an important issue, with the HEI consulting schools and

providing training for teachers in a range of defined mentoring activities.

Unsurprisingly a key tenet of the Clarke proposals was an increase in the amount

of time that student-teachers should train in schools (originally 80% of the time spent

on-course was to be school-based, at a later stage reduced to 66%) and the HEIs

would be required to transfer funding to the schools. Although this presupposes the

desirability and ease with which schools might take on a greatly increased

responsibility for teacher training, the evidence from a number of studies suggests

the importance to teachers of the link with the HEI.

Furlong et al. (1996) found that school staff, as well as HEI course leaders,

articulated concerns, both practical and philosophical, about creating too reduced a

role for higher education in the training of teachers. Jones, Reid and Bevins (1997)

also question the prioritising of ‘practice-focused approaches to initial teacher

training’ and ‘the over-glamorization of the apprenticeship paradigm’ (Jones, Reid

and Bevins 1997, 258). They demonstrate that the teachers involved in a genuinely

collaborative partnership do not hold with ‘the separation of theory and practice,

(much more the removal of theory from practice)’ (Jones, Reid and Bevins 1997,

260). Davies and Ferguson, examining the role of ITE in developing teachers’

professionalism, ask whether teachers could take over the role of teacher trainers

and, ‘in our sample 85% said no… None of the sixty one teachers wanted the links

between the higher education institutions and the schools to go, whether they

answered ‘‘yes’’ or ‘‘no’’’ (Davies and Ferguson 1997, 47). The most popular reason

given for this, and echoing scepticism about the apprenticeship paradigm referred to

by Jones, Reid and Bevins (1997), was the potential for passing on bad habits, which

might occur if the trainee had access to only one viewpoint or one role-model for

most of their training.

While a collaborative approach to partnership seems to offer the ideal, Brook,

suggests that such a model is unlikely to prevail ‘in cash-strapped ITT [initial teacher

training]’ (Brooks 2006, 391). Burton demonstrates that maintaining a non-

hierarchical university–school relationship is rendered very difficult by government

policy which ensures that the university, as the validating and awarding body, is held

accountable by means of a rigid inspection mechanism. On examining the

partnership scheme at her own HEI, Burton (1998) found that the schools did not

want ‘an equal share of quality assurance and external accountability’ (Burton 1998,

133), and it is certainly true that schools already have their work cut out managing

their own burden of high-stakes external inspection.

Central control of a framework for partnership led to the implementation of

other, related initiatives. One such was the introduction of the first set of compulsory

national competencies or standards by which the progress of student-teachers was

measured, shifting the focus in ITE from process to outcomes. This move to redefine

the concept of teacher professionalism ‘by influencing the nature of the knowledge,

skills and values to which new teachers are exposed’ (Hagger and McIntyre 2000, 16)

promoted a more atomised, fragmented view of teaching and learning (Burton 1998).

Yet another legacy has been the proliferation of school-based, on-the-job

training schemes such as School-Centred Initial Teacher Training (SCITT), the

Journal of Education for Teaching 21

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tex

as A

& M

Int

erna

tiona

l Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

3:01

07

Oct

ober

201

4

Graduate Teacher Programme (GTP) and the Teach First initiative. These schemes

are not based on the partnership models discussed above, but instead require the

universities to have far less involvement in the training process, although they retain

the accreditation or certification role. In 1998 the recently-elected New Labour

Government introduced a new designation for schools, Training School status,

which carries significant government funding. This policy thrust was strengthened in

the government white paper ‘Higher standards, better schools for all’ (Department

for Education and Skills 2005), which detailed New Labour’s plans for education

during its third term of office. The aspects that relate to teacher training are the

expansion of diverse pathways into teaching and the rolling out of the Teach First

initiative to five cities beyond London.

Alongside the expansion of school-based initiatives there has been a simulta-

neous erosion of the HEIs’ role, with the announcement by the teacher Training and

Development Agency (TDA) of significant cuts to numbers on PGCE courses to

take effect over several years from 2005. Brooks sees in the schools-led approach to

teacher training a positive move away from centralised control, but she nevertheless

highlights the desirability of maintaining a balance. If the government agenda is to

promote the dominance of one partner, in this case the schools, at the expense of the

other, the HEIs, then such ‘policy initiatives run counter to the professional

literature which suggests that ITT is at its most effective where students are able to

benefit from the collaboration of those in schools and HEIs who seek to train them’

(Brooks 2006, 391).

Methodology

The mentors taking part in the research are committed to working with the HEI,

volunteering to be involved in response to a general invitation issued at mentor

training sessions, on school visits and via email. Within this self-selecting sample the

mentors (anonymised) came from 17 schools in 10 local education authorities. In

terms of age and professional responsibilities, a range of science and English teachers

were interviewed, from Nigel with two years of mentoring experience to Tom with

well over 20. However, the majority were already experienced mentors of student-

teachers on the full-time PGCE, with Goldsmiths and/or other HEIs, and so were

able to make genuine comparisons between mentoring student-teachers on full-time

and flexible routes. The relatively small size of the sample reflected the fact that the

programme was new, with only a few cohorts of student-teachers having reached

completion. Also the number of partnership schools accepting student-teachers from

the flexible PGCE route was quite small, in total 37. As a consequence the

conclusions drawn in this paper can only be tentative.

The chief method of collecting information was through semi-structured

interviews with mentors in schools. Following Griffiths’ (2007) approach, it was

important to give the mentors a voice and foreground their perspectives. The

questions developed for these interviews came from two focus groups. The authors’

earlier research (Morrison and Pitfield 2006) inevitably resulted in the creation of

preconceived ideas of the issues and in order to reduce bias in this research project’s

questions, the focus groups were used to develop ‘themes, topic and schedules for

subsequent interviews and/or questionnaires’ (Cohen, Manion and Morrison 2000,

288).


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tex

as A

& M

Int

erna

tiona

l Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

3:01

07

Oct

ober

201

4

Two focus groups of about an hour in length and comprising six mentors in each

case were set up and the meetings took place at Goldsmiths College. A non-directive

approach was taken ‘to establish the widest range of meaning and interpretation for

the topic’ (Denzin and Lincoln 2000, 652). General areas for discussion were

provided. These were: a comparison of the mentors’ experiences of training student-

teachers from both full-time and flexible PGCE routes; any particular issues they

had identified in managing the school-based training on the flexible PGCE route;

and their suggestions for making the HEI–school partnership more effective in terms

of the flexible courses. The focus-groups were taped and the tapes transcribed by the

authors. The recordings were discussed, and in cases where meanings were

ambiguous, these were clarified with the respondents. In this way the school

mentors framed the questions for the individual interviews.

From the focus group interactions it was possible to pull out common themes

which were used for the interview guide:

N The advantages and disadvantages of the starting point on the flexible PGCE,

a school-based needs analysis;

N issues to do with managing the timing of school placements;

N the approach to the school-based training taken by flexible PGCE student-

teachers in comparison with those on a full-time programme;

N issues for the school/subject department in adapting well-established training

routines to accommodate student-teachers’ individual needs;

N implications for partnership.

The individual interviews with mentors took place in schools. In some but not all

cases the interview situations were constrained by time, having been scheduled

during a mentor’s ‘non-contact’ time or lunch break. One of the interviews was held

in a science preparation room which meant that there were a number of

interruptions. As relationships were already established it was important for the

English university tutor to interview the school English mentors and the science tutor

to interview the science mentors. All interviews used the same order of questions, the

semi-structured nature allowing the interviewer to clarify or elaborate on any

particularly interesting themes that emerged. Each interview was taped and

transcribed by the interviewer. Issues of bias were addressed by the interviewers

during discussions and careful perusal of each of their questionings. The respondents

were contacted where clarification was needed. From these data it is possible to

comment usefully on these mentors’ perceptions of: the value and purposes of the

needs analysis; how flexibility operates in a school environment and the ways in

which they have adapted their mentoring practices to accommodate a flexible

approach.

An analysis of the mentors’ views

The mentors have much to say about the needs analysis, the two-week, intensive

introduction to school and its demands, offering a variety of reasons as to why it is a

positive experience for both mentors and student-teachers. Paul, a teacher with a

career spanning some 17 years and who has held different posts of responsibility

within the English and drama curriculum areas during that time, has mentored over

a dozen PGCE student-teachers in two different educational systems:


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tex

as A

& M

Int

erna

tiona

l Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

3:01

07

Oct

ober

201

4

As a mentor I want that teacher [student-teacher] after two weeks to have a really strongfeeling of what it’s like to be a teacher, even if they haven’t done it before. The flexibleprogramme certainly offers that.

There is agreement amongst the mentors that at an early stage in the course the

needs analysis experience offers student-teachers, particularly career-switchers, a

useful opportunity to evaluate their decision to enter teaching. As Mauveen, a

teacher for 20 years in inner-city London schools and three years in another country,

who has mentored for much of her teaching career and currently coordinates the

teaching practices of all the student-teachers in her school, recalls:

… when P came… for the 2 weeks and she went back and she sent an e-mail from workand she said ‘Now that I’m at work. I really miss the school and I realise that this iswhat I want to do and I can’t wait for my next teaching practice’.

Gloria has worked for over 10 years as a mentor on the one-year, full-time science

PGCE. She welcomes the change from the established training pattern that the needs

analysis offers, because it affords her the opportunity to make initial judgements

about the student-teacher’s suitability. Both Gloria and Nigel, a science teacher in

the early years of his career, see some value, therefore, in extending the needs

analysis approach to the full-time PGCE course. Although it is entirely under-

standable that mentors should view commitment from their mentees as paramount,

Nigel highlights the danger of student-teachers making snap decisions:

Obviously, teaching is about making self-judgements as well as having judgements madeabout you, but there has to be an element of fairness in it, in terms of time over whichthe person is judging themselves.

Once the student-teacher has made the commitment to continuing on-course,

planning for the rest of the training can take place. The flexible PGCE offers the

student-teacher the facility of undertaking the needs analysis and the first of the two

teaching practices on a part-time basis. It is worth commenting here that as tutors

responsible for developing partnership links with schools, we have found only a

limited number of schools able to offer part-time placements. The mentors who have

agreed to such an arrangement are largely in tune with Paul’s view:

There are bound to be issues. You are going to have students who have not been atmeetings; English Department meetings, administrative meetings, curriculum meetings,but that doesn’t mean to say that a department can’t have that information on standbyfor a flexible student ….

This situation, and the other challenges facing mentors and tutors during the

development of a flexible PGCE programme, are examined in more detail in Reid

and Slinger’s (2006) article. Their research suggests that a variety of factors (such as

timetabling practicalities, familiarity with full-time PGCE training patterns, a lack of

experience in supervising student-teachers on a flexible route) can combine to make

part-time placements unattractive to schools. However, from the student-teacher

perspective a much more flexible approach to school placements than on the full-

time PGCE is one of the most appealing features of the course.

Another popular option for some student-teachers on the flexible PGCE route,

as identified by Coles and Pitfield (2006), in their research with trainees and student-

teachers pursuing different routes into English teaching (GTP, standard and flexible

PGCEs), is to complete the periods of school-based experience across the two years

of the flexible course, sometimes with considerable gaps between. However, in our


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tex

as A

& M

Int

erna

tiona

l Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

3:01

07

Oct

ober

201

4

interviews with mentors, their stated understanding of the need for flexibility in this

respect is tempered by some concerns about the potential effects of a long gap

between school placements. Gloria suggests that during the needs analysis student-

teachers begin to learn pupils’ names and how the individual needs of pupils are

identified. They start to recognise different teaching styles, and even at this stage

they demonstrate reflective skills. This progress cannot be built upon or even

retained if there is a lengthy period of time spent away from school prior to the first

teaching practice.

Nigel compares his own relatively recent experience of a full-time PGCE

programme with that of his mentee on the flexible route:

The benefit I can see of doing a full-time PGCE as opposed to a flexible one is that youdo get the immersion and the constant process.

He goes on to acknowledge how, due to the nature of the flexible PGCE, it is

important, but sometimes difficult, to recognise the student-teacher’s stage of

development at different points and from there to identify the support needed.

Here he is touching on the reason why the first two-week block in school on the

flexible PGCE route is indeed called ‘a needs analysis’, and its role in setting up the

training plan that supports the student-teacher through the rest of the course.Given the constituency at which flexible PGCE courses are aimed and the irregular

nature of the training pattern in comparison with a full-time PGCE, the needs

analysis has to do more than simply focus on ‘gaps’ in knowledge, on what the

trainee doesn’t know and cannot yet do. It should be a rigorous process for

identifying ‘the existing skills and experiences which this group [mature entrants to

teaching] brought to the courses from their previous careers’ (Priyadharshini and

Robinson-Pant 2003, 110), as well as ‘recognising well-developed, well-informed

and secure beliefs and values which will underpin all that is new to learn aboutteaching’ (Mead 2007, 316).

Gloria outlines how she works with her flexible PGCE mentees during the needs

analysis. In the first week she is careful to discuss their reflections on lesson

observations, in order to support their first attempts at planning for a micro-teaching

activity in the second week. She has really enjoyed this opportunity to ‘literally teachthem from grass roots’. Gloria is echoing a point made by Mead, that the needs

analysis should inform an on-going dialogue with the mentee and that mentors

should allocate time to engage with student-teachers’ reflective practice. As

Mayotte’s (2003) review of research into career switchers transitioning to teaching

suggests, already well-defined professional values do not always translate easily into

practice. Thus, there is no automatic correlation between career experiences in other

fields and development as a reflective practitioner. The findings of the Office for

Standards in Education (Ofsted) report (2007) into the GTP employment-basedroute are also relevant here; that the GTP career switcher’s evaluation of teaching

and learning may not be sufficiently in-depth and can over-emphasise behaviour

management issues. Therefore the mentor’s input and guidance is crucial.

Tom, a very long-standing and experienced head of department and mentor,

illustrates Mayotte’s point:

If they are used to being in quite pressurised environments where they make decisions,then they find that actually not making decisions more difficult because they have torely on someone else. They think they know what they are doing: in fact they are stilllearning.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tex

as A

& M

Int

erna

tiona

l Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

3:01

07

Oct

ober

201

4

The dialogue with student-teachers is a finely nuanced affair, and Tom advocates a

‘softly, softly’ approach:

Mature students can have set opinions – you have to respect that, even if you know atthe end of the day they are not going to be that useful – allow them to assimilate andchange their opinions at their own rate. That does take a little bit of practice over theyears… with the more mature students you have to wait for the penny to drop.

In response to this situation he has also taken the decision to mentor personally the

student-teachers from the flexible PGCE programme, as he feels that the younger

mentors in his department, a department committed to mentoring for professional

development purposes, might have higher expectations of a more mature student-

teacher. Tom’s perception reflects the findings of Mayotte (2003) in another respect –

that ‘career switchers do not necessarily receive the support they need because theyare not often viewed as novices due to their age and prior experience’ (Mayotte 2003,

682). Tom describes his approach in this way:

I think one of the needs in terms of mentoring, and this applies to an older, moreexperienced mentor, is that you are prepared to go ‘off-piste’, you are prepared to adapt.You know the paperwork has got to be done. But at the end of the day it isn’t the end ofthe world if there are slight hiccups. If they [the student-teacher] are making their markin the classroom then most of the other problems can be sorted out.

Mauveen recognises that student-teachers pursuing a flexible route have often

given up a great deal in terms of a previous career and this positively affects the way

in which they relate to her and approach their training. She finds them to be ‘quite

driven’, with a desire to remain organised, and so they will very actively seek outfrom her the input and feedback they feel they need, which is in accord with the

findings of Reid and Slinger.

Mauveen identifies another characteristic of student-teachers following a flexible

PGCE course that can usefully be drawn upon, their ‘tendency towards an

independent learning style’, which can be ‘a powerful determinant of success on the

training programme’ (Reid and Slinger 2006, 204). The teachers interviewed for thispaper overwhelmingly echo this finding, citing their mentees’ independence as one of

the most positive aspects of mentoring student-teachers for the flexible PGCE route.

Mentors variously attribute this independence to maturity, previous work

experiences, and the nature of the course demanding a more independent learning

style than that demonstrated by student-teachers following the full-time route. For

Lillian, a teacher holding a position of responsibility in a large science department

and with three years’ experience of mentoring students from Goldsmiths, they ‘are

more organised, more on the ball, because they have to be’ and she commends themfor being able to ‘do their own thing’. Yet, mentors would appear to have somewhat

different expectations of student-teachers on the full-time PGCE route. As Amrita, a

teacher for 24 years and a mentor for eight, latterly for the Goldsmiths flexible and

full-time PGCE programmes, comments:

Full-time course students are a little unsure, less confident, need lots of tenderness andcare, plenty of guidance, need to be taught the daily practical skills of handling pupilsand other issues involved in teaching. Flexible students need less attention, come intothe class, observe for a few days then start teaching.

For busy teachers time is of the essence, and their mentoring role can place

considerable demands upon them in addition to their teaching load and other

responsibilities. This preference, expressed by a significant number of mentors, for


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tex

as A

& M

Int

erna

tiona

l Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

3:01

07

Oct

ober

201

4

an independent learning style in their mentees is therefore unsurprising. However, it

also begs the question: is the level of individualised support that mentors provide

sufficient? At an early stage it might appear so, as those like Lillian, with experience

of mentoring student-teachers through all the various parts of the school-based

training, highlight the time-consuming, intensive, nature of the needs analysis. They

focus, though, on the additional organisational requirements and not on the primary

purpose of the needs analysis as discussed above; and in a HEI-led partnership this

raises issues about the level of involvement expected of the mentors and about how

well they are prepared by the HEI to fulfil this aspect of their role.

Whilst the independence and maturity of the student-teachers on the PGCE

flexible programme is cited as of benefit in the interviews with mentors, the

external commitments of mature entrants to the profession, usually to do with

either family or work, can cause tensions. Gloria, Tom and Amrita have all had

experience of mentoring student-teachers with a variety of calls on their time that

have impacted on their training in school. Because the pastoral and assessment

elements of their mentoring role sit side by side there are occasions when these

conflict, so there is recognition of the need to be adaptable. Gloria takes a

pragmatic approach:

I’m not saying let it all pass, because part of teaching is to organise yourself. But youhave got to have someone sympathetic to say, ‘Yes I understand, yes that fits in, that’sok, and at home don’t forget to plan for tomorrow because you have got to come in andteach that’.

Given changes in ITE enrolment patterns for all routes into teaching in recent

years in England, issues arising from childcare and other commitments are unlikely

to be limited to student-teachers on flexible PGCE programmes. Figures show that

‘in 1998, less than 47% of recruits were over 25 and one in four was over 30’ whereas

by 2002–2003 ‘56% of recruits were 25 or over and one in three was 30 or over’

(Revell 2004), and this will progressively have implications for mentors on the full-

time PGCE route. However, if the rationale for flexible PGCE programmes is to

offer an alternative route into teaching for those whose personal circumstances

preclude enrolment on a full-time course, they are likely to have high expectations of

flexibility which schools may find difficult to fulfil, an issue explored in some detail

by Reid and Slinger (2006). For Amrita this has manifested itself in the following

way with one flexible route student:

K was also very good but there were issues of punctuality and attendance because ofsingle-parent childcare and therefore of personal organisation.

Amrita reports in this case having to mediate between the differing expectations of

the school and her student-teacher, an unexpected aspect of her role. However, it is

hard to determine whether this says more about the lack of flexibility in schools’

working practices than about a student-teacher’s unreasonable expectations of

flexibility. As Priyadharshini and Robinson-Pant conclude from their investigation

into why people change careers to teach, there is a ‘need to look more critically at

why people are coming into teaching, where they are coming from and whether and

how institutions can begin to adapt to meet their needs and aspirations’

(Priyadharshini and Robinson-Pant 2003, 110).

As tutors we are certainly aware of instances when schools have appeared

inflexible and unwilling to adapt, particularly about the timing of school placements.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tex

as A

& M

Int

erna

tiona

l Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

3:01

07

Oct

ober

201

4

However, the mentors point out that often the school is best placed to advise the

student-teacher on the most advantageous timing, for if the school experience

coincides with the key pressure points in the academic year, the student-teacher is

unlikely to benefit from the full range of quality training opportunities and the

mentor’s attention. Mauveen feels she unwisely took on an English student-teacher

for her final placement very early in the school year:

So she was working with a very difficult Year 10 class who I was getting to know, and Icouldn’t tell her, you know, these are all their foibles, because I didn’t know yet.

As Mauveen explains, later in the summer term, she is able to spend more time with

student-teachers, and also cites definite advantages for her and for the department:

It’s really nice to have somebody around who’s sort of quite keen. ‘Yes, let’s do this uniton Julius Caesar’ and, you know, ‘I’ll work with you to create materials’, when you’resort of like gasping a little bit.

Yet, this interpretation of flexibility by the mentor can actually place an

unacceptable constraint on flexibility as far as a student-teacher who wishes to

stipulate start dates for a particular reason is concerned.

Thus, the mentors give a glimpse of the complexity of their role that goes beyond‘the repertoire of teacher behaviour prescribed by ‘‘the standards’’’ (Jones and

Straker 2006, 182). They have a well-developed sense of the ways in which the

flexible PGCE course has thrown up some unusual pastoral challenges, particularly

as the student-teachers are not part of a well-defined cohort and cannot always draw

on their fellow-students’ support, as is the case on the full-time programme. For

example, Chris, an experienced Head of Department and a Goldsmiths’ mentor for

five years, had to counsel one promising student-teacher when financial difficulties

and the demands of another job between school placements were threatening hiscontinuation on the course. And Lillian identified one advantage of the student-

teachers not being reliant on their cohort, as they are more likely to become fully

integrated into her department than those she mentors on the full-time route. In turn

this has led to her viewing them as part of the faculty:

In between placements they would ring for advice and would borrow resources likebooks. I never had this with full-time students.

Lillian reports that the other teachers within the department have also enjoyed this

aspect of training flexible PGCE student-teachers and have taken it as positive

feedback when they return for advice.

With regard to the ‘teaching’ part of their mentoring role, it is not always clear,

though, how the mentors in our sample are adapting their practices to ensure that

they are properly supporting the progress of the student-teachers they identify as

independent learners. As Jones and Straker (2006) indicate, the mentor’s role

requires communication of a complex set of understandings, not least of how theory

relates to practice. Yet, their research into the professional knowledge base thatmentors draw upon in their work with trainees and newly qualified teachers suggests

that theory is too often considered to sit within the university’s domain and that a

mentor’s rationale for using particular strategies in particular situations is not always

well-defined. However, the research of Davies and Ferguson (1997) offers the view

that, quite simply, the lack of time in schools might be responsible for any desire to

separate theory from practice. In addition, the political thrust to promote teacher

‘training’ rather than ‘education’ by placing the emphasis ‘on the repertoire of


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tex

as A

& M

Int

erna

tiona

l Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

3:01

07

Oct

ober

201

4

teacher behaviour prescribed by the ‘‘standards’’’ (Jones and Straker 2006, 182), will

have affected the way in which mentors perceive and pursue their role. Whatever the

reasons, ‘the universities need to be alert to any incipient danger in producing a

generation of young teachers who feel that a ‘‘trial and error’’ approach to teaching

is a legitimate substitute for a knowledge of the theory that underpins it’ (Reid and

Slinger 2006, 204).

To return to the point made by Mead, the connection between the needs

articulated during the needs analysis and the student-teacher’s planned programme

of development may seem somewhat tenuous. Nevertheless, the kind of dialogue that

takes place as part of the mentoring process does actually show the ‘readiness of

mentors to go beyond restrictive outcomes-driven mentoring’ (Mead 2007, 319), and

to take a more holistic view of teaching and learning than a competencies-based

approach promotes.

Conclusion

We recognise that the small scale and limited scope of the research means that the

findings will be tentative and most relevant in terms of the implications for

partnership between an HEI and schools involved in a flexible ITE programme. Our

interviews with mentors demonstrate the vital nature of the mentor–mentee dynamic

and, as Burton (1998) identifies, ‘One of the clearest defining features of partnership

as a concept is its predication on relationships’. The evidence from research into her

own partnership scheme ‘suggests that partnership can be viewed as a fluid, organic

entity wherein relationships between partners grow and change, impacting all the

time on the activities of the partnership. Partnership then is evolutionary’ (Burton

1998, 130). It is the examination of this evolutionary process as far as the partnership

for the flexible PGCE programme at Goldsmiths is concerned that has provided the

focus for analysis of our findings.

In the interviews the mentors acknowledge that the institutionally inflexible

aspects of school life can impinge upon their role. Nevertheless they are able to adapt

to some degree their familiar training routines to accommodate flexibility. In doing

so, mentors have brought about a subtle but significant change in their role. Thus,

within this HEI-led partnership they appear to be taking on certain aspects of what

has previously been seen as the domain of the HEI tutor. In this regard the

experience of the mentors bears certain similarities to our own, with our role as

tutors on a flexible PGCE route being redefined, both organisationally and

pedagogically, by the introduction of flexibility and a more personalised approach to

teaching and learning (Morrison and Pitfield 2006). We also recognised that as tutors

we have far less face-to-face contact with the flexible route student-teachers, who

pursue substantial parts of their course through directed self-study and ‘at a distance’

from the HEI, than is the case on the full-time route. To an extent this gap has

apparently been filled by the school mentors, reflected in their keenness to discuss

the significant shift that the needs analysis aspect of the training programme has

required. At this very early stage in the course (which on a full-time PGCE route is

usually spent intensively with the HEI tutor and fellow-students) relationships have

been forged between mentors and mentees that have subsequently endured. Mentors

have enjoyed an increased input into the student-teacher’s decision about the

suitability of teaching as a career path. They have also had an influence on the timing


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tex

as A

& M

Int

erna

tiona

l Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

3:01

07

Oct

ober

201

4

of the school experiences, whereas for the standard PGCE route the schedule is set

by the HEI. This involvement has been of benefit to both student-teacher and

mentor, as careful timing of a placement allows the mentor more space to pursue the

mentoring role.

Mentors have also noticed a difference in their relationships with student-

teachers on the flexible PGCE in comparison to those following the full-time route.

Given the way in which student-teachers on a flexible PGCE programme pursue

their course, it is unsurprising that mentors focus on the independence of the

student-teachers, their professionalism and the tendency for them to become more

integrated into the department. Mentors also comment on the independent learning

preferences of their mentees; in this respect their views chime with the findings of

Reid and Slinger (2006).

However, there is a danger that this group of student-teachers are expected to

take a very high degree of responsibility for their own training. And while

independence and efficiency ‘might be admirable features per se, they should not be

allowed to override the need to facilitate student learning through patient diagnosis

of need’ (Reid and Slinger 2006, 204). As mentors and tutors working together to

develop a different, more individualised approach to ITE, but within the context of

two fairly unwieldy institutions (the school and the HEI), it is important to remain

vigilant to this danger. There is a need to ensure that broad assumptions about the

learning styles and preferences of the very people for whom the programme is

designed do not cause the complexities of their individual training needs to be

overlooked.

The mentors also highlight some partnership issues for the HEI. Just as a key

factor in student-teacher satisfaction on a flexible PGCE route is ease of contact with

the HEI tutor (Reid and Slinger 2006), this also appears relevant to the mentors’

satisfaction with the partnership. They emphasise the importance of good

communication with the HEI in managing their side of the partnership. They also

refer to the support given to mentors by the HEI, particularly as there is no set

pattern to the school placements on the flexible route, and suggest that the HEI

tutor’s role includes an interventionist, troubleshooting element (Furlong et al. 1996;

Burton 1998).

It is clear that mentors are committed to a partnership in which the HEI

maintains a significant role, and this is in line with the findings of Williams and

Soares (2002), in their study of roles and responsibilities in primary and secondary

ITE. Mentors identify a number of professional benefits afforded by partnership

which go beyond their work with student-teachers in schools. They particularly

comment on the opportunities provided, through partnership meetings organised by

Goldsmiths, for supported development of skills, networking, and the sharing of

good mentoring practice.

This level of enthusiasm bodes well for the future development of the

partnership, and it could usefully tap into the UK’s current New Labour

Government’s agenda to promote teaching as a Master’s level profession

(Department for Children, Schools and Families 2008). Student-teachers now have

the option to accrue credits towards a Masters degree during their PGCE course. At

the same time the TDA is using dedicated funding to encourage schools to become

research-active institutions. Such initiatives indicate a new direction for partnership

and create the potential for a redefinition of the mentoring role. This is particularly


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tex

as A

& M

Int

erna

tiona

l Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

3:01

07

Oct

ober

201

4

relevant for mentoring on flexible PGCE courses, given the different ways of

working with student-teachers that our mentors have identified. Perhaps after all, it

is the collaborative partnership model (Furlong et al. 1996), placing equal value on

the different types of professional knowledge contributed by HEI tutors and school

staff in an integrated PGCE programme, which in this context offers the best way

forward.

References

Brooks, V. 2006. A ‘quiet revolution’? The impact of training schools on initial teacher

training partnerships. Journal of Education for Teaching 32, no. 4: 379–93.

Burton, D. 1998. The changing role of the university tutor within school-based initial teacher

education: Issues of role contingency and complementarity within a secondary

partnership scheme. Journal of Education for Teaching 24, no. 2: 129–46.

Cohen, L., L. Manion, and K. Morrison. 2000. Research methods in education. 5th ed.

London: RoutledgeFalmer.

Coles, J., and M. Pitfield. 2006. Routes into English teaching: Beginning teachers’ reflections

on college-based and school-based initial teacher education programmes. Changing

English 13, no. 3: 283–92.

Davies, R., and J. Ferguson. 1997. Teachers’ views of the role of initial teacher education in

developing their professionalism. Journal of Education for Teaching 23, no. 1: 39–56.

Denzin, N.K., and Y.S. Lincoln. 2000. Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage Publications.

Department for Education (DfE). 1992. The new requirements for initial teacher training

(secondary phase). Circular 9/92. London: HMSO.

Department for Education and Skills. 2005. Higher standards, better schools for all – more

choice for parents and pupils. White Paper London: TSO.

Department for Children, Schools and Families. 2008. Being the best for our children:

Releasing talent for teaching and learning. Nottingham, UK: DCSF.

Furlong, J., G. Whitty, C. Whiting, S. Miles, L. Baton, and E. Barrett. 1996. Re-defining

partnership: Revolution or reform in initial teacher education? Journal of Education for

Teaching 22, no. 1: 39–55.

Gilroy, D.P. 1992. The political rape of initial teacher education in England and Wales: A JET

rebuttal. Journal of Education for Teaching 18, no. 1: 5–22.

Griffiths, V. 2007. Experiences of training on an employment-based route into teaching in

England. Journal of In-service Education 33, no. 1: 107–23.

Hagger, H., and D. McIntyre, eds. 2000. Developing teacher education. Buckingham, UK:

OUP.

Jones, L., D. Reid, and S. Bevins. 1997. Teachers’ perceptions of mentoring in a collaborative

model of initial teacher training. Journal of Education for Teaching 23, no. 30: 253–61.

Jones, M., and K. Straker. 2006. What informs mentors’ practice when working with trainees

and newly qualified teachers? An investigation into mentors’ professional knowledge

base. Journal of Education for Teaching 33, no. 2: 165–84.

Mayotte, G. 2003. Stepping stones to success: Previously developed career competencies and

their benefits to career switchers transitioning to teaching. Teaching and Teacher

Education 19: 681–95.

Mead, N. 2007. How effectively does the Graduate Teacher Programme contribute to the

development of trainee teachers’ professional values? Journal of Education for Teaching

33, no. 3: 309–21.

Morrison, L., and M. Pitfield. 2006. Flexibility in initial teacher education: Implications for

pedagogy and practice. Journal of Education for Teaching 32, no. 2: 185–96.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tex

as A

& M

Int

erna

tiona

l Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

3:01

07

Oct

ober

201

4

Ofsted. 2007. An employment-based route into teaching 2003–06, an overview of the inspection of

the designated recommending bodies for the Graduate Teacher Programme. London:

Ofsted.

Priyadharshini, E., and A. Robinson-Pant. 2003. The attractions of teaching: An investigation

into why people change careers to teach. Journal of Education for Teaching 29, no. 2:

95–112.

Reid, D., and P. Slinger. 2006. A ‘flexible’ approach to initial teacher training: Challenges to

mentors and tutors. Mentoring & Tutoring 14, no. 2: 187–205.

Revell, P. 2004. Education: Qualified success: The Teacher Training Agency celebrates its 10th

birthday this term with a new, upbeat advertising campaign. But it still faces serious

challenges. The Guardian, September 7, Guardian Education, London final edition.

Teacher Training Agency. 2001. Designing training to meet individual needs. London: Teacher

Training Agency.

Williams, A., and A. Soares. 2002. Sharing roles and responsibilities in initial teacher training:

Perceptions of some key players. Cambridge Journal of Education 32, no. 1: 91–107.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tex

as A

& M

Int

erna

tiona

l Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

3:01

07

Oct

ober

201

4

teachers' experiences of mentoring on a flexible initial teacher education programme:...

Documents