DRAFT ONLY, NOT TO BE CITED WITHOUT AUTHOR’S PERMISSION Quality Mentoring in Teach First: Identifying and Monitoring the Nature of School-Based Training within a Non-Traditional Initial Teacher Training Programme David Cameron 1 The Institute of Physics (formerly Canterbury Christ Church University) Introduction: Teacher Training Policy and Mentoring Provision It has been argued that educational achievement is closely linked to the quality of teachers entering the profession, and in turn that teacher quality is dependent on an effective and appropriate initial teacher training system (McKinsey & Co., 2007; Freedman et al., 2008). Policy-makers and system leaders in education both in the UK and other territories have accepted this premise; recent reforms and proposals for reforms aimed at developing a high-quality teaching workforce focus on organisational changes to initial teacher training systems (DfE, 2010; EC, 2007; Seet, 1990). In the majority of initial teacher training systems globally, higher education institutions (HEIs) retain responsibility for the provision and delivery of teacher training programmes. In those education systems considered ȁhigh-performingȂ 2 , such as Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea and Finland, teacher training is embedded in HEIs and patterns of higher-education learning (Cameron, 2011). In these systems, a school-based placement (practicum) is informed by the curriculum of the HEI. By contrast, in the UK there has been a trend in education policy towards teacher training becoming increasingly school-based. This trend can be seen in the requirement, from 1992, for HEI providers of teacher training to form partnerships with schools; in the short-lived ȁArticled Teacher SchemeȂ of the early ŗşşŖsDz in ȁSchool -Centred Initial Teacher TrainingȂ ǻSCITTǼ programmes since ŗşşŚDz in the expansion of the Graduate and Registered Teacher Programmes (GRTP) since 1998; in the state funding and political support for the employment-based ȁTeach FirstȂ programme since ŘŖŖŘDz and in the proposals to expand employment-based training routes in the 2010 White Paper ȁThe Importance of TeachersȂ. It should be noted, however, that in the majority of these routes, the HEI provider continues and will continue to play a vital role in the delivery of quality-assured and validated teacher training programmes. This trend can be placed within the theoretical framework of professional learning taking place informally in the workplace, which has evolved since the early 1990s e.g., (Eraut, 1994). Perhaps at least of equal importance to the shaping of policy, though, is the advocacy of ȁfree-market think tanksȂ making the case for schools being the ȁdefaultȂ setting for teacher training (e.g., Lawlor, 1990 to Freedman et al., 2008). The influence of the (often undisclosed) private-sector corporations funding these groups is a separate but important issue relating to policy-making, and UK democracy in general (Monbiot, 2011). Mentors – practicing teachers who are formally involved in teacher training in a school setting – have been identified as a significant factor in the outcome of any teacher training provision (Hobson et al., 2009). With teacher training, in the UK at least, becoming increasingly focused in schools, the role of the mentor and the nature of the mentoring they provide becomes a central element of the teacher training experience. The correlation between the quality of mentoring and the quality of the new teachers has been reiterated by the Office for Standards in Education ǻOfstedǼDZ ȁTraineeȂs competence depends very much on their experience in partnership schoolsdz even the best ǽHEIǾ providers could not compensate fully for weaker input from schoolsȂ (House of Commons, 2010b, p.243). 1 Email: david.cameron@iop.org 2 Based on international comparisons of pupil achievement, such as PISA and TIMMS.