Putting the onus on headteachers to decide whether to refer teachers for misconduct threatens to create widespread inconsistencies, says Gail Mortimer of the GTCE. She outlines the implications and consequences of the proposals to change how the profession is regulated.

A disciplined view

Since the abolition of the General Teaching Council for England (GTCE) was announced in June 2010 we have all had much to think about regarding the future regulation of the teaching profession.

Today, one thing we know for certain is that regulation will no longer be managed by an independent regulatory body.

Instead, it will become the direct responsibility of the Secretary of State for Education, who, of course, is also in charge of policy-making. The mo move begs the question: is it right that both functions should be under the same stewardship?

Meanwhile, as the Education Bill 2011 continues its journey towards the statute book, further details have emerged about the proposed new arrangements that will replace the existing system. The Education Bill makes provision to abolish the GTCE and to give responsibility to the Secretary of State to operate an alternative regulation system.

Day to day administration will sit with the new Teaching Agency. The DfE published a consultation document at the end of July with detailed proposals for the new arrangements, which will have serious implications for secondary school and college leaders.

Competence and conduct

Under existing arrangements, employers must refer cases of teacher misconduct leading to dismissal or resignation to the GTCE. The GTCE then investigates whether there is a wider case to answer and what, if any, sanction should be imposed. The proposed changes alter this clear-cut duty of referral, replacing it with an obligation for headteachers to consider referral.

In our view, this element of choice places school leaders in an unenviable position. Whatever their final decision, many could find themselves caught between a rock and a hard place with their impartiality open to doubt, regardless of the action they take. In addition, without a national yardstick to inform judgements, how can consistency be ensured?

Specifically on teachers' competence, we are facing the prospect of there being no national regulation that could remove the teacher from the profession or, for example, require re-training. Instead, there are proposals that teachers' performance will be managed solely at local level with individual headteachers dealing with it as an issue of individual employment rather than overall professional capability.

This prompts a key question for school leaders: without national regulation, where does the responsibility lie for ensuring that those who cannot meet the profession's standards are no longer able to teach in any school?

In June, the GTCE published the findings of a research project looking at evidence gathered from our casework over the last decade. This draws the conclusion that: "Incompetence and misconduct were very hard to distinguish: there was often a chain or web of events involving a combination of personal, professional, health and other issues that led up to the referral."

Given this evidence, perhaps a more integrated approach that takes into account a rounded view of a teacher's conduct, competence, health and suitability, may be a better option? Indeed this ‘fitness to practice' model is widely accepted by many other professions – including nursing, medicine and the law – as the best-practice approach to professional regulation.

Sole sanction

Decisions about whether or not to refer conduct cases for national regulation will not be made any easier by the proposed approach to sanctions. This anticipates a single penalty – that of prohibition or striking off – rather than the more sophisticated approach currently employed by GTCE hearing panels, which have at their disposal a range of proportionate and remedial sanctions.

Currently the GTCE has a number of sanctions at its disposal. These begin with a reprimand, kept on the teacher's record for a fixed period of two years, then a conditional registration order, whereby a teacher stays on database of registered teachers but must adhere to certain conditions. The more serious sanctions are suspension, which prevents an individual from teaching for up to two years, and a prohibition order, barring a teacher indefinitely.

The sole sanction approach – described by one MP as a "blunt instrument" – carries with it substantial risks. Under the current system, some teachers may be offered constructive support or their scope of practice is limited, ensuring that the considerable investment made in their training is not lost without good reason. Rather than removing a teacher from the classroom forever, in certain circumstances some are helped to stay or return, making a positive contribution to pupils' achievement.

But in the future, the most serious conduct issues will either result in no action at all at profession-wide level or complete barring. Such a crude approach risks deterring employers from making appropriate referrals, as they must judge whether taking a step that could end a teacher's career is both necessary and justified.

Registration

The database of registered teachers has become one of the most visible aspects of the GTCE's work, assuring the public that teachers are both properly qualified and of good standing.

Recent surveys have shown overwhelming public support for the registration of teachers. Meanwhile, on a purely practical note, last year alone employers used the GTC's online service to carry out more than 600,000 checks on prospective employees.

Apart from its role in registration, the database – made up of around 2.5 million records – provides valuable information about the past and present teaching population that cannot be found elsewhere. The data allows trends in recruitment and retention to be tracked over time and provides the only fully validated ethnicity and disability data on the profession at a national level.

The loss of this ready access to comprehensive and accurate information about the profession was among our major concerns following the announcement of the GTCE's abolition.

We know that our anxiety was shared by ASCL, which wrote a joint letter with the National Association of Head Teachers (NAHT) to the education secretary outlining the issues. The letter stressed: "The absence of such a tool would create an unnecessary burden for schools... and would seriously undermine system-wide planning."

In July, Lord Hill announced that a database of qualified teachers would be held by the Teaching Agency, the new executive agency, following the GTCE's abolition. It will list "teachers who have attained qualified teacher status and who have passed their induction period."

While this is a welcome step in the right direction, unfortunately it seems that there are no plans to maintain the employment and contact details for teachers. As such, the government's proposed database can only be a somewhat poorer version of the current Register of Teachers.

Sharing your concerns

Clearly the new legislation contains much to concern all who value the contribution that good teaching makes to the life chances of our children and young people.

Since abolition was announced, we have been working closely with the Department for Education to ensure, as far as possible, that the new structure will work fairly and that it will be effective.

The department is currently consulting on its proposed changes to the teacher disciplinary and induction regulations. I'm sure that both the GTCE and ASCL share a wish to contribute and we keenly await the outcome of deliberations.

• Gail Mortimer is chair of the General Teaching Council for England (GTCE).
  

Registration and referral

The government launched its consultation Proposed Changes to the Teacher Disciplinary and Induction Regulations Following the Abolition of the General Teaching Council for England at www.education.gov.uk/consultations on 20 July. The deadline for responses is 12 October. ASCL will be submitting evidence and we welcome views from members to help inform our response. Please email your comments to consultations@ascl.org.uk by the end of September, or you may like to submit your own response directly to the DfE. If you do so please share a copy with ASCL via the email above.

Designed with IMPACT

© 2024 Association of School and College Leaders | Valid XHTML | Contact us