Differentiating between trainees who are meeting the Standards

The pass/fail judgement is a particularly grave element of the professional responsibility of those involved in ITT, but it is not the only area of assessment where complex and difficult judgements and decisions have to be made. If it is a year when the course is subject to full Ofsted/HMI Inspection, we are obliged to determine whether each of our trainees is ‘very good with several outstanding features', ‘good with no significant weaknesses, ‘adequate', or below the level at which they can be granted QTS, so that our judgements can be calibrated against those inspecting the course. These decisions have important consequences for the outcomes of the inspection. Those who have experience of recent Ofsted/HMI inspection will be aware of the tension between being positive (or optimistic?) about the standard of trainees' performance in the final stages of their teaching placement, therefore opening up the possibility of the highest possible grading for the quality of trainees' performance in these cells of the inspection judgement, and the risk of pushing this optimism too far, undermining the inspectors' confidence in the soundness of judgements made on trainees. This process is a test of integrity as well as judgement.

But inspection is not the only reason for differentiating in our assessment of trainee competence. We need to be able to provide an accurate assessment of trainees' comparative strengths and weaknesses across the various strands of the Standards when we write confidential references for first posts. As well as informing schools about the trainees' priorities for continuing professional development, we have to calibrate these references accurately against other trainees in our cohort so that we are being ‘fair' about their overall quality when decisions are made at interview. This is particularly important in history, where competition for posts is fierce compared to almost all other curriculum subjects. There will be many occasions where several trainees apply for the same post. We are not doing any favours to trainees whose performance on the course has been outstanding if our confidential references do not delineate between those who have been outstanding and those who have just been ‘good', or ‘sound'. Whilst we might legitimately wish to present trainees' performance as positively as is consistent with the evidence which has been accumulated about their performance on the course, we must try to ensure that our summative judgements are a fair and accurate reflection of how well they have performed against the Standards. Some may be very effective and accomplished teachers even within their NQT year, others may take longer to become excellent history teachers.

Activity 5.4.1: What are the issues to consider when writing references?