Sets out an evidence-led approach to improving teacher development, from problem definition to verification of sustained effect.
In 2013, consideration of teacher development must take account of the international teaching quality agenda and the responsibilities it places before education systems. Any indicator used in relation to the corrective programme should distinguish description from causal explanation. The result should be accompanied by distributional information, uncertainty and limits on transfer to another setting. Analysis of the affected practice should state the unit of analysis, reference period, coverage, exclusions and treatment of missing information. Comparative findings should not conceal differences capable of changing their meaning. A policy approved at the centre is insufficient where local implementation has not been tested.
Public-interest context
The historical reference basis is the international teaching quality agenda. Analysis of teacher development should state the unit of analysis, reference period, coverage, exclusions and treatment of missing information. Reliability depends on preserving the material distinctions between the matters compared. Improvement work on the corrective programme should begin with a verified problem, defined baseline and measurable outcome. Completion should depend on evidence of effect rather than completion of planned activity.
In reviewing the corrective programme, education quality depends on sufficient numbers of competent staff who are prepared, supported and assigned work they can perform effectively. Governance of the improvement priority requires a clear allocation of authority, information and follow-through. Material matters should be referred to the body authorised to act or accept residual risk. Responsibility for the affected practice should be identifiable at each consequential decision point. Accountability for learner impact should remain explicit when delivery tasks are delegated.
Corrective action concerning the matter under review should address the identified cause, assign responsibility and set a review period. Residual risk should remain open until sustained improvement is demonstrated. A conclusion on the intervention should extend no further than the available evidence permits. Missing populations, inconsistent records and unresolved exceptions should be reported with the finding. A control framework may fail at its interfaces even where each component appears satisfactory in isolation. Responsibility for the corrective programme should be identifiable at each consequential decision point.
Review of the corrective programme should give particular attention to adverse cases, unequal effects and errors that learners may be unable to identify or remedy after the event. Wider implementation should follow evidence of benefit and acceptable unintended effects. The record for the improvement priority should identify the responsible function, decision authority and escalation route. Gaps between public oversight and provider control should not remain implicit.
Review of the affected practice should give particular attention to adverse cases, unequal effects and errors that learners may be unable to identify or remedy after the event. Review of the intervention should give particular attention to adverse cases, unequal effects and errors that learners may be unable to identify or remedy after the event. The record for the corrective programme should identify the responsible function, decision authority and escalation route.
Intervention in the matter under review should be proportionate to the identified condition and tested where risk permits. Data used for the improvement priority should be interpreted against stable definitions and an identifiable population. Reporting should identify a break in comparability before describing movement over time. Confidence is strengthened by corroboration, not by the volume of records drawn from the same underlying source.
Application in practice
A proportionate examination of teacher development should test routine operation together with adverse and exceptional cases across the relevant delivery settings. Risk assessment for the corrective programme should consider severity, reach, duration, recurrence and detectability, with escalation where learner impact may be material. Review of the affected practice should follow a stated and reproducible method, including the decision rule, sampling basis, treatment of exceptions and threshold for escalation. Corrective action concerning the intervention should address the identified cause, assign responsibility and set a review period.
Governance of the corrective programme requires a clear allocation of authority, information and follow-through.
For the matter under review, a short-term increase in activity may not represent sustained improvement. Changes in method, definition or series should remain separate from changes in the underlying result. The analysis of the matter under review proceeds on the basis that qualifications and participation in training are inputs. Intervention in the affected practice should be proportionate to the identified condition and tested where risk permits. Review of the improvement priority should include the experience of affected learners, particularly where aggregate reporting may conceal exclusion, delay or unequal treatment.
The evidential basis for the affected practice should identify source, period, coverage and material limitations. Corroboration is required where a single record cannot support the decision.
Protection should operate across the complete service, irrespective of how delivery is divided.
The measure of progress on the corrective programme is not the amount of policy or documentation produced.
The principal risks associated with the matter under review should be assessed as connected conditions.
A failed safeguard may conceal another weakness or prevent timely correction.