イングランド教員養成政策における「学校ベース」の含意の変容

―「技能職」と「専門職」をめぐるダイナミクス―

抄録

  This study examines the changing implications of school-based initial teacher training (ITT) in England. School-based ITT has developed since the 1980s; both the Labour (1997–2010) and Coalition/Conservative governments (2010–2016) have continued to promote it. School-based alternative training programmes include School-Centred Initial Teacher Training (SCITT), School Direct and Teach First. Ministries under David Cameron were especially interested in teaching and insisted that teacher quality is crucial for educational reform. The expansion of school-based ITT appears to have been an ongoing policy since the 1980s; however, the contexts of school-based training have gradually changed. Although the differences in training are essential for understanding the specific contexts of the policies, previous research has not sufficiently examined this issue. In this paper, therefore, the difference between Conservative and Labour conceptions of school-based training will be considered and their dynamics will be illustrated by comparing policy and discourse.

  Both the Labour and Conservative governments have had different policies and discourses on master-level ITT and professionalisation. While the Labour Party tried to promote the Master in Teaching and Learning (MTL) programme, which is a school-based master-level ITT programme with full government support, the Conservatives promptly decided to stop funding MTL after they came to power in 2010. The concept of MTL is related to that of Donald Schön’s ‘reflective practitioner’. Instead, the Coalition government at the time introduced the School Direct programme and attempted to further expand it. Conservative members such as Michael Gove, the Secretary of State for Education at the time, argued that increasing the percentage of teachers with first degree grades (above second-class honours, upper division) would improve the quality of teaching. In addition, the Conservative government seemed to consider ITT unnecessary for developing professionalism, especially when one has sufficient subject knowledge. The establishment of free schools, in which teachers do not require a Qualified Teacher Status (QTS) and the legal amendment to deregulate teaching qualifications for academies are the best examples of this. In contrast, Labour emphasised the importance of both subject knowledge and pedagogy for the teaching profession and encouraged the master-level ITT, which is provided by partnerships between higher education institutions (HEIs) and schools.

  These differences changed the role of HEIs in ITT. The Conservative and Labour Parties shared the view that traditional lecture-based ITT provided by HEIs was insufficient, and a transition to school-based ITT was essential. However, the Labour Party appears to have addressed scepticism about the role of HEIs in ITT by changing their role. They intended to improve the quality of ITT in the same manner in which they provided funding for MTL, through collaborations between schools and HEIs. In contrast, the Conservatives addressed this scepticism by reducing the role of the HEIs. In other words, under this system, schools became the primary stakeholders in ITT, and the HEIs became dependent on the schools rather than becoming equal collaborators. The Conservative view, characteristically, is that higher education in itself is useful; for instance, they strongly value outstanding academic results in all disciplines and encourage the acquisition of higher-level masters or doctoral degrees. However, while they highly value subject knowledge, Conservatives disvalue professional education for QTS that includes pedagogy at HEIs and subject knowledge.

  These differences have caused conflicts regarding the ‘teaching’ component in teacher training. The Labour Party regards teaching as a profession, whereas the Conservative (View PDF for the rest of the abstract.)