イングランド教員養成におけるOfsted 査察の現代的位置づけ

‘School Direct’の質保証に注目して

抄録

This study clarifies the significance of Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills（ Ofsted） inspection in initial teacher training（ ITT） in England with a focus on the quality assurance of ‘School Direct’. It is mandatory for every ITT provider to be inspected by Ofsted; the influence of these inspections became emphasised. However, previous studies have not paid adequate attention to Ofsted inspection in ITT. ‘School Direct’ is the latest‘ school-led’ ITT programme provided by an accredited‘ lead school’ in partnership with an accredited ITT provider, i.e. higher education institutions（ HEIs） or school-centred initial teacher training（ SCITT）‘. School Direct’ is the name of an ITT programme, whereas the word‘ SCITT’ simultaneously includes both the name of an accredited ITT provider and the name of the ITT programme. The British government regards this newtype of programme as a key element of teacher education reform. In addition, the introduction of ‘School Direct’ brought a new dimension to quality assurance for ITT. Since accredited lead schools can provide a School Direct Programme at a small scale and can choose different ITT providers as they prefer, the ITT system became very complicated after the introduction of ‘School Direct’. The two main findings of this study are discussed below. First, it can be pointed out that the Department for Education and National College for Teaching and Leadership seems to consider that an‘ outstanding’ school can offer an‘ outstanding’ ITT programme, despite a lack of evidence. The grade of school inspection by Ofsted is diverted to the accreditation of the lead schools and the allocation of a number of places for trainees. Nevertheless, Ofsted inspection for schools focuses on the effectiveness of a school, not the quality of the ITT course. Second, there is no opportunity for the‘ School Direct’ programme itself to be directly inspected. In other words, the programme is inspected by Ofsted indirectly as a part of a larger, more general inspection of ITT providers. This means that the current implementation of Ofsted inspection for ITT providers does not match the reality. Under these circumstances, some research-oriented universities decided to withdraw ITT provider accreditation because of the difficulty of quality assurance. Currently, being an ITT provider can pose a risk for higher education institutions. In conclusion, the rapid expansion of School Direct without effective quality assurance, and the emphasis on Ofsted inspection, results in a change in the role of university in teacher education.