Improving our Schools: Page 6

Consultation on the General Teaching Council for Scotland

Extension of the GTC's remit into teacher incompetence

35. At present, the GTC's disciplinary functions relate to teachers' misconduct (which may or may not involve criminal convictions) and do not include incompetence. In the White Paper "Targeting Excellence", issued in January 1999, the previous administration indicated that there was a need to develop a better system for dealing with the small number of Scottish teachers who fall short of the necessary standard. With a view to this, HM Inspectorate has been carrying out a wide-ranging study of the application of existing disciplinary procedures for the teaching profession. Meetings and questionnaire responses from this study generally support the proposal which was also in the White Paper that the GTC should have a role in incompetence cases, where these are referred to it by an education authority after a decision to dismiss has been taken.

36. In Deloitte and Touche's survey of registered teachers, a majority of respondents were in favour of extending the role of the GTC to include some oversight of teacher incompetence and there was significant support for the de-registration of teachers dismissed by employers on incompetence grounds. The written submissions were divided on the matter and employer representatives were concerned that a role for the GTC might undermine their responsibilities.

37. The report notes that the new GTC for England will have the power to take action in cases of serious professional incompetence where a person has consistently proved unable to meet the minimum standards expected of a professional teacher.

38. The consultants take the view that a direct role for the GTC in dismissal on incompetence grounds would not be appropriate: a strongly employee-influenced body should not exercise the judgements which are properly discharged by publicly accountable employers, and neither would the GTC have the close knowledge of the circumstances of the school required to make decisions in complex and disputed dismissal cases. They therefore recommend that the GTC should not have powers of deregistration on incompetence grounds before, or unless, a teacher's employer has taken a decision to dismiss on such grounds.

39. The report's recommendations in this area are as follows:

for any teacher dismissed on incompetence grounds, or who resigns after notice of a hearing which could lead to such dismissal, the GTC should record that information within the register, in a form accessible to all Scottish education authorities; and
the GTC should consider, in each case of dismissal by an authority on incompetence grounds, whether the degree of incompetence proved is sufficient to warrant the removal of registration from that individual and, if so, to proceed to de-registration (or some other intermediate disposal) in the public interest.

Ministers accept the case for an extension of the GTC's role into this area and consider that the recommendations above, when implemented, will provide an appropriate separation of responsibilities between the GTC and teachers' employers. They plan to bring forward legislation which would:

enable the GTC to record on the register that a teacher has been dismissed on incompetence grounds or has resigned after notice of a hearing which could lead to such dismissal;
enable the GTC to consider, where a teacher has been dismissed by an authority on incompetence grounds, whether the teacher should be deregistered (or some other intermediate sanction should be applied). The GTC should also be able to consider whether to take action in cases where it has been notified that a registered teacher has resigned in circumstances where their employers would have dismissed them, or considered dismissing them, on these grounds had they not resigned. This would be in line with procedures relating to misconduct cases.

Questions: do you agree that the GTC's powers should be extended into the area of teachers' incompetence, as described above? Should the sanctions be the same as those in misconduct cases (see paragraph 29)?

40. The report suggests that, to ensure that continuing registration by the GTC during any appeal against dismissal was not misconstrued, the Department should issue advice on the respective roles of the employing authorities and the GTC in competence matters. The guidance should make clear that the GTC works to a different standard of proof from employers and that, accordingly, continued registration does not imply competence and should not be used as evidence of such at a tribunal.

Ministers agree that this is a very important point, but consider that essentially it will be for the GTC and teachers' employers to work together to develop a clear statement of their respective roles and the criteria to be used in making their respective judgements. It will be important that the legislation which extends the GTC's powers into this area makes clear that the Council will be concerned with evidence of general incompetence as a teacher, such as to warrant removal of, or attaching sanctions to, registration, rather than inadequate performance in a specific post.

Deregistration on ill-health grounds

41. From its work to benchmark the GTC with other organisations, Deloitte and Touche noted that the GTC is unusual in not having powers to de-register on ill-health grounds. The report suggests that the Scottish Executive and the GTC should explore this aspect. In England, ill-health can be a ground for barring from employment in education by the Secretary of State.

In the first instance, decisions about continuing employment, where ill-health is an issue, are for employers and teachers themselves and action beyond this will not normally be necessary. However, Ministers consider that there could well be cases, although probably very few in number, where it would be entirely appropriate for the regulatory body for the teaching profession in Scotland to consider whether a teacher's medical condition is such that the teacher should not remain on the register. Intermediate sanctions (eg conditions attached to registration) would not seem appropriate in such cases.

Questions: do you consider that the GTC should have a power to de-register teachers on ill-health grounds? In what circumstances should such de-registration be considered? Who should be able to make referrals to the GTC for consideration of de-registration on ill-health grounds?

Extension of the GTC's remit into teachers' continuing professional development

42. While there has not yet been any major change in the role of the GTC, there have been a number of developments which acknowledge that it has aspirations to be involved in CPD:

the GTC is developing, with the SEED, standards for the end of teachers' probationary period;
the GTC has been involved in drawing up the SEED's new staff development and review guidelines;
the GTC was represented on the steering group for the Scottish Qualification for Headship and is represented on the committee which will oversee the awarding process.

43. Responses to the Department's 1998 consultation paper on a framework for professional development for teachers generally supported a role for the GTC but lacked clarity and agreement on what that role should be. The White Paper suggested a possible role for the GTC in CPD with possible options including:

a role in advising Scottish Ministers on a framework of standards and how they should be implemented and monitored;
provision of guidance to education authorities and schools and dissemination of best practice;
accreditation of in-service training courses and awarding work-based qualifications; and
keeping a central record of teachers' CPD as part of registration data.

44. Around two-thirds of respondents to Deloitte and Touche's request for written submissions were in favour of a role for the GTC in CPD. The report concludes that there is sufficient consensus in favour of GTC involvement in CPD to merit extension of the GTC's role into this area and that the GTC could contribute usefully to the training and development of the profession. On the other hand, it takes the view that a major change whereby the GTC would assume lead responsibility for CPD issues and where satisfactory CPD would be linked to continuing registration, would be a step too far at this time. It is suggested that the correct balance of responsibilities is that the GTC should give advice to lead bodies (SEED and the education authorities) on CPD, undertake recording of annual returns of CPD by teachers, and make this information available through the register. The specific functions recommended are:

an important (but not exclusive) role in advising teachers' employers and SEED on its views on a framework of competences spanning all levels of the teaching profession;
commissioning research on the development needs of teachers in relation to an agreed framework of competence, and publishing the results;
an important (but not exclusive) role in advising SEED and authorities on schemes for staff development and review and CPD, benchmarked on agreed competences, which will include annual targets in terms of time devoted to CPD and a mechanism for evaluating the time credits allowed for CPD activities of various types;
maintaining CPD records on the register in a form which is available to existing and potential employers;
advising Scottish Ministers and the education authorities on the take-up of CPD, using anonymised data.

45. It is also suggested that the GTC should actively encourage CPD, and work with SEED and the education authorities towards the establishment of a requirement that satisfactory returns of CPD activity are needed in order for a teacher to maintain his or her full registration. It is recommended that a further review of the potential costs and benefits of such an "active register" should be carried out in 5 years' time, when this first tranche of tasks in CPD have been assimilated into the GTC's work. The consultants have not recommended that the GTC should have a role in the accreditation of staff development courses at this stage - mainly on the grounds that this would be very labour intensive - but take the view that this should also be a matter for further consideration after at least 5 years' experience of satisfactorily discharging the new responsibilities described above.

Scottish Ministers will be considering as a priority the improvement of CPD for teachers in Scotland, as this is vital to raising teachers' professionalism and their capacity to contribute to raising educational standards. They will be putting work in hand to develop the framework of standards, with the initial focus on a generic standard for the expert teacher. They consider that the GTC has an important role to play in advising on the development of the framework and in gathering and disseminating information about best practice, teachers' development needs and uptake of CPD.

Scottish Ministers accept the report's recommendations and consider that they strike the right balance between the responsibilities of teachers' employers and of the GTC and suggest an appropriate role in CPD for the professional body for the teaching profession in Scotland. They agree that it is too soon to consider the more direct involvement of accreditation of staff development courses and an "active register" dependent on undertaking satisfactory CPD. But Ministers also agree that these aspects should be reconsidered once the new tasks are bedded in to the GTC's work.

It is open to question whether any of the functions recommended above require a change in legislation. Under the 1965 Act, the GTC is already empowered to consider and advise Ministers on matters relating to teachers' "education, training and fitness to teach". However, Ministers consider that it would be advisable to amend the legislation to include an explicit reference to teachers' career development to put it beyond doubt that the GTC has advisory functions relating to continuing professional development and staff development and review and that it can therefore also gather and disseminate information relating to these. As noted in the following section, it is also proposed to widen the GTC's advisory powers beyond Scottish Ministers and teacher education institutions. Ministers also propose to extend the existing provision in the 1965 Act which enables them to confer functions on the Council through regulations, to ensure that this would be able to be used to allow the Council to take on other CPD tasks in the future, if this was deemed desirable.

Questions: do you agree that the role for the GTC in CPD recommended in the report is appropriate and that the legislation should be amended as proposed? Do you agree that the issues of an active register and accreditation of staff development courses should be deferred for reconsideration in 5 years' time? If you consider that earlier implementation of either or both of these aspects would be feasible and desirable, please describe how you would see arrangements working.

Probation

46. Individuals new to the teaching profession are provisionally registered with the GTC for a two year period. During this probationary period, teachers must demonstrate their fitness to teach in order to become fully registered. The GTC has a role in overseeing the probationary period but the report concludes that this has been primarily reactive, through ensuring compliance with the formal requirements of probation in terms of the number of teaching days and processing reports. However, as the report also notes, the GTC itself is changing that approach and has recently appointed a professional officer to improve the support available to probationer teachers.

Scottish Ministers see the probationary period as vital in terms of the development of the professional teacher and know that there are concerns about the current effectiveness of probation, particularly when fragmented periods of supply work are involved. They are therefore jointly funding with the GTC a project to develop a standard for full registration at the end of probation and proposals for a coherent induction programme for all newly qualified teachers.

Widening of the GTC's advisory role beyond Scottish Ministers

47. The GTC for Scotland has explicit powers to provide advice only to Scottish Ministers and teacher education institutions, although it does offer advice informally to bodies such as education authorities. The report suggests that the GTC's remit to provide advice might be formally extended.

Given the intended widening of the GTC's powers into the areas of incompetence and CPD, Scottish Ministers propose to give the GTC explicit powers to provide advice on matters falling within its remit to relevant persons or bodies and education authorities in particular.

Question: do you agree that this change should be made?

New power requiring the GTC to act in the public interest

48. The report notes that, unlike many other professional organisations - and teaching councils in other countries - the GTC has no remit to consider the public interest, including the public's general interest in the development of professional standards, or the quality of professional practice. The report suggests that a specific requirement on the GTC to act in the general, public interest would help to reassure the educational community and the public that the GTC was balancing its responsibilities to the wider public with those towards particular interests.

Ministers accept this recommendation and propose to include provision in legislation that the GTC should have regard to the public interest in carrying out its functions.

Question: do you agree that this change should be made?

New power to borrow money

49. The report notes that the Teaching Council (Scotland) Act 1965 does not give the GTC the power to borrow money. It suggests that such a power, used with circumspection, could be of assistance to the GTC in operating effectively.

Ministers accept this recommendation and propose to include in legislation a power to enable the GTC to borrow money with the consent of Scottish Ministers.

Question: do you agree that this change should be made?