THE General Teaching Council for England (GTCE) is the professional body for teaching in England. The GTC was established by the Teaching and Higher Education Act 1998 which set two aims:

"to contribute to improving standards of teaching and the quality of learning, and to maintain and improve standards of professional conduct among teachers, in the interests of the public".

To implement these aims the GTCE wants is introducing a new Code of Conduct and Practice for Registered Teachers. 

Whilst the statements that form the basis of the Code of Conduct may appear quite reasonable, many teachers are very unhappy with its deeper implications. They want it withdrawn because they feel that:
 

• a) it intrudes into teachers’ personal lives,
• b) it is an affront to teachers’ basic human rights
• c) it unreasonably extends the GTCE’s responsibilities
• d) it is riddled with vague statements that are open to wide interpretation and abuse and therefore puts teachers at risk
• e) it was developed on the basis of a fundamentally flawed consultation process
• f) it represents a monumental waste of money.

Solidarity Trade Union supports this view. General Secretary Pat Harrington has dubbed the Code of Conductand Practice as the “new Enabling Act”. It is full of vague statements. These are open to wide interpretation and abuse. This can put teachers’ jobs and careers at risk. 

Many teachers are worried at the range of what constitutes ‘serious professional misconduct’.
They claim that the Code states that –

"Serious professional incompetence has been found where there is a serious and persistent pattern of failure in terms of:

Subject knowledge,
The ability to establish learning objectives and set appropriate activities,  
The ability to operate effective assessment procedures and to mark student work, 
The ability to manage pupil behaviour and thereby to ensurethe safety and welfare of pupils, 
The ability to follow policies and procedures and to work effectively with teacher colleagues,
The ability to adequately lead and manage a curriculum area”.
 

and by

"Bringing the profession into serious disrepute”.

This latter ‘crime’ seems to be of the ‘catch-all’ variety:

“Conduct in this category would include behaviour which was seriously detrimental to the standing of the profession but where no criminal offence was committed”.

Teachers have asked, who - in all honesty - hasn't been found wanting in at least some of these areas at some point in their career?  They are only human after all! 

Solidarity would also question what would constitute 'serious', 'persistent' or 'detrimental'?  How would the GTCE to make these determinations in a fair, consistent and equitable manner?

Comments

Shoreditch

0

 

 

I like the comparison you've used here. I've heard it said that the Enabling Act of 1933 gave Hitler the ability to do the thinking for all Germans. It appears that this Code of Conduct - the new Enabling Act - will give the GTCE the ability to the thinking for all teachers!

This lack of definition of what constitutes bringing teaching "into serious disrepute" is very worrying. It's like the phrase used on a lot of job descriptions: "any other duties as may be required". Anybody will tell you that this too is a 'catch-all' phrase. It can - and generally does - mean anything and everything!

I think it would also be very hard for the GTCE to 'police' this Code of Conduct. Different people have different perceptions and interests - their outlook on life can be very different.

Let's take an example here. Say a teacher is openly homosexual. A member of the GTCE who has a traditional Christian outlook would probably be very offended by this teachers sexuality. However, another member of the GTCE may be extremely liberal in their outlook - and the sexuality of the teacher wouldn't bother them one bit.

The Christian may think that the teachers sexuality brought teaching "into serious disrepute" - the extreme liberal would argue against this. Who is right?

Also, how would the GTCE view a teacher who was a member of a political party or who was politically active? Would all political parties be treated the same? Or would there be one set of rules for a certain political outlook and another set of rules for another?

Without a clear definition of what brings teaching "into serious disrepute" how on earth are teachers supposed to know what activities are acceptable - and which are unacceptable? You are right. The Code has to go!

Friday 02 October 2009, 17:33

Please login to post comments or replies.