ABSTRACT

Looking back it was inevitable that sooner or later a national curriculum for initial teacher training (note the term) would follow the introduction of the National Curriculum for schools. As this chapter, written in 1997, indicates, there are some similarities between the two curricula: the development of both by quangos; the same emphasis on the core subjects; the vain attempt to pin down curricular requirements in unambiguous language; the emphasis on content; the lack of any rationale; the use of working parties working in isolation from one another to draw up proposals; the lack of consultation with those in the sector; and the impossibly tight timescale for meaningful implementation. There was the same political ‘spin’ surrounding their introduction: not Kenneth Baker seeking an Education Reform Act to drastically raise standards and enhance his personal reputation but Gillian Shepherd seeking to be tough on teacher trainers (whilst softening her attitude to teachers) and being ‘bounced’ into action through the agency of a chief inspector making much of OFSTED’s report into the teaching of reading in three inner London LEAs. There were also some differences: the equivalent of an ITEMS-based curriculum for initial teacher training, no assessment arrangements (as least as yet) but rigid reinforcement through a very problematic OFSTED inspection regime.