As someone who works in initial teacher education (ITE) I am used to hearing people raging about the state of the training we provide. Such ITE-bashing usually focuses of the idea that university-based providers are the perpetual peddlers of Piaget, the fierce protectors of VAK…and don’t get me started on bloody “thinking hats”.

I’ve seen comments from a range of educational professionals, teachers and writers who are adamant that university lecture halls are filled to the brim with didactic, chalk-and-talk-style speeches delivered from ivory pedestals, which pretend to deliver easy answers to every question of education.

This riles me on several levels. It seems that the accusers, who base their opinions on the research that they know and validate, show little interest in actually understanding, or indeed contributing to, the improvement or even evaluation of initial teacher education.

Providing a bigger picture

In reality, initial teacher education - even when university-based - is a complex web of inputs and experiences. Strong university training is very much rooted in excellent partnerships with schools who work alongside them to provide the best preparation for the real world that we can. 

Do we look at DeBono? Piaget? Dewey? Of course we do. They are significant themes within the development of contemporary educational practice. We want our students to understand and reflect upon where current trends and practices come from and to learn from the mistakes of previous theories and models.

Surely, that is what research-based practice is all about? We want to equip future teachers with the bigger picture.  How are they expected to think about where something should go, if they have no concept of where it came from?

Valuing creativity and curiosity

I can’t help but feel that some of the loudest critics of ITE are those championing approaches that are overly formulaic and, in some cases, sterile.  As a professional in ITE, I want to support and nurture future teachers who value creativity and curiosity in learning - who see the act of learning itself as something quite magical, rather than just a bit of neuroscience.

Do I want them to know the psychology and thinking and theory behind it? Of course. But more than that, I want them to stand in front of their learners armed with robust strategies to help them achieve their absolute potential. I’m sorry, but a textbook that tells me how students should raise their hands is simply not good enough.

I’m not saying that pre-service teachers should be taught to be sages on the stage. I’m saying that I am firmly of the personal belief that injecting your personality into your teaching has a significant impact on teaching and learning. 

We are not monitoring walking chunks of data; we are teaching people. Whether we like it or not, we teach way beyond the paper curriculum, whether that be empathy, humour or ambition, we are helping to shape them as people. Teaching is a true vocation. There are some things we simply can’t learn from research, but we can base our decisions, approaches and reflections on it.

Stronger together

University-based teacher education is a recipe that even Mary Berry would struggle to perfect. And while we strive to nurture show-stopping students, we cannot and indeed, should not be giving them the answers.  All this would do is produce a robotic force of clone-like teachers who believe there is only one way - as would some of the “contemporary” theories that are being hailed as the next big thing by those so quick to chastise ITE. 

A strong pre-service teacher should be one who is learning to question, explore and put into practice the theory they encounter. Unfortunately, this can create a confusing tension between theory and the real world for students.

How does a university that has given students access to contemporary approaches deal with a student who encounters a school using VAK as their predominant theme in lesson planning? It is heartbreaking to watch research-laden, enthusiastic and thought-challenging students return from settings where they still preach that there is only one way: theirs. And if you don’t like it, then you’ll fail. 

No school is perfect and nor is any teacher education route. There are classrooms where practice is tweaked and challenged every day in order to raise standards, but there are also those who coast on a “ain’t broke, don’t fix it,” style of thinking. 

The same applies within ITE.  So, I suppose, what I’m asking is that the people don’t tar all ITE with the same brush. Instead, work with us. Talk to us. Surely we are stronger together than when we are taking sides against each other.

Sarah Wright is a senior lecturer at Edge Hill University. She tweets as @Sarah__wright1