Arguably frameworks can restrict development by becoming a (limiting) tool for assessment or development in observation – a kind of tick box, check list that does not adapt well to individual needs and limits development to these defined areas. However this assumes a use of them that is very narrow. On the other side frameworks with competencies across many areas can help to support staff in self-assessment and guide teachers/ trainers to take control of their own development and assessment. It can also help to clarify and standardise what is being evaluated in assessment of performance.
The BC and EAQUALS frameworks help to meet two different needs, the BC one dealing with development that comes from different professional experience, opportunities and training and the EAQUALS one dealing with the detail of teaching / training competencies. I feel both these types of framework (whether these exact ones or other similar versions) can be useful in encouraging and guiding assessment and development of teaching and training. However that is my opinion – what do you think?
You can read these two frameworks (as pdfs) here:
These are intended as starting points from which to proceed. We would love to hear your comments, ideas and suggestions.
So to get the ball rolling:
– on what grounds do you feel frameworks are useful / usable?
– do you feel these two frameworks are workable/adaptable to the IH London context?
– would you find them personally helpful or not and why?
– do you feel there are any issues raised by the implementation of a framework to aid teacher development?
– and please add any more questions you feel are pertinent!