Is it possible to reconcile
relationships and quality assurance in
the Assessment Only Route?
Isabelle Schäfer
Catriona Robinson
Friday 16th May 2014
Background
The AOR at the University of Worcester
AO criteria supporting guidance
Management and quality assurance criteria
Relationships
High clarity
High rapport
Open dialogue
Shared expectations
Openness to mutual
benefit
Sense of urgency
Task focused
Debate rather than
dialogue
Friendship
Lack of direction
Opportunistic in
dealing with issues
Short term
perspective but …
May be long term
relationship
“going though the
motions”
Low rapport
Low clarity
Clutterbuck and Ragins: p.18, cited in (Megginson and Clutterbuck, 2005)
Assessment Only Route Process
Application
Interview stage 1:
Qualifications are checked, written task,
portfolio of evidence, second school
experience, interview
Interview stage 2:
School visit: one joint lesson observation (
school mentor and two university tutors)
and Quality assurance visit.
Feedback from Interview stage 2:
Report written by university tutor.
Response to the report written by the
school mentor and action plan devised by
school mentor and AOT.
12 week assessment
What we explore
Application: Degree (at least a 2.ii) subject
knowledge, school teaching experience and
setting, skills tests
Interview stage 1:All the standards are met.
Depth and breadth of subject knowledge.
Two school experiences, evidence of
planning, teaching and assessing across two
key stages. Tutor
support/advice/conditions.
Interview stage 2: Are all the standards met
in the observed lesson? Feedback given by
school mentor. Will the school mentor be
able to support the AOT? Tutor
support/advice/conditions.
Feedback from Interview stage 2: Report
written by university tutor: Tutor
support/advice/conditions. Response to the
report written by the school mentor and
action plan devised by school mentor and
AOT. Mentor support.
Conditions are met. The 12 week
assessment period starts. Mentor support
Guidance offered before the start of the 12
week assessment period: AOTs’ perspective
We asked AOTs whether university tutors advised them to focus on
specific aspects of the teachers’ standards.
Most common recommendations:
Standard 3
Standard 6
Guidance offered to AOTs before the start of
the 12 week assessment period
 Guidance given by university tutors
 Guidance given by school mentors.
Guidance offered to AOTs during the 12
week assessment period
 All the AOTs asked for guidance from university tutors.
 5 AOTs indicate that they were offered guidance by University tutors
in specific areas.
 All the AOTs ( apart from 1) asked for guidance from their mentors
and all were offered guidance from their mentors.
 Mentors agree that AOTs asked for some guidance from them and
that they were given guidance.
Communication with AOTs during the
assessment period
Positive comments from AOTs: queries were answered quickly
There were times when I felt my uni tutor was reluctant in answering
my questions because she considered her role to be one of Judge
rather than Counsel, and took a very literal view of the “Assessment
Only” title.
Mentoring / coaching
 Both AOTs and university tutors tend to agree that university tutors did not often
“broker access to a range of opportunities to address the goals of the AOT” before
or during the assessment period.
However, they did “provide information and feedback that enabled learning from
mistakes and success “
 About half of the AOTs and university tutors agreed that they did
“relate sensitively to” AOTs “and that they did “work through agreed processes to build
trust and confidence”.
 According to AOTs, few tutors did “model expertise in practice or through
conversation” or did “use open questions to raise awareness, explore beliefs,
develop plans, understand consequences and explore and commit to solutions”
whereas, according to AOTs, most mentors did this.
Guidance for mentors during the 12 week
assessment period
Mentors’ views
 “Interim meeting” needed
 “Two weekly phone calls just to touch base so that the school and
the AOT are clear of the university’s expectations and that the
university are aware of the progress the AOT is making.”
 “Regular liaison”
A tutor’s view about their role
In my case I assumed from the guidance that it was as assessor and
quality assurance rather than trainer and so only provided the
guidance suggested in the handbooks so that the relationship would
remain on a “professional” footing.
Communication with mentors: Tutors’
responses
“One might argue that enhanced communication and support of
the mentor would enable outcomes for the AOT to be
improved.”
“A two-way communication at regular points over the period from
point of the second interview, acceptance on the course and
final assessment would help build trust and the establishing of
quality relationships and partnerships which I believe is key
however this is in tension with the concept of AOR.”
Improving our QA processes
“Comprehensive arrangements exist to ensure full compliance of
candidates following the Assessment Only route. Quality assurance
procedures are used rigorously to ensure the Teachers’ Standards
are fully met by each candidate. Successful candidates speak very
highly about the support they receive from leaders of the
programme. “
(Ofsted 2014)
Conclusion
AOM
AOT
Provider
References
 CUREE (2005) National Framework for mentoring and
Coaching [Online]. Available from:
http://www.curee.co.uk/files/publication/1219925968/Nationalframework-for-mentoring-and-coaching.pdf. [Accessed: 27th
August 2013]
 Megginson, D. and Clutterbuck, D. (2005) Techniques for
Coaching and Mentoring. London, Elsevier ButterworthHeinemann.