Induction rites and wrongs: the educational vandalism of new teachers' professional development

The central theme of this paper is that teachers’ professional development in England is not being taken as seriously as it needs to be. With reference to the induction of newly-qualified teachers and the early professional development pilot schemes, it draws on data from several related pieces of research, to argue that cases of ‘educational vandalism’ exist. These are identified at three levels – the school, the individual and the current funding policy of the government. It is argued that the short term gain of money and time saved by non existent, inadequate or inappropriate continuing professional development has a number of significant effects; teachers work below their potential, get stale, leave the profession - all of which result in generations of children not learning as well as they might have been. ‘Educational vandalism’ needs to be eliminated; investing in people’s development costs money but the alternative is more expensive

School Based Induction Tutors: a challenging role

Since September 1999, all Newly Qualified Teachers (NQTs) in England who wish to teach in the maintained sector have to complete an induction period. In the light of the introduction of this statutory policy, this paper critically examines the key role of the school based induction tutor in managing the process. It draws upon an analysis of the government’s induction circulars (DfEE/S 1999;2000;2001) and uses empirical data from a large, national DfES-funded project which evaluated the implementation of the policy. We argue that, for the majority of schools the work of the induction tutor within the whole school context, including management by the headteacher, is the major factor in the success of the policy. Further, we argue that there remain some tensions in the policy between the professional development and the assessment agenda

The impact of NQT induction programmes on the enhancement of teacher expertise, professional development, job satisfaction or retention rates: a systematic review of research literature on induction

This report is the result of a preliminary study undertaken by the Induction Review Group between January and March 2003 which essentially involved a mapping exercise to identify the range and type of research studies addressing the research question, ‘How does current research characterise the impact of induction programmes on new teachers in relation to enhancing teaching expertise, professional development, job satisfaction and retention rates?’ Results of the initial in-depth review are reported in Chapter 4. The Review Group plans further refinements of the mapping exercise and other in-depth reviews drawing on it

Choosing the Partnership: English Business Organization Law During the Industrial Revolution

For most of the period associated with the Industrial Revolution in Britain, English law restricted access to incorporation and the Bubble Act explicitly outlawed the formation of unincorporated joint stock companies with transferable shares. Furthermore, firms in the manufacturing industries most closely associated with the Industrial Revolution were overwhelmingly partnerships. These two facts have led some scholars to posit that the antiquated business organization law was a constraint on the structural transformation and growth that characterized the British economy during the period. Importantly, however, the vast majority of manufacturing firms in the modern sector were partnerships. An easy explanation for the predominance of partnerships is that the legal restrictions on access to the joint stock form gave entrepreneurs no other choice of legal vehicle for their collective enterprises. It is not a large leap to then argue that these restrictions inhibited the development of the English economy. Those who make this argument implicitly envision a counterfactual in which legal restrictions on the joint stock form were absent, firms in the modern sector used the joint stock form to access external sources of funds to finance investment, and consequently capital accumulation and output accelerated more rapidly in the modern sector. The goal of this Essay is to challenge this view and to point towards other possible explanations for industrial entrepreneurs’ use of the partnership form. In short, the restrictions on access to the joint stock form lacked bite. While firms did not have general access to incorporation until 1844, creative businessmen and lawyers crafted an alternative legal form—the unincorporated joint stock company—that served as a functional replacement for the business corporation. Restrictions on unincorporated joint stock companies were unenforced and largely ignored. Thus, the use of the partnership by entrepreneurs in the modern sector must be understood as a choice; the law did not dictate their firms’ legal form. This Article proposes a resolution of this puzzle based on the pecking order theory of corporate finance. For the vast majority of firms in the modern sector it was optimal to use only debt, not equity, for any external financing. Industrial entrepreneurs chose the partnership form because it minimized the costs of debt financing. The unlimited liability of partners gave firm creditors additional collateral and provided better incentives against opportunism by partners, thereby lowering the cost of credit to the firm. Furthermore, the tighter nexus between control and residual financial claims in the partnership form resulted in better incentives for the owner-managers to exert effort and make efficient decisions in running the firm. Part II begins with a short overview of the early history of the joint stock form in England and then turns to the legal framework for business organization during the Industrial Revolution and explain that the supposed restrictions on organizing as a joint stock company were not binding. Part IV develops an explanation based on the pecking order theory of corporate finance for why industrial entrepreneurs nonetheless organized their businesses as partnerships