How did teachers respond to the
introduction of compulsory
in-service training under the
Teachers' Pay and Conditions Act
1987? A survey looks at some of the
ways in which the days allocated for
such training have been used. It
suggests that three different models of
training days emerged. The central
difference between these models is the
degree of teacher ownershiP involved
in each. The author is at
Loughborough University.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Busher, H. (1989) 'Evaluating Short Course INSET', Paper given by BERA/Sunderland Polytechnic Research Seminar Researching In-serviceEducation, September.
2.
Chambers, P. (1982) Making INSET Work: Myth or Reality, CUED-IN, Bradford College, Bradford.
3.
Des (1988) School Teachers Pay and Conditions Document, HMSO.
4.
Elizabeth II c. 61 (1986) Education No. 2 Act.
5.
Elizabeth II c. 1 (1987) Teachers' Pay and Conditions Act.
6.
Elizabeth I c. 40 (1988) Education Reform Act.
7.
Fordyce, J. and Weil, R. (1979) Managing with People, Addison Wesley.
8.
Harland, J. (1986) 'The New INSET: A Transformation Scene', Journal of Educational Policy, 2, 3, 235-44.
9.
Hewton, E. (1988) School Focussed Staff Developinetit, Falmer Press.
10.
Lomax, P. (1989) Managing Change, Multilingual Press.
11.
Lyons, G. (1976) Heads' Tasks, NFER/Nelson .
12.
Rudduck, J. (1987) 'Partnership Supervision as a Basis for the Professional Development of New and Experienced Teachers' in Wideen, M. and Andrews, I. (1987).
13.
Simmons, K. (1989) 'Action Research as an Agent of Change', Paper given at BERA/Kingston Polytechnic Research Seminar Action Research and the Management of Change in Schools, July.
14.
Wideen, M. and Andrews, I. (1987) Staff Development for School Inprovement, Falmer Press.
15.
Wilkinson and Cave (1988) Teaching and Managing: Inseparable Activities, Croom Helm.
