A quarter of a century ago I had a job at the then Teacher Training Agency. My post was titled as ‘the Chief Professional Adviser on Teacher Supply’. The job title was an oxymoron since I wasn’t a chief and I had no professional qualification for the job. However, I did have experience in researching teacher supply and I have continued to do so after my departure from the TTA, after only one year, and up to the present day.

The re-accreditation of teacher education providers, started after the Market Review, was set fair to become a case-study in how not to manage change even before today’s Schoolsweek story about the need to manage ‘sufficiency’ ITT review: DfE forms ‘sufficiency’ group amid places fears (schoolsweek.co.uk) Interestingly, today, the DfE also published the terms of reference of the civil servant responsible for ITT reform as the Senior Responsible Officer. DfE major projects: appointment letters for Senior Responsible Owners – GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

Schoolsweek in their story concentrate on the fact that the government has launched a teacher training “sufficiency steering group” amid fears its ITT market review will slash provider numbers by a third and leave England with a shortage of places.

As I remarked in my previous blog post about the re-accreditation process, the battle between quality and sufficiency of places across the country has always been settled in favour of quality providers with scant regard to geography. End ITT deserts | John Howson (wordpress.com) I argued that was a mistake.

However, the maintaining the current number of courses at a time when pupil numbers are falling in the primary sector, and will stop increasing soon in the secondary sector may not be sensible, and does need a re-think. If that re-think provides a better geographical balance, all well and good. However, does it also need to provide for a range of different type of provider; from higher education to school-based routes, as well as salaried trainees to courses funded through the student loan route?

These ground rules really should have been settled before the re-accreditation process commenced. Worrying about sufficiency half-way through could make a mockery of the whole process.

There is also the issue of how to handle shortfalls in recruitment, should they arise. Will providers be paid to stay in business even if they fail to recruit sufficient trainees to cover their costs?

An open discussion at the time off the Market Review about how and where we train teachers and how many we need to train would have prevented the current atmosphere of suspicion surrounding the whole process of re-accreditation.

With teaching now having become a global profession, we cannot afford to make a mess of the management of the process of preparing the next generation of teachers. However, it has to be recalled that the present policy of quality taking precedence over location has led to an uneven distribution of courses across the country. Schools, and even universities, don’t have to train teachers, and it is well worth remembering that fact.

I hope the next Secretary of State will want to work with the sector on ensuring high quality teacher preparation provision spread across the country to meet the needs of schools. However, I am not holding my breath.