The DfE has finally published the ITT targets for courses starting this autumn. Postgraduate initial teacher training targets: 2023 to 2024 – GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)  In addition, they have also supplied details of the Teacher Supply Model that allows the workings behind the calculation of the targets to be discussed. This is a welcome return to open government after a few years of limited information on the thinking behind the numbers.

Two points arise from the announcement. Firstly, it is incredibly late in the recruitment round. For most subjects that fact won’t matter because the targets aren’t going to be met. But what will happen in Classics and physical education where there are currently more offers than places in the target? Will potential trainees have their offers withdrawn? Will providers recruit over target, and will there be any consequences for doing so? Will the DfE look at overall recruitment by a provider rather than on a subject-by-subject basis?

The DfE’s decision may well influence how providers approach the business of making offers in future rounds. Historically, these targets were issued in the autumn so that providers knew their allocations before they had started to make many offers. Such an approach is much more sensible than announcing the target after Easter, more than half-way through the recruitment cycle. In the past, there were also indicative targets for future years. This helped providers manage their workforce planning.

The more alarming feature of these targets is the addition of the under-recruitment from earlier rounds. I have addressed this issue before. Schools do not start each new year sending children home because they couldn’t recruit enough teachers. They botch, by recruiting those teachers that they can, and adjusting the timetable and the underlying curriculum to fit the staff they have recruited. There are as a result not the vacancies there were in the training cycle.

Suppose there was an unexpected economic slowdown because of US bank failures and teaching suddenly recruited to these new targets? Would these additional trainees find jobs in 2024. The answer is we don’t know because the demands on school funding, especially for staff costs are not yet known, but it would seem unlikely. So, if a school has employed a biologist to teach physics and were offered a physics teacher for 2024 would they sack the biology teacher? Or let the physics teacher wait for an opening to arise?

Adding unfilled places to future targets has been tried in the past, and didn’t work. I am surprised to see it being used again this year.

As a result of the increase in targets in many secondary subjects – and it isn’t clear whether these targets include Teach First numbers or not – the April offer numbers represent only a small fraction of the DfE’s target number in many subjects, as the data in the table reveals.

Subject	Offers as a % of target
Business Studies	12
Others	12
Physics	13
Design & Technology	14
Computing	20
Music	20
Modern Languages	24
Religious Education	27
Total	33
Geography	35
Art & Design	36
Chemistry	39
Mathematics	41
English	42
Biology	46
Drama	65
History	80
Physical Education	170
Classics	192

History and drama may well meet their targets, but all other subjects probably won’t. Will the DfE add any shortfall on these targets onto those for next year, making the totals even higher and harder to achieve?

Finally, how will these target numbers play out with the newly accredited providers? Are the institutions going to take the extra numbers or might the loss of some providers be a matter for regret?