Hurrah for the Public Accounts Committee at Westminster (PAC). Today the Committee published a report into the government’s plans – or lack of them – to meet their target of 6,500 extra teachers – and lecturers. Increasing teacher numbers: Secondary and further education (HC 825)
The Committee is as sceptical as this bog has been about how the government intends to meet this target that was to be paid for by the addition of VAT on private school fees from January 2025.
One recommendation that the PAC doesn’t make is the creation of a Chief Professional Adviser on Teacher Supply. I held such a post between 1996 and 1997, but was never relaced when I left the then Teacher Training Agency. Such a designated post would draw together the work of civil servants who may change roles almost as frequently as ministers- What odds would one give on the present Secretary of State surviving a cabinet reshuffle before the party conference season? A central role with professional oversight might help the government achieve its aim.
Anyway, the PAC Recommendations included
- The Department should set out how it plans to deliver the pledge for 6,500 additional teachers to provide assurance that this will f ill the most critical teacher gaps. This should set out: • how the pledge will be split across schools and colleges; • the baseline and milestones so Parliament can track progress; and • how it will stay focused on teacher retention alongside recruitment.
- The Department should develop a whole-system strategy to help frame how it will recruit and retain school and college teachers. This should be based on a fuller evidence base, establish the preferred balance between recruitment and retention initiatives; set appropriate targets for those joining teaching through different routes; and include value for money analysis of different initiatives.
- The Department should work with schools and colleges to understand the reasons behind variations [in recruitment and retention], particularly within deprived areas and core subjects, setting this out in published information to help identify and share good practice and ideas on what works best.
- The Department should work to better understand why teachers leave and then better support schools and colleges in addressing these factors. This includes looking at changes to contractual and working conditions, such as flexible working, and at how teacher workload can be reduced. It should also collect data on the effectiveness of the newly-announced behaviour hubs, rolling them out further if they prove to be successful.
- The Department should assess the effectiveness and relative value-for-money of pay against other recruitment and retention initiatives, to make an explicit decision on whether it needs to do more to ensure teachers are paid the right amount.
The final recommendation will not be welcomed in HM Treasury if it means finding more cash for teachers’ pay, especially coming the day after resident hospital doctors threatened strike action over pay benchmarking. In paragraph 22 the Committee stated that
‘However, teacher pay has lagged behind others – in 2024, those working in the education sector were paid around 10% less in real terms than in 2010, with the wider public sector being paid on average 2.6% less than in 2010.’
Will a return to the 2010 benchmark now be the goal of the teacher professional associations?
In the next blog, I will discuss the committee’s idea for dealing with the thorny issue of providing teachers for deprived areas.
John Howson 
Really interesting.
Of worth to note (?) is that the PG ITT target for 2025/26 has been reduced by 6,453 compared to 2024/25.
Kevin,
Good to hear from you. Yes, I think they believe falling rolls, squeeze on budgets and higher retention will reduce demand. But, it is an interesting commentary on the 6,500 extra teachers the government has promised. I expect most of those will now be in the FE sector where data is more difficult to challenge.
Hi John
Yes, the issues around data and how decisions are being made are ‘interesting’. The suggestions that improved retention (along with improved pay which – it is believed – will act as an incentive) can justify some of the reductions in the ITT targets does, I think, stretch credibility – the more so when you look at the long standing shortfalls.
I know one an question the way targets have been arrived at at times and we know that there have been changes in approach but there are some pretty stark pieces of evidence.
I have been looking at PGITT targets over the longer period (2015/16 to 2024/25) and how recruitment to ITT has measured up. For many subjects (and for the overall secondary target) the Covid years are the exception in terms of getting anywhere near or achieving the target.
Using Physics as an example, the total shortfall against PGITT Target from 2015/16 to 2024/25 is 11, 172. Despite this, the target for 2025/26 has been cut by 840 (37.3%) and this follows a cut of 20.2% from 2023/4 to 2024/25.
Chemistry has seen a total shortfall of 2,216. The over recruitment in Biology of 2,356 makes only a minor dent in the overall shortfall of science teachers -and this does not address the absence of specialists at Key Stage 4 and more especially at Level 3/Post 16, where the shortage is systemic.
And, might the reality be even more significant? Successful trainees in Physical Scientists, some argue, are more likely to seek employment in the non-maintained sector, where there are a number of ‘pull’ factors (one of which is being able to focus on teaching their specialist discipline).
I do need to look at completion rates on ITT programmes and conversion in to seeking employment in teaching to add more to my understanding of the true scale of the issue.
In respect of Computing – another priority for the Government and for our economy – the total shortfall against PGITT target over the period is 3,751. The target for 2025/26 has been cut by 32.7%.
WE have lost the fora for proper dialogue and exploration re ITT recruitment and targets with DfE – in so far as the various groups we were invited to sit on had any input or influence.
Kevin,
Thanks for the long and thoughtful post. I am currently researching the ITT scene from 1960 to the present day. The present time reminds me of the late 1970s when the birth rate fell quite sharply and the economic situation made teaching attractive. Compared with today, the ITT targets then were miniscule. the issue with missed targets is that schools are fully staffed each September and thus there are no vacancies. Over-recruit to current market needs in a falling rolls situation and trainees cannot find jobs, even physics trainees. To increase recruitment of physics teachers would require mandating its teaching at say ‘A’ level in all schools with a sixth for. Schools would then need to decide who to release to recruit the physics teachers needed. The interplay or planning and the market is what makes teacher supply so fascinating to observe. I have a book of my 2013 blog post coming out next month. Email me for the details.
John Howson
Thanks John. Will do