The latest DfE notice updating those interested in tendering to run the Future High Potential Initial Teacher Training (HPITT) Programme ahead of the formal tender notice, to be issued on the 15^th September raises some interesting questions.

The current brand name for the programme is Teach First. Since 2016, the programme has been subject to funding by the DfE following a tender process. Teach First started as a programme aimed at attracting teachers for schools in London that were facing recruitment issues. The need to improve outcomes in disadvantaged areas was also a part of the mission, as was attracting those that might not have thought of teaching as a career, but might be prepared to spend two years in the profession.

In the early years of Teach First there was the government alternative national employment-based route into teaching through the Graduate or Registered Teaching Programmes (GTP or RTP).

The information in the latest DfE document Future High Potential Initial Teacher Training (HPITT) Programme – Find a Tender feels as if the aim is to produce two coherent national programmes for employment-based routes into teaching. However, the document doesn’t seem to make clear the geographical intentions of the programme, preferring to reflect on schools and pupils instead.

i Support schools serving low-income communities with high numbers of disadvantaged and / or low attaining pupils (i.e. Eligible Schools) in England to recruit the teachers they need to help improve outcomes for pupils

ii. Target high-quality candidates with a 2:1 degree or above, who would be otherwise unlikely to join the profession or work in an Eligible School and who have the capability to be highly skilled teachers and emerging leaders, and who are passionate about making a meaningful impact, in these schools.

iii. Contribute to recruitment in specified subjects but with flexibility to meet the specific recruitment needs of schools.

The fact that only 1,000 places will be funded will make the geographical aspects of the contract a key feature. Do you offer the HPITT where the candidates will be or where the schools are located, given the programme is aimed at those that who would be otherwise unlikely to join the profession or work in an Eligible School. The latter point offers a high degree of flexibility, and it is interesting there is no mention of performance criteria or even what specifically constitutes an Eligible School.

Spread across nine regions, and both the primary and secondary sectors, a national scheme looks challenging to administer within the current funding offer specified in the documents. The programme might need either the support of a charity or a private sector firm willing to operate the scheme for the benefits it brings in working in the teacher recruitment market.  

The phrases about recruitment data are, of course, music to my ears. TeachVac pioneered identifying schools with recruitment issues over a decade ago. Those that have read my recent posts about headteacher vacancies in August will know that I still retain a key interest in this area. There are a multitude of posts on this blog about recruitment. Here is a link to just one of them. Some trends for 2019 in teacher recruitment | John Howson

The document asks for the following:

Develop and maintain strong partnerships with schools and other partners in areas with the greatest teacher recruitment challenges to understand and meet the needs of schools in terms of teacher recruitment and provide sufficient high-quality employment-based placement opportunities.

If any bidder wants to ask for my advice on how to understand the data about where the real recruitment challenges are, then I would be happy to advise.

The programme although entitled HPITT also includes some leadership work. This is presumably a carry-over from the current Teach First work, but I wonder whether there really ought to be two different contracts as the programmes are very different in scope.

The scope of the tender for the HPITT programme looks very much like evolution not revolution, but perhaps the DfE would have been better aiming for the latter if it really wants to improve standards in the worst performing schools in England.