In a recent post on this blog about the DfE’s modelling of trainee teacher needs, I wrote that

‘However, has this re-assessment of need gone too far? Based on … my own current research into vacancies for teachers of music, I think the DfE has been realistic in its approach. ‘

While, I stand by that judgement, I have also been reminded by Deborah Weston, championing on behalf of those concerned with the teaching of religious education in schools that the cutback in trainee numbers probably allows little room for the replacement of the ‘under’ or even ‘un-qualified’ teachers currently teaching religious education in our schools.

Prompted by Deborah, I looked at the trends from the Teacher Workforce surveys concerning the use of those with ‘no qualification in the subject’ teaching religious education over the period between the end of the Blair/Brown Labour government and the end of the Conservative period of government. Of course, recent years have been impacted by the covid pandemic, and its consequences, but there is a clear trend that is observable.

The chart shows the four key types of secondary schools, of which the 11-18 school line is probably the most significant.

At the end of the Labour government, partly I expect as a result of the economic crisis of 2008, the percentage of teachers of religious education with ‘no qualification in the subject’ was reducing. However, the percentage levelled out as school rolls began to increase again, and teacher supply entered into an extended period of years when teacher preparation programmes missed their targets.

There was a brief respite as a result of covid, but in the most recent years, as trainee numbers have fallen, so the percentage of teachers with ‘no qualification in the subject’ has reached levels not seen since well before 2010.

As a result, the question now is, was the DfE right to cut trainee targets for religious education from 780 last year to 450 this year? On the basis that including unfilled places from previous recruitment rounds was a mistake, as I have always maintained, then the answer is clearly, yes, the DfE have taken the correct decision.

However, in subjects such as religious education, where most pupils only study the subject for a limited period of time each week, managing recruitment is easier for schools, if qualified staff are available.

I would add that in my opinion, religious education when taught by well-prepared and knowledgeable teachers can be a really valuable subject, especially at this time in the history of our multi-cultural society, where both many different faiths are practiced, and a growing minority profess to having no faith in religion at all.

If the government cannot see their way to increase the stated need for trainee religious education teachers, providers can always over-recruit, at least to higher education courses, where government funding isn’t an issue.

In addition to pre-entry training, the DfE might also like to consider another approach to the issue of shortage of religious education teachers: upskilling those presently teaching the subject, but without an appropriate qualification.  If it is important that a subject be offered on the curriculum, it beholds government to ensure it is taught properly.  

Spending cash on upskilling will no doubt help retention, and thus save on recruitment and training costs. However, apart from in mathematics and the sciences, it hasn’t really featured as a policy objective for many years: surely that’s a mistake.

I hope that the religious affairs lobby is able to persuade the government that significantly reducing the percentage of inappropriately qualified teachers of religious education should be a key policy objective.