Teachers need CPD in using technology: nothing new there

The DfE has published an interesting survey about the use of Educational Technology in schools. These days, unlike when I first started teaching, EdTech usually means IT related equipment. The survey can be found at Education Technology (EdTech) Survey 2020-21 (publishing.service.gov.uk) It is worth noting that the Review is based upon a survey of a limited number of schools and teachers and that classroom teachers views may less visible than views from IT specialists and school leaders.

Many years ago, in the days of the Labour government, the early use of IT equipment in schools was chronicled in a number of surveys. I recall writing about some of the results, for instance, in the TES on 4th January 2002 when government data suggested that the average secondary school already had more than 120 computers, and the average primary school more than 20.

In those days, the internet was still new and smart phones were only for enthusiasts. I also recall commissioning a Java app for the 2005 General Election based upon the cost of the War in Iraq: but that’s another whole story.

Schools these days take IT equipment for granted, but there are still differences between the primary and secondary school sectors. The Review rightly suggests that the need for ‘A review of the digital technology used for supporting pupils with SEND.’ (Page 22).  All too often the need for accessible technology can be overlooked.

Schools clearly need more support, not least in the area of cyber security training and safeguarding pupils and staff. The decision to abolish rather than update the national support for Education Technology in the great bonfire of the QUANGOs instituted by the Conservative Ministers in the coalition government really does look like a short-sighted move, whatever the shortcomings were at the time. This lack of on-going support is recognised in the suggestions for future development contained in the Review.

Schools indicated a range of barriers to future effective use of EdTech including

Financial barriers were by far perceived as the biggest barriers, especially cost and budgetary constraints, although availability of technology in school (which is also likely to be linked to school budgets), was also cited.

Pupil barriers were perceived by teachers to be major barriers and the availability of technology (94%) and internet connectivity (90%) in pupils’ homes were perceived to be the biggest barriers to increased uptake of EdTech after cost and budget. Secondary school teachers (in particular those from local authority ‘maintained’ schools) perceived these factors to be ‘big barriers’. Pupils’ digital skills were also perceived as a barrier, although to a lesser degree.

Staff barriers, including teachers’ skills, confidence and appetite for using EdTech also represented a substantial barrier. Almost nine out of ten headteachers (88%) and three-fifths of teachers (58%) cited teacher skills and confidence as a barrier to the increased uptake of EdTech. Teachers who mentioned this was a barrier for them were less likely to say that EdTech met their needs, saved them time and reduced their workload. These teachers were also less confident in their ability to deliver remote education.

Connectivity barriers in school were also commonly mentioned, although they were more likely to be cited as ‘small’ barriers rather than ‘big’ barriers.

Safeguarding and data concerns were also mentioned, especially by secondary school teachers, however, overall, this represented a ‘small barrier’ to the increased uptake of technology. (Page 20)

Implicit in the comments about barriers may be the different funding regimes between academy chains and local authorities, whereby it is easier for academy chains to manage development and purchasing strategies than it is for local authorities under the present funding arrangements.

The use of devices reflects the difference between class-base teaching in the primary sector and subject-based teaching across most secondary schools. This difference in teaching strategy may explain why fixed units such as PCs have greater exposure in the secondary sector and tablets and other more mobile devices are to be found in great numbers in primary schools where pupils spend the majority of their time in a single teaching base.

The past two years of the pandemic has helped change the landscape for learning in schools and the future must make the best use of the skills only teachers can bring to support the learner and the best use that can be made of technology.

Middle Leaders need attractive salaries as well as new entrants

Contained within the DfE document to the STRB that was discussed in the previous post is the annual update on retention and wastage rates for teachers. This year, as part of a much more detailed analyses, there are tables for different subject groups and phases as well as for different parts of England.

As usual, the data are presented as percentages that need to be converted into numbers to make real sense what is really happening. The gross numbers for the profession as whole for entrant and those still in service after a year for the recent past are shown in the table.

New entrants into teachingentered serviceend Year 1loss in Year 1
201223998208783120
201324490213063184
201425927222973630
201526780230313749
201625560217263834
201723754201913563
201823872202913581
201923338198373501
Teachers in service

The number remining can vary by several thousand depending upon the starting number. Thus, 2015, a good year for recruitment into training, resulted in 23,031 new teachers in service at the end of year one. By contrast, in 2019, although nearly 250 fewer teachers departed than from the earlier entry year, the lower starting number resulted in only 19,837 of that cohort of teachers remaining. That’s some 3,000 fewer than from the 2015 cohort of starters.

Wastage doesn’t stop after the first year, and the DfE document considers wastage over time between STEM and non-STEM secondary subjects, although it doesn’t provide data for individual subjects. Taking design and technology as a STEM subject, the DfE’s 2013 ITT census had a total of 410 trainees. Now assuming the 82% STEM subjects after QTS is based for that group based upon the ITT census would leave some 336 teachers still working at end of year one.

Assuming the data is actually those granted QTS, and allowing for a 5% non-completion of the course, this brings the entry number down to 390 and those remaining after a year to 320.

From the 320/336 teachers must eventually come those to be promoted to TLRs, including as heads of department. Now, after five years of service, those with continuous service and excluding those with a broken service record, might be in the range of 220/250 teachers across the subject using the DfE’s percentage remaining in service for STEM subjects.

According to TeachVac’s database, there were 390 recorded vacancies with TLRs in 2020 across design and technology as a subject area, and 470 in 2021. Up to the end of the first week in March 2022, there had already been 228 advertised vacancies with TLRs in design and technology. Now some of the vacancies will have been repeat advertisements, and others re-advertisements. However, even if half were discounted for these reasons, it might still mean 200 or so posts each year. Such a number would be a very large percentage of the cohort of teachers in the subject and adds a further level of concern to the future of the subject.

Middle leadership is of vital importance to the successful operation of our schools, and in concentrating on the starting salary the DfE and STRB must not lose sight of the need for successful teachers willing to spend their careers in our state school system.

The dilemmas of teaching

I regularly come across posts from The Teacher Toolkit on my LinkedIn page. Today there was a post from them about the moral dilemmas teachers face in the classroom. Fortunately, they rarely, if ever are issues of life and death. However, every day, in every classroom across the country, teachers make hundreds of decisions that can affect the lives of those they teach. Do we remember as ‘good teachers’ those that noticed us?

When I started lecturing in the 1980s, there was a course for First year students on BEd courses, in their first term at university that challenged these would-be teachers to consider some of the dilemmas of teaching. The set book for the module was’ Dilemmas of Schooling’ by Ann and Harold Berlak. The couple were two Americans that spent time in British primary schools in the 1970s, a world away from now. However, some of the dilemmas that they raised for discussion seem as appropriate today. I kept my copy of the book and here are a few of their questions aimed at primary school teachers:

Whole child v child as a student? What is the responsibility of a teacher towards the whole child or are we only interested in them as students for learning?

Who controls the use of time in a classroom, the teacher or the child?

For instance, how specific are tasks defined and how much freedom are pupils allowed in selecting aspects of tasks?

How far are standards used to control performance? Remember this was originally raised in the 1970s when central standards didn’t exist except at eleven for all and sixteen and eighteen for some.

There were the dilemmas of control

At that time there was no National Curriculum, so the dilemmas around the curriculum must be understood in that context.

Personal knowledge v public knowledge. Today this might well be discussed in terms of how much of say, history, includes the views of minority groups in the history of Empires, as opposed to that set down in books written from a particular perspective.

This is also an issue for Monday, as teachers decide how far to ditch their prepared lessons to talk about the war in Ukraine. Each child will bring some personal knowledge, as they have done about the last two years of the pandemic. Schools and teachers will decide how to deal with this on an individual basis. Interestingly, the DfE has already put out some resources. https://educationhub.blog.gov.uk/2022/02/25/help-for-teachers-and-families-to-talk-to-pupils-about-russias-invasion-of-ukraine-and-how-to-help-them-avoid-misinformation/

Knowledge as content v knowledge as process. Asking closed questions tends to treat knowledge as content, encouraging questioning allows for debate.

Knowledge as given v knowledge as problematical. We all know that the earth isn’t flat. Until recently we taught how many planets there were, but as our knowledge of the universe has expanded so our knowledge has altered as well. Of course, two plus two is four, except in binary maths.

Intrinsic v extrinsic motivation. For control reasons most of the time teachers tend towards extrinsic motivation. I motivated challenging classes in my early teaching days as a geography teacher with a treat at the end of a lesson for work completed, such as, in extreme cases, running a film backwards through the 16mm projector. As I became more experienced, such behaviour on my part diminished. But, do we offer different levels of motivation to different groups of children?

Learning is holistic v learning is molecular. I suppose the teaching of phonics – mandated by a politician, not a teacher – is a supreme example of molecular leaning. There is only one way to learn and this is it.

Each child is unique v children have shared characteristics. I’m pretty sure we all know the answer to that dilemma.

Learning is social v learning is individual. In a sense all learning is individual, but how far do we allow the individuality to interact with the demands of the class of pupils?

Child as a person v child as a client? Teachers are there to help children learn. It is what makes them different from childminders or babysitters. But what makes ‘teachers’ different from tutors? For a tutor, a child is a client, but for a teacher is the relationship wider than that, but there must still be boundaries and these are policed in the realm of inter-personal relationships by the Teacher Regulation Agency.

Finally, there are the societal dilemmas of Berlak

Childhood continuous v childhood unique? Is childhood a special period in ones’ life or is it just different in a degree that has been compartmentalised by society as something different? Of course, there is ‘growing up’ physically, mentally and emotionally, but when does one become an adult. A century ago, the school leaving age was 14, now it is 18. In parts of the world – think the Water Aid adverts – childhood includes the tasks of adulthood. In the past, physical maturing rarely if ever started in the primary school, but now such developments are commonplace in many primary schools, especially for girls.

Equal allocation of resources v differential allocation?

This is an easy dilemma to understand. But as the Pupil Premium makes clear by its very existence there may be cases where equal doesn’t mean that is the appropriate approach. Put another way, are we striving for equality of output: for instance, the aim that all children should be able to read by a certain age, and be provided with the resources to achieve such an outcome? At the classroom level, how does a teacher allocate time between pupils?

Equal justice under law v ad hoc application of rules?

Another relatively easy dilemma to appreciate. Pupils always say that they like ‘fairness’ in teachers and that new teachers lacking control often apply rules in an ad hoc manner. Everyone gets a go or only those that put their hands up? When did you last ask that child a question? I used to ask my students to name all the children in a class. Those that stood out were easy, but the group in the middle were often a struggle to recall. Did they receive equal justice?

Finally, Common culture v sub-group consciousness?

We are much more aware of this dilemma nowadays than we were in the 1970s. But, new areas such as transgender rights are always appearing, to revive the debate in a different light.

As a policymaker, each dilemma is important, but the societal dilemmas resonate especially with me. The debate about levelling up goes to the heart of the resource allocation dilemma, as it always has done in education.

Levelling out

Under the government’s latest plans, I might not have gone to university. This was because I struggled to pass what was then ‘O’ level English. Fortunately, I found six different degree courses that didn’t make English ‘O’ level a requirement of entry. Even in the 1960s that was a bit of a struggle. However, LSE, with a large number of mature and non-standard entry students, was happy to review the person and not the exams that they had passed when considering who to accept.

My experience, more than half a century ago, made me think about today’s announcement that might be seen to threaten the autonomy of higher education institutions, if government funding is restricted to universities only accepting those with certain qualifications. Of course, there will need to be exemptions for young people with special educational needs. Hopefully, mature entrants also won’t be put off returning to learning by an overly difficult access programme, especially if they don’t have English and maths qualifications.

There are good reasons to expect a degree of literacy and numeracy of our graduates, even in subjects where, say, mathematical knowledge, might not be of any obvious use. With developments in technology, who knows what will be needed in the future in terms of skills.

More pernicious would be the reintroduction of student number limits just at the point the number of eighteen-year-olds is starting to increase once again. I titled this post ‘levelling out’ because any cap on student numbers will undoubtedly hit the most deprived hardest. UCAS recently reported that applications from those living in deprived areas, for university places in 2022, was on the increase. Disadvantaged students show confidence in applications as they approach exams | Undergraduate | UCAS “28% of young people from the most disadvantaged areas (quintile 1 using the POLAR4 measure) have applied – up from 17.8% nine years ago in 2013” according the UCAS Press Release.

Surely, the government doesn’t want to slam the door in the face of this growth in interest in higher education. Restricting the number of places at universities will increase the required criteria for admissions and that will certainly work against pupils in schools that are struggling to recruit teachers, either across the board or in certain subjects. Do we want to deprive these young people of the chance to attend a university just because an accident of birth?

A well-developed apprenticeship route is a necessary part of the education and skills offering, but a lack of money should not deprive anyone of a university education. It is bad enough being saddled with debt with punitive interest rates, but to be excluded from life chances because of the school you attended seems to be turning the clock back a long way further than is acceptable.

There are those that think too many already go too university and that they waste their three years partying and drinking, before starting a life on the dole. But, who would have thought studying a degree in video games a decade ago would have been the start of a billion-dollar industry?

Does anyone care about Design and Technology teaching?

It wasn’t just trees that were falling on Friday. Available new entrants for teaching jobs in September in design and technology hit new lows on TeachVac’s index.

Here is a snapshot of the first seven weeks of the year in terms of remaining trainee numbers in D&T matched to vacancies on a score of two vacancies means one less trainee available for future jobs.

Datevacancies 2016vacancies 2017vacancies 2018vacancies 2019vacancies 2020vacancies 2021vacancies 2022
01/01/2021
08/01/2021412.5371.5217219343580231
15/01/2021399356201.5202312561178
22/01/2021381.5342.5181.5191270533114
29/01/2021370321172.513122650353
05/02/2021352.5311.5157.5971854780
12/02/2021341290.514174136444-63
19/02/2021332.5286126.54478427-116
Source; TeachVac

Now we can debate the methodology, but it has remained consistent over the eight years, so even if the numbers are too alarming this year to seem to be credible, the trend is still there to see. The numbers in the table are for the whole of England, so some areas may be better, but others might be worse. The data doesn’t include Teach First or other ‘off programme’ courses that are not reported as a part of the core ITT Census from the DfE. The index does make some assumptions about completion rates based upon past evidence and that those on salaried routes won’t be looking for jobs on the open market.

Design and Technology is a portmanteau subject, and the data cannot reveal whether particular aspects are faring better or worse. Of course, some posts may attract art and design teachers, where there is no shortage of trainees, but they won’t help in any shortage of say, food technology teachers.

What’s to be done? First, there has to be an acknowledgement by policymakers that there is an issue before solutions can be found. Then, we need to ask, is this a subject we still need to teach in our schools? Will our nation be impoverished if it disappears? I think the answer to that is in the name of the subject.

Do we need a strategic approach that also recognises the current situation impacts upon the levelling up agenda cherished by the present government? In my humble opinion we do.

Perhaps the Education Select Committee might like to take an evidence session on the topic of ‘teaching D&T in our schools’. The DfE has this evidence now that it is managing a job board, so cannot claim ignorance of any problem. However, it can produce evidence to prove me wrong in my assertions in this post. Does ofsted have a role here? Should they conduct a thematic review of the teaching and staffing of D&T departments to advise Ministers?

How many of the trainees funded by student loans and public money end up in the private sector or in further education, or even teaching overseas? Do these losses compound the problem?

Finally, where do we go from here with Design and Technology, if I am correct in my judgement that the issue is now too serious to ignore?

The Labour market for Teachers in England – some thoughts for 2022

The following piece first appeared in a recent SSAT Sunday Supplement piece

As recently as a decade ago, the process of advertising for teachers was simple. A school advised with its local authority HR department’s bulletin and paid for an advert in the TES. This ritual hadn’t altered much since the early 1990s when schools gained control of their budgets for the first time. However, much has changed in the past few years: tes is on its fourth set of owners, and now most schools pay a subscription fee; the DfE has entered the market with a job board; local authority job boards mostly don’t handle vacancies in academies, and recruitment agencies along with a plethora of new entrants on-line are seeking custom from schools with ever more eye catching products that are handling advertising and selection as a package.

After a lifetime in education, and forty years studying the labour market for teachers, I set up TeachVac to demonstrate what a low-cost model for advertising teacher vacancies, and indeed all vacancies in schools, would cost. Eight years on, TeachVac www.teachvac.co.uk handled 64,000 teaching vacancies in 2021, with more than 1,000,000 matches of interested teachers with schools.

As a spin-off to its main service, TeachVac provides significant data about the labour market for teachers. The remainder of this piece is about my predictions for the 2022 recruitment round for teachers in England. Necessarily, the comments will be general, but TeachVac has much more data that it can share with schools about local trends and matches being made.

Any current analysis of the labour market starts with the publication of the DfE’s latest ITT census of numbers on preparation courses to become a teacher (This appeared in December 2021). For the secondary sector, these trainees are mostly on course lasting one academic year. So, registrations for 2021 will be a major source of recruits for September 2022 vacancies. The other source of teachers are returners, whether from a career break or employed elsewhere, including teaching overseas and finally there are those teachers that are either switching jobs or seeking promotion.

Demand is led by an increase in pupil numbers, as in the secondary sector at present; departures, with any increase in departure boosting demand. At present, the growing international school sector is an important source of demand. One UK private school is to open its sevenths overseas campus in Tokyo. Another key source of demand is from teachers taking a career break. Finally, there are those leaving state schools for other employment in the private sector; further education or careers outside of education.

With a strong finish to 2021, and 8,000 recorded vacancies in January 2022, schools will need to pay attention to market trends if they are going to have a need to hire teachers in 2022. As the primary sector market for classroom teacher is well served with candidates, schools should not face issues at the national level, the secondary sector market is more complex and divides into three subject groupings.

Schools seeking to recruit teachers in subjects such as history, physical education, art and drama should face no issues at the national level, even for January 2023 appointments. At the other end of the scale are physics, design and technology, business studies and some of the specialist subjects such as law and psychology where recruitment is already challenging for some schools and all schools will face issues trying to recruit as 2022 progresses, and certainly for January 2023 appointments. All other subjects lie somewhere along this continuum, with some parts of the county experiencing more challenges that others, and some facing challenges earlier in the recruitment round, but all likely to face some difficulty for January 2023 appointments.

Schools that are better placed than others to deal with recruitment issues are those fortunate enough to be able to recruit trainees through school-based preparation programmes or Teach First. Next in line are those schools working with other training providers, such as universities, where they have access to links to students via mentors and school placements. Finally, those schools needing to trawl entirely on the open market are most in need of up-to-date information on the working of the labour market. MATs and MACs grouped close together geographically may be able to swop staff and certainly offer promotions to staff.

The ability to manage staff development is becoming increasingly important, as the DfE now realise, since several years of missed training targets are now affecting the market for middle leaders in some subjects and parts of the primary sector. The middle leader market is under-researched, but vital to the levelling-up agenda.

Finally, the market for headteachers in the secondary sector remains, as ever it was. Schools advertising at a sensible time of year and without specific demands usually manage to recruit. Recruitment of headteachers in the primary sector is more of a challenge, especially for faith schools in an increasingly secular society, and for specific types of school, such as infant or junior schools. Succession planning within MAT/MACs seems like a good policy at all levels, but especially for headships.

John Howson

Chair, TeachVac

Start Recruiting now

This is the stark warning to schools across much of Southern England that may need staff this September and especially to secondary schools. TeachVac www.teachvac.co.uk data has shown that the first three weeks of January have witnessed a continuation of the trend at the end of 2021 with a considerable increase in vacancies recorded.

TeachVac hasn’t changed its vacancy collection methods since 2020 but it has seen vacancies listed in the first 19 days of the month in 2022 increase by 14% over the recorded numbers recorded in early January 2020 pre-pandemic, and by a whopping 135% over the depressed level of last January.

As reported in a previous post, design and technology staff will be especially hard to recruit in 2022. Already in 2022, vacancies recorded are 48% up on the same period in 2020. Vacancies for teachers of music are up by an eyewatering 73% on 2020 vacancies in early January.

All these vacancies mean that the pool of new entrants will be reducing at a faster rate than in previous years. High quality trainees will be offered vacancies by schools that understand these trends and are aware of the state of the pool of trainees, either because they run school-based programmes or because their mentors have told them what higher education providers are saying.

TeachVac’s low-cost service can keep school up to date with trends for as little as £100 and a maximum of £1,000 per year that includes listing and matching all the school’s teaching vacancies with TeachVac’s growing pool of register users.

Registration also provides access to far better data than on the DfE site and also intelligence on the state of the recruitment round for trainees for September 2022 and hence the labour market in 2023.

Signing up today at www.teachvac.co.uk and the tab matching service will also bring a free copy of TeachVac report.  Message me if you want more information or use the comment box.

Design and Technology: End of a road?

The end of the second week in January is usually a bit early to be making predictions about the state of the teacher labour market for September. However, in the case of design and technology, the signs of a really difficult job market for schools have been there for some time, and certainly since the publication of the DfE’s Census of Trainees in December 2021. Those signs are now backed up by early data on jobs being advertised.

Using exclusive data from TeachVac, based upon an analysis of recorded job adverts in the first two weeks of January 2022, there are sign of an early increase in demand for such teachers.

Datejobs 2015jobs 2016jobs 2017jobs 2018jobs 2019jobs 2020jobs 2021jobs 2022
Week 110251916792958
Week 220525047417167164
Week 320877787103156123
Week 440110120105183244183

Source: TeachVac

Now, this may just be prudence on the part of schools in bringing forward vacancies, rather than a growth in real demand for such teachers. We won’t know the answer to that question until at least the end of January, and possibly not until even the end of February.

However, with this level of vacancies it is possible to demonstrate by matching vacancy levels to the potential supply of new entrants into the profession for September 2022 that schools may have to rely upon sources of supply other than new entrants much earlier in the recruitment round for September than they might either expect to or like the idea of doing.

TeachVac’s exclusive formula suggest that the ‘free’ pool of new entrants is already lower than at any point at the end of Week 2 of the year since at least 2015.

Date 20152016 2017 201820192020 2021 2022
Week 1368412.5371217219343580231
Week 2363399356201202312561178
Week 3363381.5342181191270533
Week 4353370321172131226503
Vacancy index – lower the number the more challenging filling vacancies will be

Source: TeachVac

The data also shows that compared with 2020 and 2021 the pool is lower than at the end of January by last Friday and week 2. Should the end of January 2022 number be lower than the end of 2019 number, then the remaining recruitment round may be grim for schools looking to recruit a design and technology teacher of any description.  January 2023 vacancies don’t even bear thinking about.

Schools that have signed up for TeachVac’s new matching service at  TeachVac Reports – The National Vacancy Service for Teachers and Schools can have access to this type of data for a range of subjects.

What are the implications for schools unable to recruit qualified design and technology teachers? Staffing the curriculum is the obvious problem. What are the longer-term effects of young people not studying this subject? That’s for others to say, and the DfE to act as it sees fit.

TeachVac welcomes new tes owners

This is an interesting way to start 2022. Just three years since the tes last changed hands, its ownership looks to be on the move again. This would make the third set of owners of the tes since TeachVac was set up in 2013 to challenge the high cost of teacher recruitment in a changing world, where technology should have been driving down costs and thus reducing prices to schools. www.teachvac.co.uk According to the press release 86c854e3-7a1d-4402-9f20-32868488d2c6 (gcs-web.com) dated the 7th December the new owners should be the current management team at the tes and ONEX, a Canadian Venture Capital Group. My best wishes to them.

When the Providence Group bought the tes in 2018, I expressed surprise at the purchase, so I am not now surprised that after slimming down the business by: exiting the supply teacher market; ending coverage of the further education sector; shifting its office functions out of London and axing the print edition among other changes, Providence finally put the business up for sale.

Based on the cost structure of TeachVac, there is a profitable company lurking inside the tes, but not while it is saddled with a large slug of overhanging debt that needs to be serviced. The terms of the expected change of ownership are not revealed in the press release, but too much debt will cripple the success of the new venture. Still, it is good to see the management team taking a share of the risk, and bringing at least a part of the ownership back into the UK from North America.

Today’s Sunday Telegraph business section has an article by Matt Oliver discussing the problems the tes faces when government tries to do the same job through its own free web site for vacancies. This blog discussed such an issue in relation to both TeachVac and the TES in April 2019 DfE backs free vacancy sites | John Howson (wordpress.com) I am sorry that Matt Oliver didn’t either mention TeachVac or try to speak with me about the way the market operates, as other journalists have done on a regular basis.

Perhaps either the Education Select Committee or the Public Accounts Committee at Westminster will use Matt Oliver’s article as a reason to mount an inquiry into the teacher recruitment market. After all, the later, using National Audit Office data, called for the DfE to reduce the cost of teacher recruitment: the very reason that TeachVac was established and has flourished. Does Nationalisation always work? | John Howson (wordpress.com)

This blog has always asserted that schools have been paying too much for recruitment advertising and has been prepared to back that judgement with the development of the successful TeachVac job board. The apparent lack of interest on the part of professional associations and others connected with education to address the means of removing unnecessary expenditure from schools by slashing recruitment advertising costs has been an enduring disappointment to me. Perhaps 2022 with be the year that all this changes?

Distribution of physics trainees

The DfE’s ITT Census for 2021/22 was published yesterday – see previous post for the headline data. Over time, it will be possible to mine a great deal of information form the open-source information now provided by the DfE.

Those schools signed up to the new TeachVac service Are you overpaying to advertise your teaching posts? | John Howson (wordpress.com) for a registration fee of £100 plus VAT and  maximum annual charge of £1,000 plus VAT will be able to ask TeachVac staff to match this data with regional data for their area to help predict possible local labour shortages during 2022. So, if you are a school governor, headteacher or work for a MAT or diocese do read what is on offer and go to Teaching Jobs School Vacancies – The National Vacancy Service for Teachers and Schools (teachvac.co.uk) and hit the red tab at the top labelled New Matching Service

Taking physics as an example, the DfE data shows that the 537 trainees in the census are spread unevenly across the country.

Government RegionHEISCITTGrand Total
East Midlands292150
East of England161531
London5777134
North East12618
North West581674
South East6645111
South West371047
West Midlands341347
Yorkshire and The Humber332255
Grand Total342225567
Source TeachVac from DfE ITT census 2021   
Distribution of physics trainees

Approximately 43% of trainees are located in London or the South East, with just eight per cent located with providers in the West Midlands. This can be important because London and the South East contain a significant proportion of the country’s independent secondary schools. Such schools are more likely to advertise for a teacher of physics than do most state schools.

Many of the remaining selective schools are also in London and the South East, and they are the state schools most likely to advertise for a teacher of physics rather than a teacher of science. If just a quarter of the trainees in London and the South East opt to teach outside the state sector, this reduced the pool national to little over 500 trainees many of whom will be on school-based courses and not looking for a job on the open market.

A slightly different picture emerges for design and technology

Row LabelsHEISCITTGrand Total
East Midlands231033
East of England131629
London204363
North East4711
North West16521
South East212142
South West211132
West Midlands52961
Yorkshire and The Humber252449
Grand Total195146341
Distribution of design and technology trainees

Source TeachVac from DfE ITT census 2021

Here the North West looks like an area where recruitment will be a real challenge whereas the West midlands seems relatively, and it is only relatively, better off for teachers of this subject. However, we know nothing about specialisms with the subject.

This type of information is key to sensible recruitment planning and should play an important part in discussions about the working of the leveling up agenda in education at the level of the school.