Tag Archives: assessment

Assessment Only route into teaching: sideshow or useful source of teachers?

Posted on by
Reply

How well is the assessment only route to QTS doing, and what part has it played in helping reduce the shortage of teachers in some subjects? The recent data on outcomes for 2021/22 year for this route was contained as a part of the ITT profiles statistics and does produce some interesting information. Initial teacher training performance profiles, Academic year 2021/22 – Explore education statistics – GOV.UK (explore-education-statistics.service.gov.uk)

Assessment only candidate numbers by subject and phase

Subject2019/202020/212021/22
Art & Design293344
Biology256530
Business Studies211929
Chemistry11916
Classics345
Computing101720
Design & Technology253342
Drama113135
English128150145
Geography191218
History423524
Mathematics9389125
Modern Foreign Languages152428
Music222732
Other254189
Physical Education649798
Physics38922
Religious Education152917
Primary614747612
Secondary596724819
Total1,2101,4711,431
Initial teacher training performance profiles

The numbers in some shortage subjects, such as physics, (leaving aside 2020/21 as possibly affected by the covid pandemic) only represent a small fraction of the total candidates on the Assessment Only route to QTS: around two per cent in 2021/22. Computing candidate numbers were even lower in 2021/22, at just 20 candidates.

Around 40% of the candidates on this route were working to become qualified teachers while in the primary sector, so we do not know the range of subjects that they might contribute expertise to when they have obtained QTS.   

In the secondary sector, only English and mathematics were subjects with candidate numbers in three figures, although physical education – hardly a shortage subject – just missed reaching 100 candidates with a total of 98.

The government web site on teaching says that

You can take the assessment only route to QTS if you already meet the standards for qualified teacher status, so do not need any further training.

Instead, you will undertake a series of assessments. This may include lesson observations, providing a portfolio of evidence to show you meet the teachers’ standards, or written assessments. This will vary by your provider.

The assessment programme takes up to 12 weeks.

To be eligible, you need (all of the following):

  • to be able to show you meet the teachers’ standards(opens in new window) without any more training
  • to have worked in 2 or more schools
  • a degree
  • GCSEs at grade 4 (C) or above in English and maths (and science if you want to teach primary)

Specific entry criteria may vary by teacher training provider. 

There are nearly 100 providers of the Assessment Only route certification, although only four are open to non-UK citizens. Based upon the data in the table, some providers must receive very small numbers of registrations each year. Is there a case for rationalisation to provide a smaller number of providers in each region to allow for larger cohorts?

500th post

Posted on by
Reply

Today is the fourth anniversary of this blog. The first posting was on 25th January 2013. By a coincidence this is also the 500th post. What a lot has happened since my first two posts that January four years ago. We are on our third Secretary of State for Education; academies were going to be the arrangements for all schools and local authorities would relinquish their role in schooling; then academies were not going to be made mandatory; grammar schools became government policy; there is a new though slightly haphazard arrangement for technical schools; a post BREXIT scheme to bring in teachers from Spain that sits oddly with the current rhetoric and a funding formula that  looks likely to create carnage among rural schools if implemented in its present form.

Then there have been curriculum changes and new assessment rules, plus a new Chief inspector and sundry other new heads of different bodies. The NCTL has a Chair, but no obvious Board for him to chair, and teacher preparation programme has drifted towards a school-based system, but without managing to stem concerns about a supply crisis. Pressures on funding may well solve the teacher supply crisis for many schools, as well as eliminating certain subjects from the curriculum. In passing, we have also had a general election and the BREXIT decision with the result of a new Prime Minister. What interesting times.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank the 40,000 or so visitors that have generated 76,000 views of this blog. The main theme started, as I explained in the post at the end of 2016, as a means of replacing various columns about numbers in education that had graced various publications since 1997.

Partly because it has been an interest of mine since the early 1980s, and partly because of the development of TeachVac as a free recruitment site that costs schools and teachers nothing to use, the labour market for teachers has featured in a significant number of posts over the last three years (www.teachvac.co.uk). I am proud that TeachVac has the best data on vacancies in the secondary sector and also now tracks primary as well and is building up its database in that sector to allow for comparisons of trends over time.

I have lost count of the number of countries where at least one visitor to the site has been recorded, although Africa and the Middle East still remain the parts of the world with the least visitors and the United States, the EU and Australia the countries, after the United Kingdom, with the most views over the past four years.

My aim for a general post on this blog is to write around 500 words, although there are specific posts that are longer, including various talks I have presented over the past four years.

Thank you for reading and commenting; the next milestone in 100,000 views and 50,000 visitors. I hope to achieve both of these targets in due course.

Headlines ignore the real story on English and maths

Posted on by
Reply

Between the summer of 1963 and January 1966 I took my GCE English five times, eventually passing two Boards at the same time in January 1966 at the sixth attempt. As a result I read today’s story about the need to continue English and maths beyond the age of sixteen with more than a passing interest.

The headlines seem to suggest that those who don’t pass at sixteen drop both subjects. Now I am sure that is true in some cases, but it certainly isn’t for all. The DfE has good evidence of what is happening, and shared it with us in March 2013 as part of Statistical Bulletin 13/2013.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/221793/sfr13-2013.pdf

These results may come as a surprise to those reading the BBC and other headlines that seem to suggest everyone who doesn’t pass immediately drops any further study of these subjects. That clearly isn’t the case. Although in 2012 there was a small drop, for the first time in some years, in the percentage achieving both English and maths post-sixteen, it was still around one in six of those without a Level 2 at sixteen, and higher for those young people without special educational needs. As the Bulletin writer observed: ‘The gap in attainment at age 19 between young people with a Statement of Special Educational Needs (SEN) and those with no SEN continued to widen at each of Level 2, Level 2 with English and maths, and Level 3.’

The failure rate also seemed to be higher in the FE and apprenticeship sectors than in schools; with academies posting a small improvement, although it may not be statistically significant. Perhaps this ought to have been a BiS story rather than a DfE one. One might also ask how well those 16-18 year olds in the care of the Ministry of Justice have fared in improving their literacy and numeracy levels: but that’s another story entirely.

One of the most interesting stories lies in the ethnicity figures. The Bulletin writer states that: ‘The change in the relative performance of the Black summary ethnic group between 16 and 19 at Level 2 is notable. In the [age] 19 in 2012 cohort, attainment of Level 2 in the Black group was 4.6 percentage points lower than the average for all known ethnic groups at age 16, but by age 19 it was 3.1 percentage points above the average.’ Maybe some young people come to recognise the value of education later than others. The challenge now is to work with this group to persuade them of the value of schooling before sixteen.

So, overall, there is still more to be done to achieve better outcomes in the key basic subjects of English and maths for all pupils, but for some this is already a good news story rather than story of a failure of our schools.

Perhaps the real story, and it has become mangled somewhere between the idea and its execution, is those who pass English and maths at Level 2 by sixteen but then drop the subjects for ever. Should we be providing a means for them to continue to enhance their knowledge and understanding, or is GCSE enough? I think not.