Initial teacher preparation courses have been through a long period of regular government reforms, the most recent period starting with the Carter Review of 2015. The most recent changes are well documented in a new interim evaluation, commissioned by the DfE Evaluation of reforms to initial teacher training in England: wave 1 interim report
However, since the mid-1980s, firstly with CATE (The Council for Teacher Education) then the TTA (Teacher Training Agency, and its successors) national government has increasingly intervened in the process of teacher preparation, going beyond its traditional role of funding places and general oversight of the curriculum, to the present-day highly regulated regime that supports three main routes into teaching: undergraduate (declining in importance) postgraduate (still the main routes into teaching) and what the report describes as School Direct (postgraduate salaried schemes, most notably Teach First).
The overall conclusion of this interim report was that
‘ the majority of respondents (71%) mentioned being satisfied or very satisfied with the ITT. Levels of satisfaction ranged by 7 percentage points across regions; the South East reported the highest satisfaction (75% satisfied or very satisfied), while the East of England reported the lowest (68% satisfied or very satisfied). Satisfaction levels by phase of ITT ranged by 4 percentage points, with 74% of respondents in the primary phase and 70% in the secondary phase reporting that they were satisfied or very satisfied.’ Page 28
Generally, trainees felt ready to teach
‘Additionally, 81% of trainees reported feeling, or expecting to feel, ready or very ready to teach, either at the time of the survey (if already qualified) or by the end of their ITT programme (for those currently in training),…. In contrast, 8% reported feeling unready or very unready. These figures varied by 10 percentage points across regions. London reported the highest proportion of trainees feeling ready or very ready to teach (85%), while the East of England reported the lowest (75%). The highest proportions of trainees reporting feeling unready or very unready were in the East of England and the North East (both 11%), while London reported the lowest proportion (4%). Differences by ITT phase were small. Among secondary trainees, 82% reported feeling ready or very ready to teach, compared with 79% of primary trainees.’
It would be interesting to unpack these outcomes by the different age-groups entering training: new graduate, younger career changers and older career movers. Responses were dominated by the HEI sector, accounting for nearly two-thirds of responses, with trainees in SCITTs also well represented : ‘59% of respondents reported that their ITT was delivered or is being delivered by a HEI, while 36% reported that it was delivered by a SCITT provider. The remaining 5% of respondents selected other delivery options, each accounting for 1% or less.’
If it is accepted that there should be a national coherent approach to teacher preparation, and that quality should be of the highest possible standard, then some of the regional differences might be worth exploring further.
Both the North East, the smallest region in terms of ITT, and the North West fared less well than London and the more southern regions in some outcomes. Understanding why, and whether this is just the result of small numbers and not just issues with provision, might be a useful step forward. Policy-makers look at headlines and one trainee in a particular school and training in a particular subject might skew some of the percentages. This would be of concern were this data be for subjects where recruitment was especially challenging during the survey period.
As ever, there is a lot more of interest behind the headlines.
