Levelling down?

There are suggestions of a policy towards limiting access to higher education for those without traditional qualifications. For a government that proclaims its belief in levelling up, this would seem a strange policy to even consider. Minimum entry requirements would do the opposite of levelling up | Wonkhe

Such a policy must not be allowed to drive a coach and horses through the policy of ‘life long learning’. Many that come to higher education later in life than through the traditional route had a fractured schooling, with poor outcomes. Any change in policy must not damage their ability to return to learning, especially at the level of higher education.

However, more seriously, while the government has continued to operate a policy of not providing enough qualified teachers in some subjects, notably mathematics and physics, but also design and technology and languages, the young people on the receiving end of teaching from less than ideally qualified teachers much not have their ability to attend a university jeopardised by a failure in government policy.   

By now, the government should have some indications as to whether its idea for ‘Opportunity Areas’ has borne any fruit in terms of levelling up in some of the northern areas where the scheme was trailed.

A market-based approach to teacher supply may encourage teachers to work in schools where pupils have less struggles with learning and more support from home. These schools usually have less trouble attracting teachers as the study of vacancies and free school meals reported earlier this year by this blog demonstrated.  

With the world starting to open up again for both travel and work opportunities, there must not be a large outflow of teachers from England to schools overseas. The ending of the pay freeze is welcome news, as is the recognition of the importance of professional development. However, the government does need to pay more attention to the distribution of teachers and the locations where there are shortages of fully qualified teachers.

Using professional development approaches to improve the qualifications of teachers is one route to overcoming shortages; stemming losses must be another action. The National Audit Office make it clear some years ago that improving teacher retention was a cost-effective route to solving the recruitment issue. However, it doesn’t always solve the issue of the distribution of teachers.

It will be interesting to see whether there is any correlation in Ofsted ITT reports between programmes that are deemed either ‘inadequate’ or’ requiring improvement’ and the schools used to prepare teachers?

If levelling up is to make a difference in education outcomes, then among the many strands needing to be woven together for a successful outcome is the approach to teacher supply and distribution.

Does pay matter for potential teachers?

The DfE has recently published a Research Report commissioned from the Institute for Fiscal Studies. Higher-education-geographical-mobility-and-early-career-earnings.pdf (ifs.org.uk)

The report concludes, as far as Education as a subject is concerned that:

All else being equal, there are no large earnings differences between movers and non-movers who graduated in nursing, education and social care. This is likely to reflect the fact that wages in these occupations are set nationally. Perhaps unsurprisingly, graduates in education and social care are also least likely to move away from their area of origin, conditional on characteristics.

Education students have some of the lowest mobility levels shown in Figure 9 within the Report. This is an area where what the Report defines as ‘Education’ is important. Does it include only undergraduate ITT – almost all preparation courses for primary school teaching? Does it include non-ITT Education degrees and PGCE courses as well or are they excluded? If PGCE courses are included do they include students on SCITTs and other school-based courses validated by universities? I have emailed the IFS to ask these questions as they may have an impact on the data.

An email exchange with the lead author reveals that ‘Education is undergrad [in the study] and so does not include PGCE. So yes you are correct, it is mostly primary. The secondary teachers are going to be mixed in amongst the other subjects.’ As a result of this exchange, I am still not certain about the location within the study of non-ITT Education degree courses. There is more work to be undertaken on the mobility of trainee teachers.

However, the fact that wages are set nationally may well be an important factor, especially if the report standardised for London Weighting and other geographical pay scales. This is important in towns with good commuting links to inner London such as High Wycombe- a town cited as losing a lot of its graduates in the early years of their careers.

The incidence of work may be as important as national pay scales. There are primary schools located across the length and breadth of England, so offering the ability to receive the same pay as elsewhere and remain in your locality may be a strong draw to teaching for certain groups of students.

Last year, the IFS conducted a study into Postgraduate earnings that specifically included a section on PGCE students by their degree subject Earnings returns to postgraduate degrees in the UK (ifs.org.uk) There are important messages within the data and analysis of that study for those currently thinking about the future shape of secondary teacher preparation courses and whether, when the economy is performing well, subjects such as mathematics and physics will always be ‘shortage subjects’ for teacher supply and the consequences of that fact for the ‘levelling up’ agenda.

Twenty years ago I conducted some market research for the then TTA that showed where the strongest recruiting grounds for potential teachers were to be found. Teach First also recognised that Russell Group universities without a School of Education were a potentially source of entrants to teaching, but these numbers of graduates proved insufficient to meet the growing number of places on offer as the scheme developed.

Pay may not be the key driver for some entering teaching but it can seemingly be a deterrent to others. Solving that problem and cracking the teacher supply issue is nothing new.

Thank You UCAS

Today marks the final set of monthly data from UCAS in relation to postgraduate teacher preparation courses. From Next month the DfE takes over the application process for all such postgraduate routes into teaching. The remaining undergraduate courses will still be part of the UCAS process.

Thirty years ago, in the days of PCAS, UCAS and the Clearing House for Teacher Training, I started monitoring the monthly data produced to study the implications for teacher supply of recruitment levels for courses starting each September. So, this may well be my final report on the subject. With readership of this blog falling away in recent months, that probably won’t be an issue. For many

At some point, I may write a blog about the highlights of thirty years of looking at the data, but enough of looking backward: what are the implications of today’s data? Primary courses should have more than sufficient trainees to meet demand in 2020. Applications were at their highest levels this September since the 2016/17 cycle.

Across the secondary sector, the picture is more mixed. Overall applications remained high, although some 10,000 below last year’s surge that was a result of the response to the covid pandemic and the shutting down of the economy. This year, subjects can be divided into three groups.

Firstly, those where applications are sufficient to ensure there should be no shortages of teachers in 2022. These subjects include, Art, PE, history and chemistry. Music may also be in this group, but might be on the cusp of the second group where applications are high by past standards, but may not be enough to meet demand in 2022 and will need watching when the ITT Census appears for the numbers that have actually made it onto courses. This group of subjects includes, RE, mathematics and business studies.

The final group is those subjects where the number of recorded acceptances will not be enough to meet likely demand next year. This group includes some regulars such as physics, IT and design and technology as well as biology, English, a subject that might also be in the second group depending upon demand in 2022, geography and modern foreign languages.

Many of these subjects are those thought important by the former Minister of State, although during his tenure at Sanctuary Buildings the supply crisis in these subjects was never solved.

Design and technology deserves especial mention as it is facing its worst crisis ever in terms of numbers offered places. The 320 recorded as placed or conditionally placed is half the number of September last year and the lowest level recorded since before 2010. No doubt the possible surplus of teachers of art and design will help stave off complete catastrophe in the staffing of the subject.

There is some evidence that bursaries do matter. Both biology and geography have seen numbers accepted drop sharply following changes in financial support. Chemistry has been a beneficiary in the sciences, suggesting that some possible biologist have switched subjects to chemistry and the more attractive finance package during training.

So, farewell and thank you to everyone at UCAS. We may not have seen eye to eye all the time, but I appreciate you work and the data you have produced.

More doctors: fewer teachers?

The news that the government may be raising the cap on places at medical schools for trainee doctors is surely a good outcome for society, but may be a concern for those that are involved with teacher preparation courses.

Both are areas of funding where the government keeps close control over the supply of places. As has been discussed in previous posts on this blog, the recent market review into ITT by the DfE plus a falling birth rate and a reducing school population due to outward migration and an increase in home schooling, has raised the spectre of reductions in the number of primary teacher training places likely to be sanctioned in the short-term by the DfE, and a likely reduction in the number of secondary places once the decade reaches its midway point.

If the DfE has to find more funds for training more doctors, might it be tempted to bring any reduction in teacher preparation numbers forward to start in this autumn’s announcements for 2022 entry? Higher Education might like the reduction to be in postgraduate provision, but the DfE could make more top line savings by reducing undergraduate primary numbers. However, it seems likely that students not offered places on undergraduate course might still decide to attend university and enter teaching through the postgraduate route.

One consideration should be determining which route provides the applicants that best meet the needs of the sector? For instance, how do the ‘A’ level points scores of undergraduates starting primary teacher preparation courses match the scores of their postgraduate colleagues starting such courses.

The regular annual performance profiles might also offer some indications of the type of courses the DfE would possibly favour if there are reductions in places on offer. However, that will also be determined by the DfE’s priorities in terms of quality and other factors, such as employment outcomes and no doubt the contribution to the ‘levelling up’ agenda.

The takeover by the DfE of the postgraduate recruitment process from UCAS adds another uncertainty into the mix. Will the data be available from the DfE, as it has been from UCAS, and before that the GTTR (Graduate Teacher Training Registry), weekly and then monthly data that allowed seasoned ITT watchers to predict the outcome of the recruitment round as early as February or March of each year?

If it isn’t forthcoming, the answer might be regular monthly FOI requests until civil servants understood the message about the need for transparency in data that is best described to the Office for National Statistics as management information rather than statistics.

Teach First trainees have already started their courses, and many other providers will be gearing up for a start early in September. As ever, I wish the staff and the trainees well, and hope that those embarking on a career as a teacher will enjoy the experience of what can be a wonderful, but at times challenging career. Every bit as good as being a doctor, even if not as well paid.

Teacher Supply Model more important than ever

Those readers that have browsed my recent posts will know that teacher education is facing one of those turning points in its history. Regardless of the policy approaches towards how teachers are prepared there are going to be implications on the sector from the downturn in pupil numbers.

The decline in the birth rate is already being felt in primary schools, with many admitting fewer pupils this September than for some years. Lucky the schools with a new housing estate being built in the catchment area. The DfE has estimated that by 2026 the overall population in the primary sector is projected to be 4,345,000. This is 302,000 lower than the actual figure in 2020 (4,647,000). Such a rapid reduction has serious implications for those that prepare new teachers for the profession.

Taking a teacher to pupil ratio of 1:30 that would mean there would be a need for 10,000 fewer teachers. Now real pupil teacher ratios are much better than that figure, so perhaps the drop might be 4,000 over the period 2020 to 2026. Assuming teacher departure rates don’t alter significantly, and that newly trained teacher are preferred over returners to the classroom, then a drop of 1,000 in training numbers might be an interesting starting point for any discussion.

Of course, the Teacher Supply Model can much more accurately process these changes and identify what the actual requirement for new teachers is likely to be. However, it seems that there will be a reduction in primary training numbers.

The decision must be where and what type of training; school-based or higher education? Course based or salaried? Across all providers or supporting either large or small providers? These are the policy questions that must rapidly be answered. For the longer the delay in reducing training targets, the worse the cut will be if the Teacher Supply Model has really abandoned any idea of smoothing reductions over a number of years and takes any change in the year that they occur.

The latest three year postgraduate numbers for Primary ITT places from the Teacher Supply Model were 12,975 in 2018/19; 13,003 in 2019/2020 and 11,467 in 20201/21. Now, the TSM only covers postgraduate teacher supply. Some providers with both undergraduate and postgraduate provision have, in the past, when there have been reductions in places, kept their undergraduate numbers and reduced postgraduate numbers. The rational for such a move is less based on relative quality of applicants than the fact that undergraduate courses generate more fee revenue than postgraduate courses and are relatively less expensive to deliver. This will be especially true with the latest set of proposals discussed in previous blogs.

Whether the current government will be willing to tolerate any change in quality of applicants due to how providers react to a fall in places available is an interesting policy question that merits some discussion. From the point of view of The Treasury, one-year courses cost the government less in student loans than undergraduate courses, but if those students displaced from undergraduate teacher training courses take other degrees and then a postgraduate teacher qualification, the overall cost can be higher.

By the middle of the decade, the secondary sector will be facing the dilemmas associated with falling pupil numbers, but since recruitment even in regulated subjects such as physical education has been at record levels, enforcing changes there might be even trickier than in the public sector. That is if the present market review hasn’t fundamentally altered the shape of teacher preparation provision in England.

QTS for life?

Re-reading my submission to the Carter Review https://johnohowson.wordpress.com/2014/06/23/a-submission-to-the-carter-review/ from way back in 2014, made me think that the recent Market Review of ITT discussed in the previous two posts on this blog missed another important point. Because it was focused on the delivery mechanism and content of ITT and not the candidates undergoing the training in deciding how to create world class teachers it missed discussing some important issues, such as should QTS last for life and can a world-class profession continue with a QTS award that allows any teacher to teach anything to any pupil with no check. What is the point of a subject knowledge requirement if at the end of a course a PE teacher can be employed to teach science on the basis that they have a sports science degree?

Changing the rules on preparation courses without looking at the ‘downstream’ consequences is a bit like closing the stable door before you have even put the horse inside. What’s the appropriate preparation to teach humanities if it contains elements of history; geography and even religious education? Do you need post ‘A’ level qualifications in each subject area to be able to teach it? As far as I can tell, the Market Review is silent on this type of discussion. Then there are the subjects taught at Key Stages 4 & 5 that are barely recognised in the Teacher Supply Model but where schools actively recruit each year. These subjects include, economics, psychology, sociology and law. Most of these subjects have more posts advertised each year by schools than does Latin, a subject recognised by the DfE in the Teacher Supply Model.

As already alluded to, the issue of moving from training to employment is a discussion that merits more attention that was paid to it in the Review. It is appropriate to assume that the best quality trainees are the first to secure teaching posts: a sensible assumption if the market works properly. Such an outcome would leave the weakest students sometimes without a teaching post for September, but available to fill the vacancies that arise for the following January, often due to maternity leave arrangements. How should the system deal with these teachers-in-waiting? Ignore them as at present? Hope that they will pick up supply work? Ensure every teacher passing the training component is offered a teaching post for September of at least one year in duration?

A Review that talks about world class teachers and deals with initial training and professional development, but ignores the realities of life, won’t easily achieve its aims for the system as a whole. The issue of the length of time a teacher could spend working as a supply teachers was tackled some time ago, but the issue of a gap between completing training and starting teaching in the subject and phase of your training has not really been addressed. I think such an omission is a mistake.

I am sure that the All Party Parliamentary Group on the Teaching Profession and its associated Special Interest Group or SIG will be taking a look at the Review before the summer.

UCAS end of 2020 cycle ITT data

UCAS has today published the end of cycle data for courses that started last autumn. Regular readers that follow this blog will know that much of what is contained in the data has been commented upon in posts on this blog la the August and October.

However, ‘The End of Cycle’ (EoC) report contains much more information than the regular monthly updates published during the cycle. One area is in that of the ethnicity of applicants and the percentages accepted. Why gender is seen as capable of being revealed each month and ethnicity is not is an interesting question. I assume it is down to the fact that numbers in some categories would be too small to make publication viable or appropriate.

Regardless of the reason, the EoC report contains some interesting data.

Accepted percentages 2020 from UCAS PG ITT data
MaleFemaleAll
Black37%53%48%
Other41%51%48%
Asian50%61%58%
Not Stated55%57%56%
Mixed [sic]58%62%61%
Total63%70%68%
White67%74%72%

Source: UCAS

Black male applicants had less than a four in ten chance of being accepted on to a course compared with 74% of white females that were accepted. It would be interesting to drill down into these figures to see whether there are regional and subject/phase differences within the categories.  

My assumption would be that London courses perform well in terms of acceptance of ethnic minority candidates and those courses in regions furthest from the capital may attract few applicants from ethnic groups other than the White group. This can pose another issue if a few courses receive the bulk of say Black African Male applicants. The policy should be to take the most suitable applicants.

I don’t know how much effort the DfE puts into monitoring these statistics and how they respond to the outcomes? Are civil servants content with the disparity between the different groups or should more work be undertaken to reduce the differences across gender and ethnicity?

Male applicants domiciled in London had one of the lowest acceptance rates overall for me of just 50% of applicants. It would be interesting to cross-tab the domicile by region with ethnicity. By contrast, 86% of women applicants domiciled in the north east appear to have been accepted That seems like a high figure to me and it would be interesting to see how many of these were accepted before say, Christmas. Providers that fill courses quickly can save time and money but such a practice begs the question about whether there should be a closing date for applications to allow more equal chances not determined by how quickly you decide upon teaching as a career.

Off to University

Here’s a hear warming story about a student from among the group of most disadvantaged pupils in our education system https://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/19162077.traveller-milly-teaches-classics-going-oxford-university/

I would say in our schools, but most traveller and Romany children don’t go to school on a regular basis.

When I joined Oxfordshire’s Education Committee in the early 1990s – some readers may have to look up the term Education Committee in the history books – Oxfordshire had a fully fitted mobile classroom serving this community. Now, these children sometimes don’t even appear on the pupil outcomes data as a group as their outcomes are so far adrift from those of other groups in society.

Fairground children are a distinct group within the wider category, and in rural areas they spend part of the year traveling from market own to market town for the annual street fair.  So, congratulations to Milly on winning a place at University, and to Joe for the work that his organisation does to promote Oxford University with state school pupils.

I wonder whether anyone has thought about traveller children during the lockdown and whether they have had access to on-line learning. I will be asking the question as this group could surely benefit from the learning about remote teaching and learning gained during the pandemic.

I recall visiting a secondary school a couple of years ago where they had children from a mobile home community site for travellers on their roll. They worked hard to ensure the children received an education even though it took up time and resources. The National Funding Formula and per pupil funding don’t provide for the needs of groups where special arrangements are required.

I won’t say ‘Good Luck’ Milly, because I don’t believe she needs good luck. But, I do hope that she enjoys her time at university.

More good news: but not for all

Regular readers of this blog will know that the last Thursday of the month is the day that UCAS provides updated details of applications to postgraduate teacher preparation courses managed through their system. The numbers for February mark the half way point in the cycle between course commencements and thus represents a good time to make a judgement on what is happening in the marketplace for trainee teachers.

It is not surprising that with the economy facing the challenges resulting from the covid-19 pandemic that teaching appears a more interesting profession to pursue for graduates than when unemployment is low, and the economy is booming. However, there are not similar outcomes across the whole gamut of subjects.

This blog has used as a measure the number of applications classified as falling into one of three categories ‘Placed’, ‘Conditional Place’ or ‘Holding offer’. This is a more refined measure than using the gross total of applications, not least because each candidate can make several applications.

The news this month is that the numbers in these three categories are generally well above those for February in recent years. However, there are some exceptions to this general observation.

In geography, biology and design and technology numbers in these categories are below the same level seen last year.  Geography suffered from over-recruitment a couple of years ago, and numbers placed and holding offers have been controlled more carefully since then.

Now applications for places in biology and physics courses are on the increase, there is less incentive to recruit large numbers of biology trainees, so caution here is understandable. Design and Technology is a subject that regularly struggles to fill places, and the current nature of the pandemic may not have produced large numbers of potential teachers in this subject area.

Although applicant numbers are increasing, there has not really been a surge. Compared with February 2020, there are some 4,300 more applicants this year. These additional applicants are spread across the country, although 1,100 are domiciled in London and a further 1,200 in the South East, leaving the remainder to be spread across the remaining regions.

Applications are up from those in all age-groups, including both career changers and new graduates, producing little shift in the percentage composition of applicants by age-group compared with last year.

The inclusion of a gender category of ‘unknown or Prefer not to say’ makes annual comparison on this factor impossible, but it seems likely that there has been little change and perhaps that men have even lost a little ground on women in percentage terms.

In terms of routes into teaching, School Direct (Salaried) remains the big loser in the number of applications, especially in the primary sector. All other routes seem to have benefited, although the rate of offering places on the Apprenticeship route seems to be slow when compared to other routes. In view of the government’s plans for teachers, the higher education sector remains resilient, and is still the choice for more applications than any other route into teaching.

As places fill, we can expect applications to reduce. However, of more interest is how the wider graduate labour market will recover from the pandemic and what effect that recovery will have on applications to teacher preparation courses.

Miss a year or repeat a year?

Schooling in England has always been about pupils progressing in age-related cohorts based around an August/September birthday cut-off point. The exception was in those independent schools, celebrated in literature such as Tom Brown’s Schooldays, where a ‘remove’ form operated for those so far behind they couldn’t really move forward with their peers.

The issue of how to deal with lost learning as a result of the covid pandemic and school closures has started to revolve around the debate about either missing a year or repeating a year. Both have resource implications, as well as an impact on learners

By chance, I have experience of both approaches. The north London selective secondary school I attended in the late 1950s and early 1960s with my twin brother had a policy whereby the top form – of four – missed out the third year (Year 9) and progressed to complete a full set of ‘O’ levels in four rather than five years. Those pupils also studied Latin rather than taking woodwork or domestic science (food technology within design and technology for those not familiar with historical education terminology). The aim was to allow time for a third year in the sixth form to prepare for Oxbridge entrance examinations for those deemed bright enough to take that route.

These pupils subject to accelerated progression certainly lost some learning in all subjects, but the curriculum in subjects where there is a clearly defined path to examination success were not allowed to suffer.

As the twin, that took the usual five years to progress through the system to examinations at sixteen, I benefitted from having my other twin forge a path.  When we were both in the sixth form this meant that by choosing the same three subjects for ‘A’ level I had a ready-made set of notes to use.

As a result of the happenstance of our parents taking a civil service post in Africa, and the problem of needing to pass ‘O’ level English Language, I repeated the final year of the sixth form, spending three years in the sixth rather than the more usual two, and thus experiencing some of the  issues around repeating a year.

There are pros and cons to both approaches, but what might determine the outcome is resources. Do schools have the staff and space to allow a whole year group to repeat a year? For secondary schools, so long as they don’t have an intake, it might be feasible, but that would put pressure on primary schools to accommodate an extra year group. Where rolls are falling, this might be possible, but in some areas there won’t be the space, although finding the staff should be less of an issue.

Higher Education and further education would lose an intake, and the funds associated with these students. The government would need to compensate these institutions for lost revenue or risk financial pressure sending some institutions into real financial trouble.

A whole cohort missing a year might require a rethink of the examination syllabuses, but there are plenty of examples of children that prospered despite having missed education for health reasons. Indeed, I missed quite a lot of Year 8 due to having two operations. Perhaps that is why I struggled with the English Language examination.

A decision will need to be made soon, especially if the government wants to spend more cash on a catch-up scheme. This is not a decision that can be left to the market to solve fairly for all pupils.