The DfE has published some useful research papers about Education opportunity Areas. The one of immediate interest to me is on recruitment in the Yorkshire Coast Opportunity Area. Inspire by Teaching Recruitment evaluation North Yorkshire Coast Opportunity Area Intervention Level Evaluation Report (publishing.service.gov.uk) At one point, although the report doesn’t mention it, TeachVac provided a report on vacancy trends at specific schools.

There is much re-learning in this report. More than 20 years ago, the DfEE the government Department at that time responsible for schools provided funding for local authority Recruitment Strategy Managers to help specific areas manage a recruitment problem in a period of teacher shortages. A report on their effectiveness was prepared in October 1999 and I have a copy before me as I write this blog.

Nearly a quarter of a century later and there is the evaluation of this project called the IBTR (Inspire by Teaching Recruitment (IBTR) project) that dealt with not only teaching vacancies, but also non-teaching roles.

Some 20% of the vacancies were filled from outside the local area. That raises interesting questions about the cost of national recruitment that this blog has discussed before – Teacher Vacancy Platforms; Pros and cons, 7^th December 2020 – and the report does discuss this issue

‘Prior to the project, headteachers would typically take out an advert in the local or national press for their vacancies. A national advert might be in the Times Educational Supplement (TES) and could cost up to £1500, while a local advert could be on a local authority site and cost up to £50. The DfE teacher vacancy website was being established in 2019 around the same time as this evaluation. No headteachers mentioned the DfE teacher vacancy website unprompted during any wave of the fieldwork7’.

Footnote 7 ‘Teaching Vacancies, the DfE’s free search and listing service for state funded schools in England, now plays a larger role than when this report was drafted. As it stands today, Teaching Vacancies is used widely across the region with 220 vacancies in the last year. The website actively directs users to Teaching Vacancies and schools in this region actively use Teaching Vacancies to advertise their vacancies.’  Page 27 and footnote.

Interestingly, TeachVac doesn’t rate a mention in the report even though we were asked to supply staff in the Opportunity Area with a custom-made report on vacancies. Taken together, TeachVac and the DfE site do make the case for a low-cost on-line job board. The issue with the DfE but not with TeachVac is that the DfE only handles jobs from state schools and requires schools to upload vacancies twice, to their site and the DfE site. Teachers want a site with a guarantee of almost universal coverage as a one-stop shop for vacancies, as do those seeking non-teaching posts.

However, back to the issue of what needs to be managed locally and what centrally? Paying £1,500 for national advertising seems these days wasteful of scare resources. If 80% of vacancies are filled either locally or from the region then locally managed projects do seem like good value for money and better value than every school doing their own thing.

TeachVac has now launched its premium service for vacancies based upon a no match: no fee model. We believe that offers a sensible way forward at a low cost of £1 per match and an annual maximum of £1,000 per school – less than the cost of one TES advert quoted in the report. Finally, it is worth noting that the costs of marketing promotion, advertising and web portal for this one Opportunity Area were more than the annual cost of running TeachVac for the whole of England for a year.