Tag Archives: Teach First

Back to the GTP? (Graduate Teacher Programme)?

Posted on by
Reply

The latest DfE notice updating those interested in tendering to run the Future High Potential Initial Teacher Training (HPITT) Programme ahead of the formal tender notice, to be issued on the 15th September raises some interesting questions.

The current brand name for the programme is Teach First. Since 2016, the programme has been subject to funding by the DfE following a tender process. Teach First started as a programme aimed at attracting teachers for schools in London that were facing recruitment issues. The need to improve outcomes in disadvantaged areas was also a part of the mission, as was attracting those that might not have thought of teaching as a career, but might be prepared to spend two years in the profession.

In the early years of Teach First there was the government alternative national employment-based route into teaching through the Graduate or Registered Teaching Programmes (GTP or RTP).

The information in the latest DfE document Future High Potential Initial Teacher Training (HPITT) Programme – Find a Tender feels as if the aim is to produce two coherent national programmes for employment-based routes into teaching. However, the document doesn’t seem to make clear the geographical intentions of the programme, preferring to reflect on schools and pupils instead.

i Support schools serving low-income communities with high numbers of disadvantaged and / or low attaining pupils (i.e. Eligible Schools) in England to recruit the teachers they need to help improve outcomes for pupils

ii. Target high-quality candidates with a 2:1 degree or above, who would be otherwise unlikely to join the profession or work in an Eligible School and who have the capability to be highly skilled teachers and emerging leaders, and who are passionate about making a meaningful impact, in these schools.

iii. Contribute to recruitment in specified subjects but with flexibility to meet the specific recruitment needs of schools.

The fact that only 1,000 places will be funded will make the geographical aspects of the contract a key feature. Do you offer the HPITT where the candidates will be or where the schools are located, given the programme is aimed at those that who would be otherwise unlikely to join the profession or work in an Eligible School. The latter point offers a high degree of flexibility, and it is interesting there is no mention of performance criteria or even what specifically constitutes an Eligible School.

Spread across nine regions, and both the primary and secondary sectors, a national scheme looks challenging to administer within the current funding offer specified in the documents. The programme might need either the support of a charity or a private sector firm willing to operate the scheme for the benefits it brings in working in the teacher recruitment market.  

The phrases about recruitment data are, of course, music to my ears. TeachVac pioneered identifying schools with recruitment issues over a decade ago. Those that have read my recent posts about headteacher vacancies in August will know that I still retain a key interest in this area. There are a multitude of posts on this blog about recruitment. Here is a link to just one of them. Some trends for 2019 in teacher recruitment | John Howson

The document asks for the following:

Develop and maintain strong partnerships with schools and other partners in areas with the greatest teacher recruitment challenges to understand and meet the needs of schools in terms of teacher recruitment and provide sufficient high-quality employment-based placement opportunities.

If any bidder wants to ask for my advice on how to understand the data about where the real recruitment challenges are, then I would be happy to advise.

The programme although entitled HPITT also includes some leadership work. This is presumably a carry-over from the current Teach First work, but I wonder whether there really ought to be two different contracts as the programmes are very different in scope.

The scope of the tender for the HPITT programme looks very much like evolution not revolution, but perhaps the DfE would have been better aiming for the latter if it really wants to improve standards in the worst performing schools in England.

Where should Teach First recruit its trainees?

Posted on by
Reply

There have been some interesting discussions recently on the LinkedIn platform about Teach First, and its possible extension beyond its original scope of recruiting from the Russell Group of universities after SchoolsWeek revealed this condition might be altered when the contract is re-tendered for the scheme. Teach First: Labour plans recruitment scheme revamp

Two points are worth making about the discussion. Firstly, the universities within the Russell Group have not remined the same since Teach First was established more than twenty years ago. Secondly, when faced with challenges in filling its target for recruiting teachers, Teach First does seem to have already extended its reach beyond the Russell group. In it 2024 annual report to the Charity Commission it said that:

‘Increasing the proportion of trainees from Russell Group universities compared to the previous year and sustaining the proportion of trainees with a first-class degree despite a decline in the number of firsts awarded.’ (Page 10, 2024 accounts with Charity Commission)

However, it didn’t provide any details of the number of non-Russell Group trainees recruited, and in which subjects. This is an important issue because of the schools where Teach First place their trainees. Historically, schools within the M25 with high percentages of disadvantaged pupils were the main focus of the programme, although in recent years it has spread more widely across the country while keeping its core mission.  

An analysis of, for instance, the percentage of new physics teachers recruited through Teach First and the schools they were placed in, and subsequently went on to work in, would be interesting, especially if compared with the distribution of new teachers of physics across all schools with similar levels of deprivation in the parts of the country not covered by Teach First.

Another interesting issue with regard to Teach First is the cost of recruiting their teachers. I saw a comment that surprised me about ‘needing to interview applicants because of AI generated applications’. I thought that all qualified applicants would have been interviewed as a matter of course.

This caused me to look at the cost of recruitment to the Teach First programme. Their accounts with the Charity Commission suggest that in 2023 the charity spent just over £7 million on recruitment and then £6,587,000 in 2024. Now, in 2023, it recruited 1,417 trainees, including to the pilot SCITT programme. In 2024, with the development of the SCITT programme, some 1,419 trainees were recruited. If the financial data is correct, then that would mean more than £4,000 to recruit a trainee in 2023, falling to £3,800 in 2024.  I wonder whether other ITT courses spend anything like this amount on recruitment?

Of course, some of the expenditure is offset by donations to the charity, and during a period when recruiting new entrants to teaching is a challenge, recruitment costs would be expected to be high. Although when recruitment to teaching is buoyant, as it may well be over the next few years, the overall cost may be higher because there are more applicants to process, especially if Teach First is opened up to a wider range of graduates seeking to become a teacher and interviews more applicants. How much should we spend on recruiting trainees teachers and how good are we at obtaining value for money on recruitment overall, including the national TV advertising campaigns?

The Education Select Committee: reflections on evidence sessions

Posted on by
Reply

After two evidence sessions of their inquiry into recruitment and retention by the House of Commons Education Select Committee there are a number of interesting themes that need teasing out in more detail during the summer recess. Teacher recruitment, training and retention – Committees – UK Parliament

On the topic of recruitment, I have thought of these issues, in no particular order:

Linking recruitment to need

There has been talk of ‘cold spots’ and ‘certain schools’ finding recruitment (and retention) more of a challenge in the evidence sessions, but the evidence base has been limited. There is more certainty over the subjects with a lack of recruitment, although the committee has not delved into the cumulative effect of years of under-recruitment in some subjects. How many schools, for instance lack a properly qualified teacher of physics? The DfE can provide that information from the School Workforce Census. Also, the providers could have said how many of the physics ITT graduates start work in the private school sector or the FE sector in sixth form colleges rather than in schools?

Teacher vacancies and Free School Meals | John Howson (wordpress.com)

Leadership turnover and Free School Meals | John Howson (wordpress.com)

The Select Committee should ask Ministers about their policy. Oxfordshire would provide an excellent case study of demand from 80 secondary schools, but limited ITT numbers across all subjects.

I did some analysis last Christmas that could from the basis for a national study A Christmas holiday read about Teacher Supply | John Howson (wordpress.com)

New graduate numbers

New young undergradues still remain the most important source of entrants into ITT. However, this age-group has been experiencing something of a demographic downturn that will, fortunately, reverse in a few years’ time.  Higher Education has compensated by enrolling more undergraduates in their 20s.

The implications for teaching of any change in the profile of new graduates needs to be understood, as does the relationship between the location of undergraduate courses in different subjects and entry into ITT. Again, physics makes an interesting case study. Some of the physics degree courses in London are not linked to a college with an ITT provider. Teach First can link with these colleges, but more could be achieved in the field of linking courses with ITT marketing programmes.

Applications and acceptances

The current DfE application process provides less data than the UCAS system it replaced. There are no monthly numbers around applications and offers by either gender or ethnicity making trends difficult to identify until outcome data are produced. This is an easy win for the committee to recommend a better dashboard on applications and offers. As the second panel identified, there are issues with discrimination in both ITT and teacher recruitment at all levels from classroom to head teacher’s study.

 All Lives Matter: But some need to matter more | John Howson (wordpress.com)

‘We need more black headteachers in our schools’ | John Howson (wordpress.com)

Few teachers from ethnic minorities outside London | John Howson (wordpress.com)

Training salary or bursaries?

Regular readers of this blog will know that I favour a training salary for all postgraduate entrants into teaching rather than the present confused, bursary; salary or no support shambles that changes on an annual basis. Could anyone image the Ministry of Defence telling the army to pay cadets at Sandhurst according to how easy it was to recruit to their corps? No support for cavalry regiments, but a big bursary for engineers? I cannot see that happening.

However, partly, I suspect because of the numbers, teaching has a muddled approach across the three routes:

Undergraduate

Postgraduate non-classroom

Postgraduate classroom

A training salary would at least make marketing simpler, and mean career changers would always be sure of an income. When introduced in the early 200s it produced an increase in interest in teaching.

The undergraduate route has been withering on the vine, and before looking at new routes such as undergraduate apprenticeships for graduate professions there should be an understanding as to whether the undergraduate degree has now replaced ‘A’ levels as the last level of pre-career entry qualification. If so, then the new route may not be successful.

Does the sector really wish to reinvent the pupil teacher role? And, will it largely attract those unable to afford the cost of a university degree?

The suggestion that different placements can affect costs for trainees needs to be investigated. In the past, placement costs were borne by providers to ensure a level playing field. The random nature of the travel costs makes them unfair for individual trainees to bear. I researched issue this for the former ATL in the 1990s on two separate occasions.

Employment based routes into teaching

Are we offering fewer employment-based routes into teaching than a decade ago? Teach First is now the dominant salaried route into teaching. School Direct (salaried) has failed as a route into the profession and graduate apprenticeships are in their infancy. Both need closer monitoring to see how they are being used across different sectors and subjects.

In 2009/2010 EBIT (employment-based routes) accounted for 5,800 trainees, according to the DfE census. In the 2022/23 ITT census there were 2,679 trainees on three salaried routes (590 School Direct Salaried; 759 apprenticeships and 1,330 Teach First). This would seem to suggest that either opportunities for career changers needing a salary to train as a teacher have declined by several thousand or the offer is no longer attractive enough to entice career changers into teaching.

Earlier this year, I wrote the following:

“Applications are being sustained by an increase in career changers. Candidate numbers in the age groups below 25 continue to fall, with just 4,027 candidates in the 21 or under age grouping. By contrast, this year there are already 600 candidates in the 50-54 age grouping compared with 449 in March 2022. The number of candidates recorded as over the age of 65 has increased from 12 in March 2022 to 25 this March! The bulk of the career changers seem likely to be men. The number in this group has increased from 6,525 in the March 2022 data to 8,037 this March. However, the number recruited has fallen from 562 to 419, perhaps indicating that many of these older men are in the group applying from overseas?” Teaching not attracting new graduates | John Howson (wordpress.com)

The mention of overseas applicants is important, as the 2023ITT application round has seen most of its growth in applications for ‘rest of the world’ and this has important implications for the outcome of the round if these applicants cannot obtain a visa, even if offered a place.

Some other issues

School there be subject quotas for the primary sector ITT numbers to ensure a spread of expertise?

Does the present application system discriminate against those that apply later in the recruitment round, and does that fact have implications for under-represented groups and their patterns of applications?

Should the DfE consider funding Recruitment Strategy Managers on a regional basis once more?

Do we need a unique job number to be better able to track vacancies?

With a largely female workforce should the level of departures each year for maternity leave be predictable and does the resignations total include those taking maternity leave?

And the big one – does the market model of placing teachers in schools work? Are we returning to an employ-driven model of teacher supply that existed as the dominant model before the Robbins report?

Urgent Summit on Teacher Supply needed

Posted on by
Reply

45,000 teacher vacancies were advertised so far in 2022. There were only 65,000 vacancies advertised during the whole of 2021, so demand in 2022 is much higher than in recent years. The pool of teachers to fill these vacancies has largely been exhausted, and secondary schools seeking teachers of most subjects, apart for PE, history, drama and art, will struggle to find candidates to appoint during the remainder of 2022 regardless of wherever the school is located in England.

The data, correct up to Friday 29th April was collected by TeachVac, the National Vacancy Service for all teachers. www.teachvac.co.uk The situation in terms of teacher supply at the end of April is worse than in any of the eight years that TeachVac has been collecting data on teacher vacancies.  

Schools can recruit teachers from various sources, including those on initial teacher training courses where they are not already committed to a school (Teach First and School Direct Salaried trainees are employed by specific schools); teachers moving schools and the broad group classified as ‘returners’ to teaching. This last group includes that previously economically inactive, usually as a result of a career break to care for young children or elderly relatives, plus those switching from other sectors of education including further education or returning from a period teaching overseas.

In extremis, where schools cannot find any candidates from these routes, a school may employ an ‘unqualified teacher’. This year that may include Ukrainian teachers displaced by the war as well as anyone else willing to take a teaching post. This was the route that I entered teaching in 1971. Generally, such teachers need considerable support in the early stages of their careers.

Normally, the labour market for teachers is a ‘free market’ with vacancies advertised and anyone free to apply. Can such a situation be allowed to continue? The DfE should convene a summit of interested parties to discuss the consequences of the present lack of supply of teachers facing schools across England looking to recruit a teacher in a wide range of subjects.

On the agenda should be, the effect of a lack of supply on the levelling up agenda; the costs of trying to recruit teachers; how best to use the remaining supply of PE, history, art, drama and primary sector trained teachers to make maximum use of scare resources, and how to handle any influx of ‘unqualified’ teachers.

The data for geography teacher vacancies, not normally seen as a shortage subject, reveals the seriousness of the current position for schools still seeking to fill a vacancy for September 2022 or faced with an unexpected vacancy in the autumn for January 2023.

jobs 2015jobs 2016jobs 2017jobs 2018jobs 2019jobs 2020jobs 2021jobs 2022
07/01/202225322024661635
14/01/20225679767547564192
21/01/2022561291301359311973164
28/01/2022114152165174159186106240
04/02/2022157188200220208265149324
11/02/2022182236235270262341206399
18/02/2022190261272302324436250471
25/02/2022190291318336356476268541
04/03/2022254349383370398537321625
11/03/2022289387438468477629375739
18/03/2022320423491492527712421834
25/03/2022367451537533592754487958
01/04/20223814875935806567945531078
08/04/20223815126386037478375781175
15/04/20224835656626398018706011220
22/04/20225506246956878269026641288
29/04/20226136807677888819667481440
06/05/20226527118258639861029814
13/05/202271576788493610631088903
20/05/2022778814932100711371153977
27/05/20228038459871068120811901043
Source: TeachVac www.teachvac.co.uk

With recruitment into training for courses starting in September 2022, already under pressure the issue of teacher supply is not just one for this year. Unless teaching is made a more attractive career and steps are taken to ensure maximum effective use of the teachers available then some children’s education will be compromised and their future career choices put in jeopardy.

A target is still a target

Posted on by
2

Last week the DfE published the Postgraduate ITT targets for 2022/23. Postgraduate initial teacher training targets, Academic Year 2022/23 – Explore education statistics – GOV.UK (explore-education-statistics.service.gov.uk)  There must have been a collective sigh of relief across the ITT sector following the announcement, because, although some changes in the targets have been announced, including some reductions in overall targets, the outcome is not likely to have more than a marginal effect on providers except in Chemistry.

The full list of changes is shown in the table below

subjectnumber 21/22number 22/23difference
Total31030326001570
Primary1080011655855
Total2023020945715
Modern Languages15052140635
Design & Technology14751825350
Computing8401145305
Others19802240260
Geography745945200
English19802100120
Physics2530261080
History78085070
Classics4030-10
Religious Education470450-20
Physical Education1010980-30
Biology820780-40
Drama330290-40
Art & Design580530-50
Music540470-70
Business Studies725635-90
Chemistry1080885-195
Mathematics28002040-760
Source: DfE

As the DfE noted in their announcement ‘It is also important to note that recruitment to postgraduate ITT in 2022/23 has not been limited for any subject except physical education. Therefore, although targets for certain subjects may have decreased compared to last year, this does not necessarily mean there will be fewer trainees recruited as a consequence – recruitment can exceed targets.’

This statement, of course, raises the question of why have targets? The answer is complicated, and has been a matter for debate for many years. I assume that The Treasury wants some idea of both how the DfE will spent its cash on schemes it operates, and what the drawdown of student loans could be at its maximum. Both are legitimate questions for government to ask. For a number of years, I was part of a group that discussed these targets before they were released, in those days in the autumn as recruitment to the round was about to start. Now, I read them at the same time as everyone else.

The DfE commentary also notes that adjustments have been made for under-recruitment in certain subjects.

‘A key driver of whether the 2022/23 targets have increased/fallen for specific secondary subjects is the extent to which those targets have been adjusted to build in the impact of recruitment being below target in the two previous ITT rounds before 2022/23. 

An example of a subject where such an adjustment has been made is modern languages. In the previous two ITT rounds, recruitment for modern languages was below target, so we have increased the 2022/23 target for modern languages to account for this previous under-recruitment. This is the first time we have made such an adjustment for the subject, leading to modern languages having the largest percentage increase in targets this year.

For some subjects, the impact of previous under-recruitment against targets can be offset by other factors. A good example of this is mathematics, where we have seen a decrease in the 2022/23 target compared to last year’s target. Whilst the 2020/21 and 2021/22 PGITT targets for mathematics were not met, the impact of this under-recruitment was more than offset by increases in the numbers of PGITT trainees, returners, and teachers that are new to the state-funded sector being recruited. Furthermore, there was an increase in the proportion of mathematics trainees entering the workforce immediately after ITT.’

This comment from the DfE suggests that retraining courses for serving teachers in subjects such as mathematics might now be considered when calculating targets. It would have been interesting to have seen the worked example for mathematics in order to see which of factors was important in reducing the total to a number close to that for English. Certainly, TeachVac has recorded lower demand for mathematics this year than might have been expected.

Interestingly, in the list of factors affecting the calculation of the targets, the DfE focus on factors affecting inflows. It is not clear the extent to which the changing global marketplace for teachers affects ‘outflows’ and whether any pause due to the effects of covid may have only been a temporary reduction in the number of teachers departing these shores?

The issue of including the effects of under-recruitment in the current targets is an interesting one. Schools start each September fully staffed, so there is a risk that by including the shortfall from previous years in the new target the supply is inflated to a point where a proportion of trainees won’t find a teaching post. It would be interesting to see if these are mostly likely to be trainees with student loans not training through an employer managed route. The DfE will have that data. Inflated targets can also lead to places being provided in parts of the country where there are not jobs. This was a consequence of using this methodology in the 1990s.

At the present time, this consideration of whether to include a previous shortfall in the current target is merely an academic discussion in most subjects, since 2022 will most likely again see courses fail to hit even these revised targets where they have been lowered, except perhaps in Chemistry and possibly mathematics, both subjects where over-recruitment is permitted.

However, the methodology used in calculating targets via the Teacher Supply model (TSM) process may become more important for providers in coming years as pupil numbers stabilise and funding comes under pressure, especially if large salary increases to cop with high inflation are not fully funded by government.

There will be tough times ahead in the ITT world. Will schools want to stay involved and what will be the collective views of Vice Chancellors towards the DfE and ITT?

Funding schools: how far to hypothecate?

Posted on by
Reply

No sooner do we have a National Funding Formula for schools than it starts to dawn on some people that’ equal’ shares may not be the best way to achieve the policy goal of levelling up outcomes. How funds are distributed to schools are key to education outcomes, and have been ever since the State mandated schooling as the default position for the education of children whose parents did not, could not, or would not make other arrangements.

At the heart of the debate about the distribution of funds are two key principles: equity and the identification of the point of decision on how to spend funds. For much of the past 100 years the issues around the degree of hypothecation of funds was centre stage. With the devolution of budgets to schools in the 1990s, this issue was replaced for a long period by the debate over how much cash should be allocated to schooling.

Of course, the problem of creating an education system where all may enjoy success meant that the issue of how funds were allocated didn’t entirely disappear from the political agenda. However, the simple view of a hard National Funding Formula approach that put the view that ‘equal means the same for all’ centre stage – except of course that pay differentials and London weighting meant that it was never as simple as some would have liked – gained supremacy in thinking, although there were always other exceptions such as Education Opportunity Areas.

Funding policy is now under scrutiny once again, with the national levelling up agenda taking centre stage in the political agenda around policymaking. This policy hasn’t been fully worked through in terms of what it means for education and the hypothecation agenda. I wrote in an earlier blog post about how you enforce retention payments to teachers if that is a mechanism to be used in the prosecution of levelling up. Mandate schools and provide a hypothecated grant?

This week there have been two helpful additions to help the discussions on the funding debate. The House of Commons library has published a research briefing, excellent, as always, on School Funding https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-8419/CBP-8419.pdf

Teach First, the charity whose aims now extend well beyond just training teachers to work in schools with high levels of disadvantage pupils, has published a  report around rethinking the Pupil Premium Rethinking pupil premium: a costed proposal for levelling up | Teach First The Pupil Premium is, of course,  a great example of a semi-hypothecated grant to schools, in that its criteria for distribution are made clear, but its actual use by schools is not determined closely as part of the funding.

At present, different rules also apply as between maintained schools and academies and Academy Trusts in how funds distributed through the National Funding formula may be aggregated to cover central costs. This is an interesting area of the hypothecation debate that merits further discussion.

But in the end, decisions about the allocation of funds will always be in the hands of those that provide the funding. Local council taxpayers can be grateful that funding schools is no longer a part of their costs in urban areas. In the countryside, and where there are large bills for special needs transport, it is a different matter, as school transport costs are left to local council taxpayers to cover.

My guest blog for Oriel Square Publishing

Posted on by
Reply

By John Howson, chair of TeachVac and County Councillor in Oxfordshire. *This blog was written before the DfE’s announcement on 2nd January 2021 of a new Institute of Teaching.

2020 didn’t prove to be a happy 150th anniversary for state education in England. Hopefully, we will be able to look back on 2021 with better memories. One clear outcome from 2020 was the need to review methods of teaching and learning as pupils were forced to interact with their teachers remotely.

Teacher preparation

The oversight of the school system might have been better managed had there been a strong middle-tier between schools and policymakers.

For many years, too much of the preparation and professional development of teachers has been focused on looking backwards at the past rather than at understanding the possibilities offered by a very different future. The Covid-19 pandemic changed that approach overnight. Parents discovered the reality of teaching and school leaders had to invent new patterns of dialogue between their staff and pupils; often with little help from the government.

Indeed, the planning and oversight of the school system, fractured as it is between local authorities, stand-alone academies and Multi Academy Trusts, might have been better managed had there been a strong middle-tier in operation between schools and policymakers at Westminster.

The role of schools in teaching training

In the course of the past fifty years, the labour market for teachers has oscillated between periods of shortage and times of oversupply.

For many years, I have been an observer of the workings of the labour market for teachers. In the course of the past 50 years that I have been involved with schools in England, the labour market for teachers has oscillated between periods of shortage – occasionally of severe shortages of teachers – and other times where there has been an oversupply.

Under the coalition government, and especially under the stewardship of Michael Gove as Secretary of State for Education, schools were encouraged to be at the forefront of teacher supply. Traditional higher education routes of teacher preparation were out of favour, and narrowly missed disappearing altogether when faced with recruitment controls.

At its zenith, the ambitious School Direct salaried route into teaching accounted for 12% of postgraduate entrants into teacher training.

The ambitious School Direct salaried route into teaching reached its zenith in 2016/17 when such trainees accounted for 12% of postgraduate entrants into teacher training. By the government’s 202/21 training year census the same route only accounted for five per cent of trainees, despite a larger number of trainee places being available. …

To read the rest of the blog go to https://www.orielsquare.co.uk/blog/index.php/2021/01/05/teacher-training-putting-the-past-behind-us/

Employment based routes hit new lows

Posted on by
1

In a year when recruitment to teacher preparation courses was on the increase, any aim the government might have had to increase the share of school-based preparation courses has stalled. The government issued the annual census of trainees on teacher preparation courses today.https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/initial-teacher-training-trainee-number-census-2020-to-2021

I am not a great fan of the new way of presenting statistics, and especially of the challenges it present when trying to create specific tables. However that aside, the key points are that as expected: trainee numbers are up, but that not all subjects met the Teacher Supply Model number for the year. Regular readers of this blog will not be surprised by that fact as I had predicted that would be the case, despite the increase in applications in the March to September period.

Higher Education, no doubt helped by the offer of both undergraduate and postgraduate places, increased its share of the market from 38% to 41%. Still way off its former levels, but no longer on a downward trend. School Direct Salaried route, the classic employment based route, was the big faller; down from 7% to 5% this year. Teach First took 4% against 5% last year. SCITTs held steady at 12% as did the Fee-based School Direct route at 23% of the total.

Some tables produced today by the DfE may include the small number of trainees forecast to join courses after the census date, but the differences are small.

Future blogs will explore the data in more details, but arts and humanities, and some subjects that have recruited poorly in recent years, have done well, even if in the case of Design and Technology and Physics and Chemistry, mathematics and Modern Languages they still did not meet the Teacher Supply Model number for the year.

The increase in Physics from 42% to 45% of the TSM number was especially disappointing, but not surprising.

Of more concern to those on courses and HM Treasury must be the over-recruitment in history –up from 115% to 175% of target and Physical Education, up from 105% to 135%. In these subjects, all trainees will struggle to find teaching posts in England in 2021 and it would be ironic if the government is funding teacher preparation for teachers forced to work overseas to practice their professional skills due to a lack of teaching posts in England.

Primary courses also over-recruited to target, and some may struggle in some parts of the country to find teaching posts for September or at the end of undergraduate courses if the decline in school rolls continues.

10 Adverts per school in 2019

Posted on by
Reply

The average secondary school has placed 10 adverts for teachers during 2019. The figure is higher for most schools in London and the Home Counties and lower for many schools in the north of England.

The data are from TeachVac www.teachvac.co.uk the leading job boards for teachers looking for posts anywhere in England.

Of course, the average is a crude measure, as it isn’t related to the size of the school in terms of its pupil population. There are schools with more than 2,000 pupils and also at the opposite end of the scale there are those with only a few hundred pupils.

Once the year is over, TeachVac will link the number of vacancies to the pupil roll of the school, as supplied by the DfE in its data, and compare the outcome with indicators such as the percentage of pupils with Free School Meals. As TeachVac has data for several years, it will be possible to start to identify trends and whether there are certain types of school where staff turnover is more common.

Of course, now that the number of pupils entering secondary schools is on the increase, and there are also new schools being established, the picture is not as clear cut as if it were a steady state in relation to the size of the secondary school population.

The data also reveals how the demand for teachers corresponds to the supply, at least for new entrants. Data on returners seeing work is still patchy, and a national register might be a useful tool for the new government to consider.

After all, what is the point of training teachers if there are also returners willing to work as teachers? As I have said before on this blog, enticing mature entrants into teaching and then not offering them work is a wasteful misuse of human resources. Nowhere can this be seen more clearly than in the Humanities.

There are far more history and geography trainees than required by schools. History trainees, unless lucky to be on Teach First or School Direct Salaried Scheme, have to pay fees and find the cost of looking after themselves during their training, all this expenditure with no guarantee of a job.

This year, 2019-2020, according to DfE figures, some 178 history trainees are being supported by public funds (65 on School Direct Salaried Scheme and 113 on Teach First). By comparison, some 1400+ trainees are using student loans and other funds to train as a teacher.

With such over-recruitment into training, it isn’t clear why the government allowed spending on 178 history trainees at a cost of perhaps £400,000 of public money? That’s unnecessary public expenditure. Add in those 130 geography and PE trainees also on salary schemes, subjects where supply of trainees also exceeds demand for teachers, and the cost to the public purse is well over half a million pounds.

The current hybrid system of training teachers looks overdue for a re-think. Whether it will get one from the next government is probably unlikely while planning for Brexit continues to dominate the agenda.

 

1,336 Physics trainees in 2020/21: wishful thinking or realistic target?

Posted on by
Reply

Yesterday, the DfE released the Teacher Supply Model (TSM) information for England covering the academic year 2020 to 2021. https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/tsm-and-initial-teacher-training-allocations-2020-to-2021 There was also information on the methodology underlying the TSM that continues the trend towards more open government set by David Laws when he was Minister of State at the DfE.

Perhaps one of the strangest lines ever to appear in a government publication can be found on page 3 of yesterday’s key DfE publication, where it states reassuringly for ITT providers that ‘in reducing the 2020/21 TSM target, this does not mean there will necessarily be fewer trainees’. This is because the DfE has continued to uncap ITT recruitment in most secondary subjects, except PE, but has continued to cap primary numbers.

The DfE’s rationale for reducing targets, most of which haven’t been reached in recent years, are improvements in the methodology of the TSM, including the fact that NQTs entering through the assessment only route are now included in the calculations. Put simply, the DfE have found some more teachers not counted in previous versions of the TSM, and that has reduced the requirement for new teachers to be trained in 2020/21.

The problem the DfE civil servants face is that each September schools must be fully staffed, otherwise children would be sent home. This makes it difficult, if not impossible, to carry forward unfilled places from previous years, as there are not vacancies in the system. Also, carrying forward unfilled places would eventually lead to targets that were ludicrous in size. Better to start afresh each year.

Rising pupil numbers, teacher retention rates and curriculum changes are among the key drivers of the targets that are set at a national level. Interestingly, business studies and physics are two subjects where targets have increased for 2020/2021. In the case of the latter, from 1,265 to 1,336, an increase of 71 possible trainees. As in 2018/19 only 575 physics trainees were recorded outside of Teach First, this increase might raise something of a hollow laugh among providers.

One might wonder why recruitment in Biology (reduction of 76 trainee numbers), history (291 fewer trainees) and geography (187 fewer trainees) isn’t capped in view of their over-recruitment in 2018. Could it be that by recruiting in these subjects the overall deficit will be smaller than it would otherwise be? Surely not, but trainees need to consider their job opportunities before undertaking training to become a teachers in some of these subjects. By 2020, the DfE should be able to tell them about job chances as part of the new DfE Apply System that ought to be operating at that time.

Next month, the ITT Census for 2019 will be published, and it will be possible to see whether, as I hope, the shortfall this year is smaller than the number of missing trainees last year.

Overall, the drop of 602 in secondary targets won’t have much effect on the ground. The reduction of more than 1,500 in the primary postgraduate target to just 11,467, may have more implications for some providers and their future, especially if this is not the end of the reductions resulting from the recent decline in the birth-rate.