Tag Archives: teacher numbers

PTRs: an update

Posted on by
Reply

The publication of the 30TH Report of the School Teachers’ Review Body (STRB) Report earlier this week contained the usual chapter on the state of the labour market for teachers. As is often the case, the DfE provided a set of data with their evidence that found its way into the relevant chapter of the report.

One such table was for the Pupil Teacher Ratios for Qualified Teachers, by primary and secondary sectors for all state-funded schools

The STRB table appears to have used data from the School Workforce Census up to 2018. The 2019 data presumably appeared too late to be included in the Report, but I have added it to the Table for the purpose of completeness.

Pupil to teacher ratio (Qualified) within-schools for ‘Pupil-teacher ratios’
201120122013201420152016201720182019
LA maintained nursery and primary2120.920.92121.121.321.721.521.3
LA maintained secondary15.615.515.715.816.116.416.717.217
* see foot of post for link

Curiously, the data from the DfE site on the School Workforce Census for Qualified teachers in 2018/19 differs from the numbers in the STRB Table as the extract from the DFE site reveals.

Table showing Pupil to teacher ratio (Qualified) within-schools for ‘Pupil-teacher ratios’ from ‘School workforce in England’ in England between 2018/19 and 2019/20
2018/192019/20
LA maintained nursery and primary21.321.3
LA maintained secondary16.717

https://explore-education-statistics.service.gov.uk/data-tables/fast-track/bf13ef14-3069-4638-a489-d31a2248e984

I don’t know the reasons for the apparent differences between the two datasets. The new method of producing statistics on the DfE site makes time series data more of a challenge to create for those used to the former presentation. I am sure that the new system will allow for easier interrogation of the data, one the initial challenges have bene overcome. However, it does alter the dynamics of the relationship with the data if you can only ask pre-set questions, and cannot eye-ball the dataset for possibly interesting patterns that have not occurred to the statisticians in the civil service.

There are couple of odd anomalies in the Secondary PTR data for 2019. Two unitary authorities, Portsmouth and Telford & Wrekin, are recorded as experiencing very large changes between 2018 and 2019. In the case of Portsmouth’s data about Qualified Teachers in the secondary sector, the PTR went from 16.7:1 to 18.5:1 in one year. This is well outside the normal degree of change.

In the past there have been errors recorded in the PTR tables.  Indeed, one year a Volume of Statistics of Education – Teachers had to be recalled as there were so many mistakes. More recently,  a glitch resulted in mistakes for some local authorities in Yorkshire and The Humber Region appearing in one version of the table.

Finally, it is worth noting the relationship between school funding and PTRs. The direction of travel is a good lagging indicators of how well schools are funded, especially now that funding is so closely related to pupil numbers.

Should the remaining shire counties be reformed into unitary councils in the autumn, as has been predicted, then 2020 might be the last time for some years that PTR data will provide anything like a reliable picture of staffing trends in schools across a whole swathe of rural England.

*

Click to access STRB_30th_report_July_2020.pdf

Further reflections

Posted on by
2

The Daily Mail is apparently carrying a story today of a leaked DfE email revealing a fall in teacher numbers. This is seen as a revelation, even though Table 2a of the DfE’s analysis of the Teacher Workforce, published in June 2018, showed a fall in teacher numbers between the 2016 and 2017 census points. https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/school-workforce-in-england-november-2017

However, I suppose that when a staunchly Tory supporting newspaper starts printing bad news stories about the working of a Conservative government one must anticipate that either the end is nigh or that editorial control is weak over the Christmas and New Year period.

Had either the Daily Mail or any other media outlet wanted to pick a more up to the minute bad news story about teacher numbers, they could have done no better to use my previous post as the basis for a news item. Readers will recall that based on data released yesterday by UCAS, it appears that fewer graduates want to become primary school teachers than in the past.  The Daily Mail could have run a headline around ‘Who will teach Tiny Tim?’ about this fall in applications to train as a primary teacher.

Delving further into the UCAS data than I had time to do yesterday, it seems as if more career changers were queuing up to apply to train as a teacher in 2019, than were new young graduates. However, the 230 additional graduates in their 30s and 40s compared with December 2017 were not enough to offset the reduction of 400 in those from the 22-22 age group that have not applied this year. Hopefully, they are still weighing up their options.

For the first time in some years, fewer than 1,000 men from the 21-22 age group have applied for a place to train as a teacher on either a primary or secondary course starting in 2019. However, it is the continued relative lack of interest from young female graduates that should concern officials even more. This group in the past has been the bedrock of those applying in the early part of the recruitment round.

Rather than evaluating the overall success or otherwise of the marketing campaign, the DfE should urgently be investigating why this group, of whom there will be fewer emerging from universities over the next few years, are taking longer to think about teaching as a career. Last year, enough came around in the end to ensure all places for primary teachers were filled, but the warning signs are there and need investigation.

Perhaps the DfE has over-emphasised the need for secondary subject teachers and rather taken the primary sector for granted, apart from the need to ensure sufficient teachers with expertise in mathematics. The DfE doesn’t have a policy of ensuring sufficient subject knowledge across the curriculum to ensure that able pupils can be motivated and intellectually stretched either within the primary school or in other ways.

Perhaps it is time to reconstruct those local CDP offering managed by teams of staff than know their schools and teachers. Doing so in a cost effective manner might mean upsetting some MATs and even diocese, but can we afford anything other than the most cost effective system for such CPD?