Tag Archives: teacher preparation

Are men returning to teaching as a career?

Posted on by
1

Further delving into the DfE research into school leadership brough to light two more interesting facts. The first is the fact that Headteachers in the secondary sector are more likely to have a Level 7 qualification than head teachers in the primary sector. 76.8% of secondary heads have a Level 7 qualification compared with 41.6% of headteachers in the primary sector.

This difference should not surprise anyone with a sense of history, as many primary headteachers trained when the undergraduate route into primary teaching was still almost as common as the post graduate route. What is more surprising is that the PGCE is classified as a Level 7 qualification. In terms of level of content, I would assume it was actually a Level 6 qualification.

In reality, with more school-based trainees, including those that completed the Teach First route, this will not be a very useful statistic in the future.

The other nugget in the data doesn’t concern leadership statistics, but men in primary classrooms. In order to account for the data on leadership, many of the tables also contain information about classroom teachers and middle and senior leaders not headteachers.

The percentage of classroom teachers in the primary school sector that are male was on the increase between 2010 and 2020, whereas in secondary schools the percentage has continued to decline.

Year% Male classroom teacher in primary sectorTotal classroom teachers
201011,3%130,800
201613.9%142,800
202014.0%144,900
Year% Male classroom teacher in secondary sectorTotal classroom teachers
201035.7%117.100
201634.3%103,900
202033.8%106,000

Data from pages 26,27 and 73 School leadership in England 2010 to 2020: characteristics and trends

Because male teachers are less likely to have a break in service than female teachers, even with maternity leave of one year, there are still higher percentages of males as headteacher in the primary sector than the percentage of male classroom teachers. However, the percentage of male headteachers has been declining, from 29% of primary sector heads in 2010 to 26.2% in 2020.

In the secondary sector, the percentage of male headteachers declined from 62.1% in 2010 to 59.9% in 2020, suggesting that the glass ceiling is still proving difficult to breakthrough after an initial growth in the percentage of female head teachers during the first decade of the century.

Looking back in history, in both 1989 and 1996 male applicants accounted for 36% of PGCE applicants in both years. This was down from 43% of applicants recorded in 1983. In 1995 men accounted for just 16.1% of applicants to primary PGCE courses (Source Howson, Education Review, Summer 1996, Volume 10 Number 1 pp 36-40)

According to the latest DfE data for applications to postgraduate ITT training in the 2024-25 round, released in September 2025, male candidates made up 44% of all applicants, up from 39% the previous year.  However, the DfE do not release gender data for either sectors or subjects, as was the case with the GTTR data. Nevertheless, the 2024-25 percentage of 44% male applicants is very similar to the 43% recorded in 1983.

It would be interesting to know whether male candidates receive offers at the same rate as female candidates, especially if only candidates domiciled in England are considered. However, that data isn’t in the monthly releases from the DfE.

Perhaps the low point in male interest in primary school teaching has been reached, but with training numbers on the decline, the balance between applications and offers does need to be monitored, and preferably shared with the sector to ensure discussion about any future trends.  

Has teaching become an attractive career again: Part 2

Posted on by
Reply

Following on from my initial analysis of September’s data on postgraduate teacher preparation course applications and offers, outlined in the previous post, I have now looked at the data in more detail.

The table below looks at the DfE target for entry into courses in autumn 2025 plus the increase in ‘offers’ made between the June and September data runs this year. The number shown as ‘accepted’ in September is then compared with the ‘target to show any possible over-recruitment or ‘shortfall’ there might be in each subject and phase. The latter would be bad news for schools seeking to recruit into those subjects both next September, and in January 2027.

SubjectTarget2025/26% increase in Offers Sept on Juneaccepted Sept 25over/under target
Total Secondary19,27026%16843-2,427
Primary7,65034%98802,230
Chemistry73049%909179
Biology98536%1397412
Mathematics2,30035%2617317
Design & Technology96533%678-287
Art & Design68033%902222
Geography93533%98146
Classics6032%42-18
English1,95031%1760-190
Drama62030%273-347
Business Studies90029%235-665
Music56528%343-222
Religious Education78028%418-362
Others2,52025%360-2,160
History79023%936146
Modern Languages1,46021%1428-32
Physics1,41019%1313-97
Physical Education72517%1491766
Computing8955%761-134

The data is interesting. There has indeed been a surge in ‘offers’ made in many subjects between June and September. Chemistry leads the way, with a 49% increase in ‘offers’ between June and September. This is followed by Biology (36%), mathematics (35%) and art and design (33%)

Other art subjects have seen significant increases in ‘offers’ of between 28-33%, but that has not been enough to ensure targets will be met this year.  In some subject, notably history and geography, targets were close to being met by June, so few new offers have been made. This is not seemingly the case in PE, the targets had been met by June, but 17% more offers have been made between June and September. Overall, this suggests a late surge in interest in teaching as a career.

Of more concern is the situation in Classics, English, drama, business studies and music, plus religious education and the catch-all ‘other subject’s where targets will be missed, even though ‘offers’ have increased significantly for the time of year. The DfE needs to assess how the market is changing in regard of who wants to be a teacher.

Because of the complication of applications from outside of the United Kingdom, it won’t be until the ITT Census is published in December that the full picture on recruitment into ITT will emerge.

However, civil servants cannot assume, ‘more of the same’ is what is needed in what may be a changing market, where for some teaching now looks more attractive as a career.

In changing times, the amount of data available can be helpful in assessing what is happening. In the previous post, I suggested some data points that it would be useful to have regional and provider level data during the recruitment round, especially in relation to the probability, based on previous years’ data, of those applying from outside of the United Kingdom taking up a place if offered one.

Is it fashionable to become a teacher once more?

Posted on by
Reply

The September 2025 data on recruitment to postgraduate teacher preparation courses was published earlier today by the DfE. Initial teacher training application statistics for courses starting in the 2025 to 2026 academic year – Apply for teacher training – GOV.UK

The numbers in themselves weren’t a surprise as the signs of recovery, almost across the board, in interest in becoming a secondary school teacher have been there for the past few moths. Indeed, I have remarked before that the teacher supply crisis of the past decade may now be at an end.

Almost across the board, both offers and numbers accepted are well up on September 2024, so that is god news for recruitment for next September.

The one ‘fly in the ointment’ is English. Here both offers – down from 2,487 last September to 2,161 this September and numbers accepted – down from 2,109 to 1,760 this September – must be a genuine cause for concern,

The questions that need answering are: is it across all age-groups or just new graduates or career switchers; is is across all regions or just some? Are there any other significant features that might need considering, such as whether a lack of financial support during training is a matter for concern.

In  other subjects, it won’t be until the ITT census is published in December that we will know how man y of those accepted actually turned up and stayed the early part of their course.

However, acceptances in maths, up from 2,251 to 2,617 and physics up from 988 to 1,313 are encouraging to see. The 30% increase in acceptance in physics might be unprecedented in recent history – the covid year apart.

The news in the arts, even apart from English is less good. RE accepted 418 (417 last year); Music 343 (322) Classics 42 (52). However, in art and design 902 (820) and history 936 (813).

It is worrying that the number accepted in the Southy West provider region fell, albeit from 1,800 to 1,799 whereas in London acceptances for training providers rose from 5,144 to 5,742.

Candidate numbers increased from those in the age-groups under-30, but either fell or were flat for candidates from the age-groups over 30. However, acceptances did not follow a similar pattern as more older candidates were accepted than last year. There needs to be a debate about the balance of new teachers necessary to provide for the leadership grade posts in twenty years’ time. Managing that issue within equality legislation is a real challenge. However, in a profession where senior leaders start as classroom teachers, it is one that should not be ignored.

How much of the interest in teaching as a career is down to the feeling that AI will remove many entry level graduate jobs is something to consider. However, if it means when applications for 2026 entry open in a couple of months’ time  that more graduates are considering teaching than in the past, I will heave a sigh of relief, as no doubt will the Secretary of State.

Entrants into Higher Education from those domiciled in England

Posted on by
Reply

The DfE has published some interesting statistics about entrants to higher education level courses from those domiciled in England. Higher Level Learners in England, Academic year 2023/24 – Explore education statistics – GOV.UK

Overall, numbers during the period from 2015-16 to the end of 2023-24 increased from 728,140 to

time_periodqualification_aimnumber_of_entrants
201516Total728140
201617Total745505
201718Total750370
201819Total765155
201920Total769200
202021Total859745
202122Total844070
202223Total843220
202324Total838200
increase110060

838,200. This was an increase of 110,060. However not all types of qualification showed the same increase.

Apprenticeships across the board showed an increase from 26,870 in 2015-2106

time_periodqualification_aimnumber_of_entrants
201516Apprenticeship26870
201617Apprenticeship36075
201718Apprenticeship47090
201819Apprenticeship73820
201920Apprenticeship81315
202021Apprenticeship97490
202122Apprenticeship104980
202223Apprenticeship111360
202324Apprenticeship120420

To 120,420 entrants by 2023-24.

However, for First degrees, numbers were falling by 2023-24

time_periodqualification_aimnumber_of_entrants
201516First Degree (excluding Integrated Master’s Degree)374805
201617First Degree (excluding Integrated Master’s Degree)375720
201718First Degree (excluding Integrated Master’s Degree)377795
201819First Degree (excluding Integrated Master’s Degree)380295
201920First Degree (excluding Integrated Master’s Degree)391625
202021First Degree (excluding Integrated Master’s Degree)426630
202122First Degree (excluding Integrated Master’s Degree)427295
202223First Degree (excluding Integrated Master’s Degree)427625
202324First Degree (excluding Integrated Master’s Degree)422700

The peak year was 2021-22, and since then there has been a slight fall in numbers. Over the next few years, once the current bulge works its way through the school system, numbers of home domiciled entrants may fall further, adding to a loss of income for some degree awarding institutions.

These institutions already seem to be losing income from Master’s Degrees

Master’s Degree including integrated degrees20151687490
201617113415
201718114625
201819113365
201920115170
202021139260
202122123895
202223117155
202324114275

The 2023-24 enrolment was some 25,00 below the peak recorded during the covid year 2020-21 and more in line with the longer-term trend.  

Enrolments in doctors from those domiciled in England has shown an upward trend.

time_periodqualification_aimnumber_of_entrants
201516Doctorate11900
201617Doctorate12200
201718Doctorate12735
201819Doctorate13770
201920Doctorate12675
202021Doctorate13530
202122Doctorate12925
202223Doctorate12655
202324Doctorate12920

As with Master’s degrees, there was a spike in enrolments in 2020-21, following on from another spike in 2018-19.

The data on enrolments for postgraduate courses in Education whether PGCE or PGDE are slightly concerning

Postgraduate Education courses20151621870
20161720005
20171820725
20181921570
20192020775
20202125360
20212221925
20222315925
20232413705

It is not clear whether the reduction in primary ITT is partly responsible for the decline in entrants or whether there has been a change in registrations for school-based trainees? Again, the spike in recruitment during covid is very marked. However, as the notes indicate the 2022/23 academic year saw a larger number of data quality issues compared to other years. Therefore, we advise caution when comparing higher education figures across the time series. It is now clear whether or not the ITT numbers suffered from data quality issues.

Will university course cuts mean fewer teachers?

Posted on by
Reply

Estimates are doing the rounds on social media about the number of places on courses in universities already lost through cuts and course closures. Do the cuts matter? Of course, it depends upon what you want from the higher education sector?

Personally, being entirely selfish, I want enough graduates to be able to staff our schools in the future. I am hopeful that HEPI, or even the DfE are monitoring both the cuts to courses that have already taken place and any that are proposed for possible implications around recruitment into teacher training and then on into teaching.

I have seen at least one post suggesting that the cuts to courses already introduced are disproportionally in higher education institutions with more teaching than research. Twenty years ago, I conducted a survey for the then TTA about attitudes towards teaching as a career amongst final year students. A large number of students expressing an interest in teaching came from higher education institutions with a higher profile for teaching than research. If that is still the case, then where cuts take place will matter.

Many of the higher education providers where teaching is really important are located in urban areas, and have strong roots in their local communities. This is also important if, as used to be the case, a large number of new graduates went on to train as teachers at the same university, or in the same area, as they studied for their first degree. I wonder whether anyone is monitoring this trend?

Of course, there are schemes, of which Teach First is one example where they have recruited students into teaching from research intensive institutions without a local link to teacher training, such as LSE, Imperial College and Royal Holloway College in the London area.

However, it would be interesting to hear from university careers services about the views of current students about where they are willing to train as a teacher: is locality important or are other factors affecting decision-making, such as the cost of living for students in some areas.

I always thought it was a shame that the Open University quit teacher training. Not only did the OU bring access to a large number of mature students, but by starting it ITT course in January, it both offered a different staring point for those  that decided they wanted to teach after courses starting in September had closed, but also by ending their courses when they did, the OU also provided new entrants to fill those vacancies that occur in January or even at the start of the summer term.

Taking a longer-term view, when the current reduction in the school population works its way into higher education, where and what courses those students’ study will be even more important for the labour market for teachers.

Fortunately, we now have the apprenticeship routes into teaching. Should we be diverting future teachers from experiencing the university rite of passage and replacing it with the world of work? I am sure that there is an interesting debate to be had on that topic.

‘Stuck’ schools – who teaches in these schools?

Posted on by
Reply

The DfE has today updated the ad hoc data about schools eligible for RISE support. Schools in the RISE programme are those with support from the Regional Improvement for Standards and Excellence advisers and teams. According to the data, some 50 schools have been eligible for the programme for 11 years or more.  Schools eligible for RISE intervention – GOV.UK

To become eligible for RISE a school must be a ‘stuck’ school.

A ‘stuck’ school is defined as a state-funded school that was graded Requires Improvement – or equivalent – at its most recent Ofsted inspection and was also graded below Good at its previous Ofsted inspection.

Where inspections have been completed subsequent to the removal of single headline grades in September 2024 (and in the interim before report cards are introduced), for the definition of stuck schools and for the purpose of its intervention policy, DfE treats a sub-judgement of Requires Improvement for leadership and management and/or quality of education for a school inspected in 2024/25 academic year as equivalent to a previous single headline grade of Requires Improvement.

Following the introduction of Ofsted school report cards, the definition of stuck schools will be updated to “schools which receive a ‘needs attention’ grade for leadership and governance, which were graded below good, or equivalent, at their previous Ofsted inspection”. 

At 30 June 2025 there were 639 stuck schools, and 292,000 pupils in those schools.

Of those:

  • 372 are primary schools, 235 are secondary schools, 21 are special schools and 11 are pupil referral units
  • 90 are local authority maintained schools and 549 are academies or free schools (although some of these were not academies at the time of their most recent inspection)
  • Across the spring, summer and autumn RISE cohorts, 396 academies and local authority maintained schools have been identified for targeted RISE intervention. As of 31 July 2025, 377 schools remain in the programme, 349 of which are stuck and 28 of which are academies in a category of concern.
  • Of the remaining stuck schools, some have changed responsible body since their most recent inspection and are therefore not eligible.  Others will be considered for inclusion in later cohorts.

On average, as at 30 June 2025, the 639 stuck schools were graded by Ofsted as below Good or equivalent for 5.6 years.

  • The 372 primary schools that are stuck have been rated below Good or equivalent for an average of 4.7 years.
  • The 235 secondary schools that are stuck have been rated below Good or equivalent for an average of 6.9 years.
  • On average, as 31 July 2025, the 377 schools in receipt of targeted RISE intervention from the RISE advisers and teams, were graded by Ofsted as below Good or equivalent for 5.8 years. Of these, 50 were below Good for more than 11 years.

As might be expected, ‘stuck’ schools as a group exhibit lower outcomes and higher absence and suspension/exclusions than other school of a similar type.

This data concentrates on pupil outcomes. What I think would be more interesting is information about staffing. How often has the headteacher changed during the past decade in a ‘stuck’ school. What is the turnover of teaching staff, and how many are ‘unqualified’ or on programmes to become qualified compared with other local schools?

Until it is possible to match data about staffing to outcomes, we are not likely to learn anything new. I started my career in the 1970s in a school that undoubtedly would now be one of the 50 with eleven years of issues with performance. Staffing was always an issue throughout the seven years I spent at the school. Not surprisingly, when falling rolls became an issue, it was one of the schools to be amalgamated out of existence. I wonder whether that will be the fate of some of these schools over the next few years?

 I am also remined of the book edited by Paul Marshall in 2013, and call ‘The Tail’ that discussed the issue of under-performance in schools across England. In the introduction he wrote that:

‘.. for good teachers to be deployed in the most challenging schools… reforms to the delivery and accountability of child and adolescent mental health services; and perhaps new types of dedicated provision for the tail.’ The Tail page 17.

No doubt RISE was one outcome, and it would also be interesting to know if any of the 50 schools with the longest eligibility have had access to support from the Teach First programme? We know almost everything there is to know about the pupils, but nowhere near enough about the teachers. Time for a rethink on the workings of the labour market for teachers?

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.

10-year plan for teachers of Physics

Posted on by
4

I was delighted to read the Institute of Physics new 10-year plan for the teaching of physics in schools in England The physics teacher shortage and addressing it through the 3Rs: Retention, Recruitment and Retraining (England) As is to be expected from the IoP, this is a thoughtful and well argued report.

Some of the finding in this new report mirror those in the report published in January 2002 by Northumbria University, and funded by the then TTA. The Northumbria study, interestingly called ‘Supply, Recruitment and Retention of Physics Teachers’ was authored by Prof. Hilary Constable, and I was a part of the team that undertook the research underpinning the report.

Many of the conclusions in the IoP report sould apply to the whole teacher supply landscape. It is just that the labour market for teachers of physics, especially in non-selective state schools, is an extreme example of 30 years of failure to provide schools with the staff needed for the National Curriculum.

It is worth recalling that in the 2006 budget speech, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer mentioned 3,000 trainee science teachers needed as a part of the Science and innovation investment framework 2004-2014. So, the problem has been known for decades, the will to solve it has seen less drive behind it. I sincerely hope that the government takes the recommendations of the IoP report on board.

As someone that has studied the leacher labour market for more than 30 years, the idea of exit interviews has always seemed to me to be a missing a part of the picture. The DfE has wave studies with school leaders, teachers, pupils and parents, but not it seems leavers. I would be happy to manage a trial with the MATs and local authority HR department in one authority, to collect data. The Northumbria study did collect some data from early leavers, workload, the desire only to teach physics and a return to studying appear to be some of the common features of the findings.  I guess, not much has changed.

If I have a quibble with the IoP report, it would be on the table of salaries in the report. My guess is that financial services salaries are skewed by a ‘London’ effect and the teaching salary doesn’t fully record any incentives received by qualified physics teachers. I would also like to have seen how many of those with QTS are in Sixth Form Colleges and independent schools?

The idea of retraining is a sensible use of resources, as are subject knowledge enhancement courses for those considering becoming a teacher of physics, but lacking a degree specifically in the subject.

Overall, what the report demonstrates is the lack of a comprehensive strategy for the staffing of our schools and, since the demise of the TTA and its successors, no real centre for policy discussions. One wonders what the Chartered College of Teaching is doing in this field? The demise of the APPG for the Teaching Profession, supported by Chris Waterman for many years, left a vacuum for debate about teacher supply, even if Ministers chose not to listen. Hopefully, after this report, the secretary of State will act.

DfE wasting money on ITT

Posted on by
Reply

The latest data on applications to postgraduate ITT courses appeared this morning. Such are the wonders of modern technology that data generated on the 18th of August can be programmed to appear on the bank holiday Monday in order to keep up the sequence of posting the data on the last Monday of the month by the DfE. Initial teacher training application statistics for courses starting in the 2025 to 2026 academic year – Apply for teacher training – GOV.UK

As is already known, 2025 is going to be best year for recruitment to graduate teacher preparation courses since 2013, especially in many traditional shortage subjects, such as the sciences and mathematics. But it is not ’a bed of roses’ all round.

AUGUST 2025 OFFER
SUBJECT202420252025 TARGETDIFF ON 2024DIFF TO TARGET
CLASSICS665360-13-7
ENGLISH239920801950-319130
RE494491780-3-289
  
OTHERS454472252018-2048
DRAMA29833762039-283
MUSIC37840756529-158
COMPUTING642884895242-11
D&T68076496584-201
BUS STUDIES25232490072-576
 
PE16751734725591009
ART & DESIGN8711087680216407
HISTORY9631100790137310
MATHEMATICS259730042300407704
MFL149816771460179217
GEOGRAPHY9421093935151158
CHEMISTRY9201054730134324
PHYSICS128516771410392267
BIOLOGY14151600985185615

Three subjects have recorded fewer offers this year than last year. Two, classics and drama, will miss their target. In English it would be touch and go to meet the target by the date of the ITT census in early December from just this source of trainees. However, Teach First and other routes should mean that the target will be comfortably met. But, the applications patterns for 2026 will need careful monitoring.

Five subjects won’t meet their targets this year, even with Teach First. Computing should, although it hasn’t yet done so from the courses included in this dataset.  

The remaining subjects have all recorded increased offers this year and, in most cases, are way over target. This raises the question about whether or not the DfE should once again consider recruitment controls in some subjects. After all, although we will need teachers to cover the missing trainees in the group of ‘other’ subjects, will the 1,000 extra PE teachers offered places over the target have the appropriate skill sets to fill those vacancies? They are certainly unlikely to fill the music vacancies, but presumably could be offered business studies teaching.

Hopefully, the DfE will be matching up to date vacancy data with the targets generated from historical data to see what changes might be needed for 2026 entry.  After all, there isn’t money to waste in the public exchequer.

There also appears to be over supply in the primary sector

SUBJECT202420252025 TARGETDIFF ON 2024DIFF TO TARGET
PRIMARY106101140576507953755

But I wonder whether, as in some secondary subjects, some candidates are recorded holding more than one offer. Even so, this is a sizeable overshoot and may cause issues next September in some parts of the country for trainees seeking teaching posts in primary schools. Especially, if a combination of falling rolls and a reluctance to move jobs in a deteriorating labour market overall sees fewer posts advertised.

I believe that Ministers need to do some hard thinking about balancing supply and demand for teachers and the cost to the public purse.

Sort out physics teacher preparation courses

Posted on by
Reply

The next couple of years likely to see the best recruitment levels to physics ITT courses for more than a decade. As a result, there might be a risk that everyone concerned with teacher preparation breathes a huge sigh of relief, and put the problem of the shortage of teachers of physics in the ‘job done’ bin. In my view that would be a big mistake.

Now is the time for someone, perhaps the Institute of Physics, NfER, Nuffield or Gatsby to consider a research project that looks at the pipeline of physics teachers from school to school, and notably from university to teaching. Do different courses produce different numbers of teachers of physics that stay in the profession, and become the leaders of tomorrow or just provide short-term additions to the teaching stock. How important is a middle leadership cadre?

 Mapping these outcomes both geographically and as between public and private schools, and within the public sector as between 11-16; 11-18 and post-16 institutions might create an understanding that could then lead to a debate about how every child could access high quality physics teaching on a regular basis up to Level 3.

With the improvement in mathematics in schools over recent years, there should be the possibility of increasing interest in physics, especially amongst girls. The percentage of girls taking physics is still lamentably low. This is despite 30 years of programmes such as WISE. How far has the lack of management of the scare resource that is teachers of physics held back the encouragement of more girls to study the subject?

Teaching has always looked to be a profession where there is basic pay equality. That’s fine when there aren’t shortages, but there have always been incentives and rewards from golden hellos to additional payments for working in challenging schools. What incentives work to keep teachers of physics in the profession. Is it non-pay matters, such as not having to teach ‘all sciences’ or some mathematics that is as important as pay?

If gender is an issue, what about ethnicity: of both teachers and those that study physics at school? Then there is the issue of what percentage of pupils on free school meals have access to high quality physics teaching? Is it different from those small numbers on free school melas in schools in affluent areas, compared with schools where a large percentage of pupils are on free school meals. In the latter schools, attracting a physics teacher means access for some pupils. In the former, even if there is a physics teacher do the pupils on free school meals have access to physics?

And what about pupils with SEND? What is their access to physics teaching like?

Physics could be a template for other subjects to ask the questions about, ‘what can we do to ensure we have the best system for preparing teachers, recruiting them into schools, and ensuring that they stay in the profession.’ The alternative is that we could carry on as before, and rely upon market forces to provide the Nobel Prize winner of the future.