Tag Archives: teacher training

1,500 posts and counting

Posted on by
1

When I wrote my first post on this blog, on the 25th of January 2013, I little though that I would reach 1,500 posts. However, despite stopping posting for 18 months, between the autumn of 2023 and May this year, while I was otherwise occupied as a cabinet member on Oxfordshire County Council the blog has now reached the milestone of 1,500 posts, including 40 so far this year since I started the blog up again this May.

Since one of the features of the blog has been commenting on numbers, here is a bit of self-indulgence. The blog has had 175,983 views since its inception, from 93,875 visitors, and has attracted 1,459 comments. The average length of a post has been between 550-670 words, although there have been a few longer posts in response to consultations and Select Committee inquiries.

How much holiday do teacher have? is the post with the most views – more than 6,500 and rising. Some posts have had no views, but are still an important record of my thoughts. The United Kingdom has been responsible for the most visitors: not a surprise, as most posts are about education in England. However, the USA comes second, with more than 15,000 views. Apart from some former French speaking countries in West Africa, Greenland and Paraguay, almost all other countries have had someone that has viewed the blog at least once.

Later this year, I will be publishing a book of the 2013 posts from the blog, and at that point they will disappear from public view. If you want to register for the book, check on Amazon after August 2025 or email dataforeducation@gmail.com for publication information. Alternatively, ask your favourite bookshop or library to order a copy.

I am sometimes asked about my favourite post. With 1,500 to choose from, that’s difficult, as many haven’t seen the light of day for a decade or so. However, Am I a blob? From 2013, was fun to write, and the posts about Jacob’s Law finally brought about a change in the legislation over admissions in the current bill going through parliament.

Most posts have been written, as this one is, in one session from start to finish, with editing just to tidy up my thoughts. Some are more passionate than others, and many are about teacher supply issues, where I am also researching a book on the subject covering the past 60 years of ‘feast and famine’. Much of the recent history has been well chronicled in this blog.

Thanks for reading, and for the comments. Who would have thought that someone that failed ‘O’ level English six times would end up writing a blog!  Funny old world.

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?

6,500 extra teachers; myth or realistic aim?

Posted on by
5

Hurrah for the Public Accounts Committee at Westminster (PAC). Today the Committee published a report into the government’s plans – or lack of them – to meet their target of 6,500 extra teachers – and lecturers. Increasing teacher numbers: Secondary and further education (HC 825)

The Committee is as sceptical as this bog has been about how the government intends to meet this target that was to be paid for by the addition of VAT on private school fees from January 2025.

One recommendation that the PAC doesn’t make is the creation of a Chief Professional Adviser on Teacher Supply. I held such a post between 1996 and 1997, but was never relaced when I left the then Teacher Training Agency. Such a designated post would draw together the work of civil servants who may change roles almost as frequently as ministers- What odds would one give on the present Secretary of State surviving a cabinet reshuffle before the party conference season? A central role with professional oversight might help the government achieve its aim.

Anyway, the PAC Recommendations included

  1. The Department should set out how it plans to deliver the pledge for 6,500 additional teachers to provide assurance that this will f ill the most critical teacher gaps. This should set out: • how the pledge will be split across schools and colleges; • the baseline and milestones so Parliament can track progress; and • how it will stay focused on teacher retention alongside recruitment.
  2. The Department should develop a whole-system strategy to help frame how it will recruit and retain school and college teachers. This should be based on a fuller evidence base, establish the preferred balance between recruitment and retention initiatives; set appropriate targets for those joining teaching through different routes; and include value for money analysis of different initiatives.
  3. The Department should work with schools and colleges to understand the reasons behind variations [in recruitment and retention], particularly within deprived areas and core subjects, setting this out in published information to help identify and share good practice and ideas on what works best.
  4. The Department should work to better understand why teachers leave and then better support schools and colleges in addressing these factors. This includes looking at changes to contractual and working conditions, such as flexible working, and at how teacher workload can be reduced. It should also collect data on the effectiveness of the newly-announced behaviour hubs, rolling them out further if they prove to be successful.
  5. The Department should assess the effectiveness and relative value-for-money of pay against other recruitment and retention initiatives, to make an explicit decision on whether it needs to do more to ensure teachers are paid the right amount.

The final recommendation will not be welcomed in HM Treasury if it means finding more cash for teachers’ pay, especially coming the day after resident hospital doctors threatened strike action over pay benchmarking. In paragraph 22 the Committee stated that

‘However, teacher pay has lagged behind others – in 2024, those working in the education sector were paid around 10% less in real terms than in 2010, with the wider public sector being paid on average 2.6% less than in 2010.’

Will a return to the 2010 benchmark now be the goal of the teacher professional associations?

In the next blog, I will discuss the committee’s idea for dealing with the thorny issue of providing teachers for deprived areas.

Ministers; music matters

Posted on by
Reply

Yesterday, in this blog, I wrote that music courses preparing new teachers for our schools had the highest conversion rate of applicants to offers for any subject. By June this year, some 63% of candidates have been offered places. This compares with just 27% of candidates applying to become a business studies teacher. This data comes from the DfE’s monthly updates on recruitment into these courses.

I also pointed out that the 325 candidates offered places by June this year, of the 565 that have applied, meant that the DfE’s target for new entrants of 565 was unlikely to be met ,making 10 missed targets in the last 11 years.

Music ITT recruitment

Recruiting yearJuneSeptemberdifferenceITT censusTarget% filled
2014/153103605035348173%
2015/163403703035739989%
2016/172903102029539375%
2017/182503106030040973%
2018/192403208031239280%
2019/20360480120469385122%
2020/213904203038654071%
2021/222282875929247062%
2022/232012302921679027%
2023/242883789033182040%
2024/25326565

The table shows that the only time the DfE target for music was met was during the initial covid year, when there was a surge of applications for teacher preparation courses. Even in that year, the 469 trainees recorded at the time if the ITT census in the autumn would not have been enough to meet the target for this year of 565.

Between June and September new offers made have ranged from 120 in the covid year to as low as 20 in 216/17. Based upon last year’s figure of 90 new offers, and assuming this year is a little better and that 100 new offers are made, would mean a figure of around 426 offers by September, still more than 100 adrift of the target for this year that has been set at a more sensible level of 565 compared with the targets for the previous two years.

In passing, it is worth recording that adding shortfalls into future targets is not a helpful exercise, especially as all schools start the year fully staffed. Doing so also makes the percentage of target filled number misleadingly low, as with the 27% of the 2022/23 recruitment round.

Collecting this data together isn’t just of interest to data watchers. There is a serious issue here that is also linked to the cutbacks in university courses currently underway.

Imagine a scenario where the civil servant in charge of teacher supply and training meets his opposite number in charge of universities over coffee one lunchtime this summer. ‘I have just seen the data on ITT music offers and we risk not hitting our target again this year’.  ‘Bad luck’, the other replies, ‘but if universities cut music courses, won’t that make it even more difficult for you in future years?’ ‘You cannot let that happen, as we need graduates for teaching’. ‘Sorry, universities are free agents, and music courses are not in fashion right now.’ ‘What shall we do?’ ‘Perhaps we can write a joint paper for the PS mentioning apprenticeships’ ‘Good idea, job done.’  ‘After all music is an important export industry, and we mustn’t let it go the way of design and technology in our schools.’

Last week I attended a concert in Dorchester Abbey where in the course of a week pupils from 41 primary schools came together to sing their hearts out. We must ensure that music is available to all of them when they transfer to secondary schools.

Big range in candidate’s chance of becoming a teacher

Posted on by
2

The latest ITT data for applications and offers for course starting this autumn was published by the DfE this morning. Initial teacher training application statistics for courses starting in the 2025 to 2026 academic year – Apply for teacher training – GOV.UK Normally, the data appears on the last Monday of the month, so this moth’s data is a week early. However, at this stage of the year the early publication probably doesn’t make much of a difference to any analysis of the data.

The good news is that the DfE allocations or targets, call them what you will, have already been exceeded in some subjects; even before any Teach First data has been added to these numbers. However, what matters is how many of the ‘offers’ turn into trainees on the ground when courses start. Based on previous years, it seems likely that this will turn out to a good year for the government and schools, but challenges still exist in some subjects.

At least four subjects, business studies; design and technology, music, and religious education won’t meet their targets this year. This is despite music having the highest conversion rate of applicants to offers of some 63%. By comparison, business studies has the lowest conversion rate of just 27%. It is possible that both classics and drama might also fall short of their targets this year, but the jury is still out.

SubjectTarget 2025/26June offersJune applicationsoffer to candidates’ ratio
Business Studies90025593427%
Chemistry730730243230%
Physics1,4101431476330%
Others2,520399117934%
Mathematics2,3002321621637%
Religious Education780397102939%
Biology9851275330339%
Total Secondary19,270161003848142%
English1,9501648393742%
Classics60419543%
Computing895895201544%
Art & Design680817165050%
Geography935854171250%
Design & Technology965587117450%
Modern Languages1,4601418272352%
Drama62026950154%
History790924166356%
Physical Education7251514263957%
Primary7,65087901527358%
Music56532551663%

For some subjects the ‘offers’ are well in excess of the targets/allocations, with physical education have offers double the requirement, and a high ratio for offers to candidates. The cash this will bring to universities through fees will no doubt be welcome, but is it a good use of taxpayers’ money? If the Teacher Supply modelling is correct, many of these trainees might struggle to find a teaching post in 2026: not a phrase I have written recently.

I am curious as to where the more than 4,700 physics candidates have come from? If those with offers turn up, then that will be really good news, but I think we need clarity about the numbers and their reliability in predicting trainee starters this autumn.

Although all regions have seen an increase in candidate numbers, the Midlands have seen a fall in candidate numbers as measured by the region of the training provider. There is an imbalance between provider regions with just three regions; London, the North West and the South East accounting for the bulk of ‘offers’. As some providers are located in one region but provide wider, and even national coverage, this should not be an issue, but is worth monitoring, especially in the subject that won’t reach their targets, for any regional shortages.

Still, for many admissions tutors in ITT this will be their easiest summer for more than a decade. 2026 might be even better.

Ethnic minority groups still excluded from teaching

Posted on by
Reply

Yesterday, the NfER published a report about ethnic minorities and the teaching profession; from entry to leadership. Ethnic disparities in entry to teacher training, teacher retention and progression to leadership – NFER sponsored by Mission 44.

This is an issue that has concerned me for the past 30 years since I first wrote an article for the then NUT (now NEU) in their magazine abut the future of the teaching profession. The article asked whether or not the teaching profession was destined to be ‘young, white and female’. A decade later, I produced two reports for those in government responsible for teacher recruitment about, firstly, all minority groups in 2008, and then specifically ethnic minority groups in 2011. The latter report concluded the following:

‘Of three hundred graduate would-be teachers; 100 each from the Asian, Black and White groupings used in this study:

 24 of the white group, 14 of the Asian group and just nine of the Black group are likely to fulfil their aspiration of teaching in a state funded school classroom.

Even in the sciences, where shortages have been the greatest out of three hundred would-be science teachers there would be only some 34 White teachers, 17 Asian teachers and 11 Black teachers.’ (Howson, 2011 author’s copy)

The NfER report has concluded over a decade later that:

‘There are significant ethnic disparities in postgraduate ITT rejection rates among UK-domiciled applicants that are not explained by differences in applicant and application characteristics. The persistence of ethnic disparities that are not explained by the applicant characteristics that we can observe in the available data suggests that discrimination by ethnic background is likely to play a role, although we cannot definitively rule out other factors (such as differences in qualification levels or work experience).’

In the 2008 report I helped produce, we also concluded that it was sometimes challenging to identify rationales for outcomes about ITT recruitment.  Take an example of a course with 20 places and 100 applicants; 60 women and 40 men. Assuming all are graduates with the same class of UK degree – unlikely, but there can be too many variables to make easy judgements possible – how do you allocate places. One possibility is on a first come, first served basis. So, if men apply later than women, as is often the case for new graduates, they may find all the places allocated by the time that they apply.

A fair distribution might be 12 women and 8 men offered places, based upon all applications. Now add another category, ethnicity. Where do you place that, ahead of gender? Again, what of the timing of applications. Should there be a cut-off date for ITT applications whereby all applications received by that date are assessed together, rather than on a first come, first served basis, as at present?

A further complication is around differential rates of application. Historically applications from those identifying as black African males were mostly received by a small number of courses. Even if those courses only took those applicants, there would still be an issue at the macro level, and no other groups would have access to those courses.

In 2008, we also discovered larger courses were generally better at recruiting diverse cohorts from a larger pool of applicants. Does a move to a more school-based ITT system make recruitment of minorities more or less likely?

This is an important issue for society, and one that I hope this latest report helps stimulate discussion around whether changes are needed in ITT.

How are secondary schools staffed?

Posted on by
Reply

In a previous blog I looked at some aspects of the school workforce in England for the present school year. After looking at the data from the DfE’s January School Census of schools and pupil numbers, it is now possible to consider questions arising from the staffing of the present curriculum.

On average, each secondary school would have 68 teachers if you divided the number of teachers by the number of schools. Of course, that’s a mythical school, and the mean isn’t a very good measure of central tendency, but it is all we have that is easily accessible in the dataset.

So, how might our mythical school be staffed?

Number of hours taught for all yearsNumber of teachers of all yearsaverages based on 3,456 schools
Total3,807,978234,40668
English Baccalaureate subjects2,412,756164,48748
All Sciences667,23748,38614
Other147,69645,08113
English541,13441,29312
Mathematics548,09137,83511
General/Combined Science440,39136,75311
PSHE78,59535,98810
PE/Sports281,29124,2887
History210,71318,6305
Geography197,70918,0905
All Modern Languages247,87117,9865
Religious Education128,31416,8425
Other/Combined Technology120,66313,6304
Art & Design137,00812,7144
French109,39211,6163
Other Social Studies80,94410,0963
Spanish97,2349,5383
Business Studies89,6859,3313
Drama83,0269,1993
Computer science70,4128,1852
Biology53,1338,1672
Music87,4617,6102
Chemistry48,7747,2452
Design and technology – All52,7377,2032
Physics43,4056,2422
ICT36,8755,5302
Media Studies23,8713,9451
Citizenship8,9553,9411
Careers and Key Skills7,4303,5541
German25,5802,9551
Other Humanities15,4342,6711
Other science11,1212,5341
Other Modern Foreign Language15,6662,0071
General Studies3,0721,8561

The English Baccalaureate subjects account for the majority of the staff. Although design and technology only accounts for 2 teachers, if IT and other/combined technology and computing are added in the total increases to 10 teachers, not far short of the numbers for English and Mathematics.  Of course, not all the teachers will be teaching the subject all the time, and this tells us nothing about how qualified they are to teach the subjects they are actually delivering? It would be interesting to know how many qualified teachers of physics (with a physics degree) are teaching in schools with the highest percentages of free school meals?

As previous blog posts have argued, the staffing crisis may be abating, but is not over. It is good to see the TES taking in interest in these numbers Teacher supply: why 5 subjects face gloomier forecasts | Te as well as making the DfE admit what this blog has thought for some time now that the pledge for 6,500 teachers was totally unrealistic. Falling rolls and budget constraints meant that it was always going to be a non-starter. Labour ‘abandons’ manifesto pledge to hire more teachers

Teacher training numbers set to fall for next few years

Posted on by
Reply

The May 2025 data on applications to ITT courses was published today Initial teacher training application statistics for courses starting in the 2025 to 2026 academic year – Apply for teacher training – GOV.UK The news is almost, but not entirely good, with offers ahead of last year across the board, although only by 14 in Religious Education, nine in Drama and 43 in design and technology. Still, at the macro level, the teacher supply crisis can almost certainly be declared as having come to an end if those offered places all turn up at the start of their courses.

Of course, there are still three months of the recruitment round left, and those subjects not yet likely to hit their DfE targets, announced in April, may yet do so. I think it is possible that Chemistry and English will meet the targets, but I am doubtful about business studies 212 offers (900 target); Classics 44 (60); design and technology 466 (965); drama 235 (620); music 276 (565); religions education 347 (780) and subjects in the ‘others’ group 2,520 (375).

The 1,762 offers to applicants classified as from the ’rest of the world’ amount to 6% of all offers and, I suspect, somewhat higher percentage in some secondary subjects. Still, it is good to see more younger applicants applying, even if the percentage of those 21 and under – i.e. new graduates – being made offers has dropped from 84% to 77% as a result. By comparison offers to those career changers in the 25 to 29 age group have stayed stable at 52% last year and 51% this year.  

Male applicants are doing slightly better this year with 45% offered places compared with 42% last May. For women applicants, the offer rate has remained at 59%. London still leads the way, with around 15% of all applicants.

One of the reasons why some subjects won’t meet their targets is the decision of the DfE Teacher Workforce Model team to include some element of carry-over where some subjects failed to meet their target last year. The DfE Postgraduate initial teacher training targets, Academic year 2025/26 – Explore education statistics – GOV.UK document explains the decision as follows:

“The drivers behind changes in target vary by subject. The key factor as to whether the 2025/26 targets have increased or decreased for specific secondary subjects is the extent to which those targets have been adjusted to build in the impacts of recruitment being below target in the two ITT recruitment rounds before 2025/26. This is done via the under-supply adjustments [1], which account for approximately a sixth of the combined primary and secondary target.” My emphasis

“[1] Under-supply adjustments calculated in the TWM assess the impacts of retention and recruitment via all routes. They use ITT recruitment data, and ITT completion & post-ITT employment rates to estimate the number of NQEs entering the workforce, having trained via PGITT, from the two ITT cycles immediately before 2025/26. It uses these figures, along with estimates for both the corresponding numbers of entrants into the stock via other routes (e.g. returners) and leavers, to estimate the size of the workforce in the target year. This figure is then compared to previously estimated teacher demand & supply, to identify if enough teachers were recruited/retained/re-entered to meet the needs of the system. If there is a supply shortage, an under-supply adjustment is made. The model does not apply an over-supply adjustment.” DfE Postgraduate initial teacher training targets, Academic year 2025/26 – Explore education statistics – GOV.UK

Now, this is a perfectly respectable method of helping schools replenish their teaching stock in ‘shortage’ subjects once recruitment starts to pick up. However, it comes with policy implications. Firstly, changing targets each year so late in the process makes life difficult for ITT providers to manage the staffing for their courses. What is going to happen in the three subjects where offers already exceed targets? Thirty years ago, targets were issued on a three -year cycle with years two and three being indicative, but rarely subject to wide swings, unless there was a policy change.

Then there is the issue of whether schools will have the vacancies for any increased recruitment by September 2026. These targets were set ahead of the Spending Review. Schools staff their timetable to be fully staffed each September even if some staff are less than ideally qualified.

As long-time readers will know, I think there should be a closer alignment between ITT targets and the actual behaviour of the labour market. By waiting until the end of April to announce targets, the DfE has managed to use data from recruitment in 2023, and that helps, but is still a risk when pupil rolls are falling and school funding is also under pressure. However, as many of the targets adjusted upwards still won’t be met, even with increased recruitment, this is all a bit academic, but worth discussing for future years.

The next few years, especially for anyone contemplating a career as a primary school teacher, might well be challenging when it comes to finding a teaching post after training.

Do teachers lack for good career advice?

Posted on by
Reply

A quarter of a century ago, I started a career clinic on the pages of the TES when it was still part of News International. I recall going to Admiral House, their then HQ, and presenting a live webinar where teachers posed question on line, and I dictated the answer in real time to a typist and the answers then appeared on the web. Later, between 2008 and 2011, I answered over 5,000 questions in a twice weekly on-line clinic.

I recall these memories, not to boast, but to ask whether anything is now better for teachers? Do MATs help their staff with career development. Do mature entrants receive any advice about careers when they train to be a teacher, or is the emphasis from the DfE’s website onwards just about bringing them into the profession? I am inspired to ask these questions having read laments about the challenges around returning to teach in the UK after a spell abroad.

Now it maybe your partner has returned to the UK for job reasons or the geopolitical situation makes teaching overseas a risk at a particular moment I time.

Here in England, who is telling teachers what the consequences for their careers will be if the Spending Review doesn’t compensate for falling rolls across the school system, and VAT has been imposed on private schools? What does the 6,500 extra teachers mean for your career as a thirty-something teacher of English in a council area now run by Reform?

I assume that the professional associations provide support. Indeed, I used to run seminars on ‘managing your teaching career’ for one of them. But, when there is a teacher shortage, and rolls are rising, teaching posts are easy to come by. That won’t be the picture for much of the next decade, whatever government is in power.

Then there are those that want to leave teaching and either set up their own business, as consultants, curriculum content creators or just tutors. Where do they turn for advice?

Fifteen years ago, I charged £100 for a CV appraisal and a phone conversation with teachers and double that for school leaders. What might be the going rate today?

With universities facing cutbacks, should they start being entrepreneurial and offer career services to teachers? What about the big recruitment agencies that make money from schools. How much do they reinvest in the sector?

Today is an interesting day to write this post, as tomorrow is the 31st of May, the traditional date for final resignations for those leaving at the end of term. This year’s output of new teachers will be particularly aware of how successful they have been in finding a job already. If they and their colleagues haven’t found a job yet, what is someone going to do about that in the face of the huge expansion of in-school graduate apprenticeships announced recently by the DfE. How will the axing of Level 7 apprenticeships affect serving teachers and their career ambitions?

Lots of questions, but few answers. I would welcome your views and comments.

How will the Apprenticeship Levy changes affect schools?

Posted on by
Reply

Will the changes to the Apprenticeship Levy announced today affect schools? I have argued before I this blog that the Apprenticeship Levy is in fact a tax on schools, and especially primary schools, as their individual budgets often all below the threshold for paying the levy, but, unless they are small stand-alone academies, they pay the Levy. This is because they are either maintained schools, where the local authority is the employer, or they are part of MATs or other arrangements where the salary bill crosses the threshold for paying the levy.

Now, a tax may not be a bad thing per se, especially if the proceeds are used for the good of those paying it. When it was first introduced some local authorities were slow to ensure the proceeds of the Levy were used by schools, and ended up returning unused cash to HM Treasury. Hopefully, that doesn’t happen anywhere today.

The announcement by the DfE this morning of the effective abolition of the Level 7 apprenticeships, expressed by the government as: “Refocusing funding away from Level 7 (masters-level) apprenticeships from January 2026”, (DfE Press Notice) comes hard on the heels of the announcement on the 9th May for the school sector about teaching apprenticeships that said:

“postgraduate teaching apprenticeship (PGTA) courses will be slashed from twelve months to nine, aligning to the school year and getting newly trained teachers into the classroom sooner.  

Courses currently run from September to September, meaning trainees typically have to wait months before kicking off their careers, and making it challenging for schools to support apprentices while training.  

The change will be made from August this year and is expected to open up more opportunities to train to teach, as well as accelerating trainees’ journeys to the front of the classroom.” Red tape slashed to get more teachers into classrooms – GOV.UK

On the one hand, the government gives, but on the other hand it could take away in-service opportunities for teacher development where these were paid from the Levy for Level 7 courses. The outcome must not be unspent levy cash once again being returned to the government by employers of teachers and other staff working in schools.

Incidentally, school leaders should check whether the employers of those services they contract out have a policy for using the Apprenticeship Levy that they pay. If they don’t, then schools may not be receiving full value for money for their expenditure.

How will the news affect higher education departments working with pre-service and in-service teachers, and others in the education field? If there is a move away from courses where trainees pay fees towards an employment-based apprenticeship with a salary and associated benefits that might reduce interest in higher education courses. If the removal of Level 7 apprenticeships cuts enrolment on higher degrees that could be a double whammy, coming just at a time when training targets are being affected by falling pupil numbers.  This may not be an easy summer for those responsible for training teachers, even if interest in the profession is once again on the increase.