TRR0051

 

Written evidence submitted by Bishop Grosseteste University

 

Introduction

Bishop Grosseteste University (BGU) is an HEI-based provider of Initial Teacher Education (ITE) with over 160 years of experience in the teacher development sector. BGU educates teachers for the Primary and Early Years, Secondary and Further Education age-phases and, as such, our response naturally reflects our role in the recruitment and retention of student teachers.

The current situation regarding teacher recruitment and retention 

Factors affecting the recruitment and retention of student teachers are complex, and some of the issues facing teacher retention also impact on student teacher recruitment. For example, the provision of viable teaching placements is vital to delivery of ITE and we are already experiencing a reduction in the number of offers from schools, driven largely by increasing demands on teacher time to mentor ECTs. Each school has finite resource in terms of teachers with the experience to act as mentors, or with capacity to do so due to other responsibilities. As a result, school leaders are facing difficult choices between allocation of these mentors to ECT mentoring or ITE mentoring. Along with many others in the sector, we predict that this situation will be further exacerbated in 2024 with the introduction of the new Quality Requirements and the significant increase in time required for mentor training: 36 hours initial training for lead mentors, with 12 hours of refresher training each year and 24 hours initial training for general school mentors with 6 hours a year refresher training. Although we welcome the acknowledgment that high-quality mentoring requires effective training and development, the impact of these parameters will place further strains on schools, to the point where we are already receiving feedback from some schools that they will be unable to continue to engage with ITE under these requirements.

Many of our partner schools work with several ITE providers across the region, ensuring healthy supplies of student teachers for employers in a range of subjects and phases. One further effect we predict resulting from the increase in mentor training hours from 2024 is that many of our partners will have no choice but to choose one ITE provider exclusively, as it would be unviable to release mentors for multiple different training programmes. This will not only limit employers’ choice and their pool of student teachers, but will severely limit capacity for training providers due to the predicted attrition in partners. At BGU, we are actively seeking ways of mitigating against the potential impact of these changes, such as working with other ITE providers to develop shared mentor training curricula across the East Midlands region. This will allow mentors to attend core training that prepares them to mentor for multiple ITE providers, with only the specific provider curriculum training being different. This approach has been well-received and supported by other providers, schools and Teaching School Hubs, and we would encourage the DfE to acknowledge this creative approach, by encouraging and funding collaboration between accredited providers.

Bursaries have had a notable impact in several ways over the past few years, triggering a modest boost to recruitment in some shortage subjects. However, only 9 of the 17 secondary subjects currently attract a bursary and there is no bursary for primary routes, which we feel should be reviewed considering the downturn in primary applications across the sector. In general, the inequity of bursary subject allocation, coupled with the significant difference in the monetary value of bursaries causes bad feeling amongst student teachers, as well as resulting in some candidates applying for unsuitable courses in order to obtain a bursary. It has also been noticeable that when bursaries are announced in October, some students enrolled on a subject route a month earlier choose to withdraw from a programme in order to reapply the following year and receive a bursary, or higher bursary. This proves disruptive to programme delivery and the students affected. If the current system is to continue, then greater clarity on available bursaries, communicated in timely fashion would be welcome, prior to enrolment. Whilst we welcome the financial incentives that bursaries provide, which have proven to have some positive impact, we recommend that the DfE reviews their approach to bursary allocation, instead providing a level bursary to student teachers across all phases and subjects rather than the current offer ranging from zero-£27,000 dependant on phase and subject.

The financial cost of training to teach without a bursary has been noted already, and it is also worth highlighting that student teachers are faced with significant on-programme costs in addition to their fees, including travel to and from placement, and/or accommodation, which has unsurprisingly triggered financial issues for many students due to the increases in and the general cost of living. Many of our postgraduate students are career changers supporting families on low incomes, whilst others are recent graduates, already carrying significant debt. It is difficult for student teachers to alleviate these additional costs through part-time working because of the demands of the ITE programmes, the majority of which are full-time. In addition to considering a level bursary for all students, we would also suggest that ITE providers are allocated additional resource for hardship funds to support student teachers facing the most difficult financial circumstances. We also recommend that The Department consider mechanisms for writing off student debt over time for those who remain in the teaching profession for a number of years at key milestones, such as 2 years (on completion of the ECT induction period) and 5 years. We feel that this targeted use of resource, coupled with level bursaries for all training routes would be more effective in recruiting and retaining teachers than upfront bursary payments alone.

What action should the Department take to address the challenges in teacher recruitment and retention? 

How well does the current teacher training framework work to prepare new teachers and how could it be improved? 

The Early Career Framework (ECF) provides an entitlement to fully funded structured early professional development that builds on and complements ITE. The impact of this on mentor capacity has been previously noted, but in addition we have concerns about the way in which the ECF has been operationalised. Possibly due to the CCF and ECF being underpinned by the same standards, new teachers frequently find themselves repeating study that they have only recently covered in their ITE programme. This is potentially demoralising and a poor use of valuable development time, reducing autonomy whilst also increasing workload. ITE providers generally provide an assessment of strengths and areas for development at the conclusion of an ITE programme of study (at BGU we have the Career Entry Passport). We encourage the DfE to consider how this targeted assessment could be used to tailor the ECT induction to each new teacher’s specific development needs. ITE providers will already have a deep understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of each new teacher, together with a knowledge of the contexts they are working within. Like others in the sector, we would also like the content of the ECF to be reviewed. Reducing duplication and overlap with the CCF, whilst broadening the research base would be steps in the right direction.

The overall approach of the new ITE Quality Requirements, and their reliance on the Core Content Framework, appears designed to adopt a generic approach to teacher education that might make it challenging for ITE programmes to be contextualised in the light of local need, producing trained technicians rather than educated and critically reflective professionals. Whilst this may be the desired outcome for The Department, as an HEI-based provider, we are concerned that this de-skilling will result in teachers who have less autonomy and job satisfaction than other graduates, meaning that they are less likely to remain in the profession compared to similar graduates. This concern is supported by the findings of a recent large-scale quantitative study commissioned by the National Foundation for Educational Research (Worth, J. & Van den Brande, 2020). The study found that teacher autonomy was strongly related to job satisfaction and a greater intention to stay in teaching, noting that ‘teachers are 16 percentage points less likely than similar professionals to report having ‘a lot’ of influence over how they do their job’ (p. 4).

The study also highlights a perceived lack of autonomy around choice in professional development goals, something that teacher participants valued highly. Whilst the DfE has made laudable efforts to provide coherent progression routes, an overreliance on the NPQ suite of qualifications and ECF for teacher development, with their tightly-controlled curricula is reducing choice for teachers and therefore autonomy, with the resulting effects identified by NFER. Many HEIs have successfully developed highly relevant masters’ level qualifications, which provide teachers with choice of curricula, area of research and mode of study. Whilst these courses are available and popular, there is little recognition or encouragement from the DfE for masters’ level study and the development of criticality in the teaching profession. Currently, teachers are only able to access finance through postgraduate loans if they choose to study a full masters’ degree, thus preventing many from utilising the 60 Level 7 credits they have already achieved through postgraduate ITE routes, or other relevant previous study or experience. We would encourage the DfE to consider amending this rule and encourage autonomy of study to full masters’ level in order to increase teacher autonomy, professionalism and critical engagement with research throughout their careers.

Are there ways in which teacher training could be improved to address the challenges in recruitment and retention?

References

Worth, J. and Van den Brande, J. (2020) Teacher autonomy: how does it relate to job satisfaction and retention? Slough: NFER.

April 2023