TTR0093
Written evidence submitted by the National Association of School-Based Teacher Trainers (NASBTT)
Introduction
The National Association of School-Based Teacher Trainers (NASBTT) is a registered charity which is committed to promoting high-quality schools-led programmes of training, education and professional development of teachers.
Our members include School Centred Initial Teacher Training (SCITT) providers, School Direct Lead Schools, Teaching School Hubs, Higher Education Institutions involved in schools-led teacher training, as well as a range of other organisations engaged in the education and professional development of teachers. We have more than 225 members representing in excess of 10,000 individual trainees.
The object of the NASBTT is the advancement of education of pupils/children in schools through the raising of standards and development of high-quality learning and teaching by:
We have structured the evidence under the main headings in the call for evidence and do not attempt to answer every question. Our response is in line with our position as the voice of schools-led ITT and representing our members’ interests, ensuring that sector views are shared in order to inform future policy decisions. This evidence should be considered alongside that submitted directly by our members.
The Universities’ Council for the Education of Teachers (UCET) has also submitted evidence representing Higher Education Institutions involved in teacher education and education research. Whilst NASBTT does work in collaboration with UCET, including attending ministerial briefings and regular meetings with DfE representatives and other key stakeholders together to share their views and insights on policy developments and the latest on-the-ground issues, challenges and opportunities facing the ITT sector as a whole, we are a separate organisation specialising in schools-led ITT.
Teacher recruitment and retention is in crisis. The most recent insight, published last month in NFER’s Teacher Labour Market in England Annual Report 2023, highlighted that the number of teacher vacancies posted by schools was 93% higher in the academic year up to February this year (and almost twice pre-Covid level). This, as an indicator of staff turnover, is also supported by various surveys conducted over the past 12 months including NAHT research which found that more Headteachers are increasingly quitting their jobs within five years and NEU data revealing that 44% of teachers plan to leave the profession by 2027.
The NFER report also warns that the ITT recruitment target is likely to be missed for a second consecutive year. It projects that primary ITT and nine out of 17 secondary subjects – physics, computing, DT, business studies, MFL, RE, music, drama and art and design – are expected to be 20% or more below target. Other subjects such as maths, English, chemistry and geography are also at risk of under-recruiting this year, while biology, history, classics and PE are likely to be at, or slightly above, target. This follows low recruitment in 2022-23.
Subsequent discussion on ‘why’ this is happening has ranged from teacher pay, with private sector wages outstripping public sector wages, to the lack of flexibility compared to other graduate jobs, with solutions posed including offering a salary to all trainees and bursaries for all subjects not reaching their recruitment targets.
However, in terms of NASBTT’s unique perspective/expertise, we advocate the need to understand trainees’ perspectives (especially) on issues that are causing them not to apply/withdraw which is exacerbating the problem.
Here are the key findings of our cost-of-living crisis survey, published in November 2022, which looked at how rising costs are impacting on both ITT provision and trainee teachers:
- Staffing (loss of staff or increased workloads due to being unable to recruit for need).
- Teaching/training resources.
- Payments to schools.
- Fewer face-to-face meetings/training.
- Potential closure of provision.
- Impact on time/capacity and workload with no additional staffing (it is simply unaffordable to recruit help).
- Risk of large national providers undercutting/competing in areas already struggling to recruit.
- Schools unable to meet the additional requirements of mentoring and removing offers of placements/requiring more funding.
- Costs associated with increased staffing to meet new quality requirements effectively – especially requirements around lead mentors and general mentor training – funding available does not cover the actual costs.
- Closure of provision.
Additionally, NASBTT research (to be published in April/May) saw 77% of respondents say trainee applications are down at this stage of the year, compared to last year. Of these the majority (28%) are down by 10-20%, 26% by 30-40%, 22% by 20-30%, and 18.5% by 40%+.
The same NASBTT study asked ITT providers why they thought their applications were down:
Cost-of-living crisis 22%
Perceptions of the profession 15%
Teacher strike action 2%
Workload issues 2%
Starting salaries 0%
Other (no further intel given) 59%
Our members were also asked what DfE should do to address the ITT recruitment crisis. In order of priority action:
Increase wider financial hardship support during training 17%
Increase bursaries/scholarships 16%
Increase starting salaries 8.5%
Increase support for full-time ITT marketing and recruitment personnel in providers 3%
Other (no further intel given) 55.5%
Whilst the government announced in October 2022 that it will increase teacher training bursaries and scholarships from 2023-24 year to attract new entrants (albeit the total funding on offer is still £70 million lower than it was in 2020), this alone will not solve the problem.
We would especially like to propose, therefore, that DfE may wish to consider hardship funding for all trainees to apply for help with costs. This could be managed through providers under existing grant funding agreements. DfE has allocated relocation funding for overseas trainees so it feels reasonable to also earmark funding for domestic students who are struggling to pay travel costs.
We think there could be some work around understanding where providers’ greatest spends are, and considering if there are any ways in which we could work together with DfE (and others) to look at offering solutions for areas of need – e.g. negotiating preferred costs for particular services. There could also be some broader guidance e.g. expectations around acceptable top-slicing to a MAT, to further support ITT.
In the short to medium term, schools/trusts must also be required to open up their doors to trainee teachers, not just when they are recruiting new teachers but in supporting their training right from the start (currently this relies purely on the willingness of individual schools to engage in ITT and if every school took the option not to engage in ITT there would be no teachers). If they do not engage, we will be faced in the future with a teacher recruitment crisis of even greater proportions.
In the longer term, much more must be done to support teaching to become an attractive graduate profession, even in booming economic times. The NFER Teacher Labour Market in England Annual Report 2023 report made a number of workable recommendations on this and related matters, which we would endorse:
In March 2023 Emma Hollis (NASBTT Executive Director) was appointed as an external reference group member to review both the ITT and Early Career Frameworks, first launched in 2019. The group will contribute “to specific review activity, including performing an editorial role following the drafting of revised framework content”. Whilst not wishing to pre-empt the work of this group, we make the following observations:
We do, however, urgently need to address the fall-out resulting from the market review, which is directly impacting the opportunity to train to teach.
Firstly, there is the fundamental issue of access to an ITT provider, with fewer providers in the system from 2024, and we are losing many who have been judged Good or Outstanding by Ofsted (the government’s own measure of quality provision). The extent of this issue depends on which region a school is based in as geographical factors were not taken into account when deciding which ITT providers were to be allowed to continue, despite prior warnings from us of the implications in terms of regional teacher supply risks. Certain ‘cold spots’ across England have now emerged in the ITT landscape.
There are also implications for placements, especially in regions which are so geographically spread that it makes travel for trainees difficult. DfE’s own research identified ‘distance from home’ is a key driver in an applicant’s choice of provider. Should placement opportunities not be readily available on their doorstep, the requirement to travel could become a barrier to entry from applicants who are unable or unwilling to travel significant distances for their training and could also further adversely affect teacher supply. In short, this has the potential to have a hugely negative impact on teacher development at a time when increasingly schools are struggling to get the teachers to teach our children.
Another area which is causing some concern for our sector, and which will directly impact our school colleagues, is the availability of time and capacity for mentoring. Under new DfE requirements, which all ITT providers will need to adhere to from September 2024, lead mentors will be required to undertake initial training of 30 hours with 12 hours of annual refresher training. ‘General’ mentors will undertake 20 hours initial training and six hours of annual refresher training. They will be required to support trainees for a minimum of 1.5 hours per week. Whilst few schools or ITT providers would argue with the benefits associated with a highly trained mentor workforce, without significant improvements to the capacity issues currently faced by schools, there remains an unmovable challenge in finding sufficient scope to meet these new and exacting requirements.
Our main observation here is that teaching is a unique profession. It is incomparable with any other sector in terms of workload (in and out of the ‘workplace’ and outside of core hours) and scrutiny (from Ofsted, governors and parents/carers).
At the heart of the issue is how the profession is presented (mainly negatively) in the media, through DfE marketing campaigns (counter productive), combined with the fact that ‘everyone knows a teacher’ and perceptions often reflect that.
We need to make teaching an attractive profession to both recent graduates who want to get into teaching and benefit from an intellectually stimulating and rewarding environment, and experienced professionals who have made a significant contribution in their business or industry and are looking for a new challenge. Those individuals will be seeking something different from their first career and using that experience to help young people fulfil their potential and be the best version of themselves.
Whilst there are some mandatory qualifications to get into teaching, a BA (Hons) degree and GCSEs in English and maths (plus science for primary training), we should be clearer that we are seeking candidates who want to make a positive contribution in working with children and have a commitment to pushing themselves and learning every day. Sometimes a basic lack of understanding can put prospective teachers off.
In return, we should emphasise (and evidence) that employment opportunities are extremely high for qualifying teachers. Even in a challenging economic climate you will always need teachers, so in that sense the job is ‘recession proof’, and teachers become even more important with a higher moral purpose the more difficult it gets. Also that good teachers will always find a job and rise rapidly through the system in subject, phase or pastoral leadership. The career is well-established, with rapid progression and most importantly job satisfaction.
Racial Equality in the Teacher Workforce research by NFER, in partnership with Ambition Institute and Teach First (which NASBTT also supported), explored the representation and career progression opportunities in the teaching profession in England among people from different ethnic minority backgrounds.
It found evidence of under-representation of people from ethnic minority backgrounds that is most pronounced at senior leadership and headship levels, but largely driven by disparities in the early career stages, particularly ITT.
The report called for two main actions:
1. Support leaders and decision-makers in ITT, schools and trusts to equip them to make equitable workforce decisions. In particular, encourage ITT providers to review their application and selection processes to pinpoint the extent, nature and causes of the lower acceptance rates experienced by applicants from ethnic minority backgrounds and act to address any inequalities at this crucial first stage of entry into the profession.
2. Monitor progress across the system towards equalising the opportunities for progression in teaching for people from all ethnic groups.
This is a discussion that NASBTT is continuing to convene, promote and champion, amongst our members (via a partnership with Diverse Educators).
April 2023