TTR0094

Written evidence submitted by IOE, UCL’s Faculty of Education and Society

About IOE

IOE has educated teachers since it was established in 1902. Today, it is one of the UK’s largest providers of postgraduate Initial Teacher Education (ITE), educating c1,000 student teachers each year, in partnership with c600 schools and colleges.  This comprises c900 primary and secondary student teachers and smaller early years and post-compulsory cohorts.  IOE also piloted and now delivers the Early Career Framework (ECF), to c20,200 teachers and mentors. It also provides the full suite of recently refreshed National Professional Qualifications (NPQs).  This runs alongside IOE’s leadership of the national Mandarin Excellence Programme and the National Consortium for Languages Education, its many postgraduate courses relevant to classroom practice, and doctoral programmes (PhD and EdD, the latter being a research degree specifically for experienced professionals who would like to extend their professional understanding).  IOE is also a major centre for research in education and social science, including in support of associated resources for teachers, such as those development through its Centre for Holocaust Education and Centre for Climate Change and Sustainability Education. IOE’s ITE is rated ‘Outstanding’ by Ofsted.  In 2021 it ranked first for research power and research strength in Education in the national Research Excellence Framework exercise.  In 2023 IOE was ranked #1 in Education in the QS World University Rankings by subject for the tenth year in a row.

Summary

• Teaching is the most important profession, providing the foundation for all others.  Teachers inspire and enable each individual to fulfil her or his potential.  They help prepare future citizens and build the knowledge and skills required for individual and societal prosperity.  This should feel like a valued and rewarding profession to join and progress in.  And yet in England we currently face a teacher workforce crisis. 
• The factors impacting teacher recruitment and retention are well documented, including heavy workloads, uncompetitive pay, lack of flexible working opportunities, lack of autonomy, and unconstructive accountability measures.  Such factors have been present for some time now, but have spiralled up in recent years, currently exacerbated by the effects of the Covid-19 pandemic.  
• Challenges in teacher recruitment and retention and wider pressures on schools are impacting the availability of school placements and mentors for student teachers, adding to a vicious circle that is undermining the pipeline of new teachers.
• The ITT Market Review accreditation process threatens to bring additional disruption to this pipeline from 2024, including in relation to the availability of school placements. 
• This overlays a wider programme of recent reform to initial and continuing teacher education (the ‘golden thread’) that has considerable potential to help improve the experience of being a teacher, but which needs adequate funding and high-quality implementation to realize that potential.
• In particular, we are concerned to maintain space for subject-specific elements, in support of teacher engagement and effectiveness.  Similarly, it is imperative that the impetus to provide a basic threshold, through national frameworks, is also balanced against flexibility to tailor provision to local needs. 
• These frameworks should also facilitate and promote teachers’ engagement with a broad-based body of high-quality research evidence, and in a way that supports teacher autonomy and teaching as a complex, intellectually challenging and rewarding profession.
• Achieving a step-change in the diversity of the teaching profession will require concerted action at national and local level.

What are the main factors leading to difficulties recruiting and retaining qualified teachers?

1. Unmanageable workload and lack of flexibility and autonomy are what teachers report as significant factors in their decision to leave teaching; less competitive pay is also associated with higher leaving rates (and vice versa).[1]  One set of analysis on teacher workload puts it at 46 hours per week compared with 41 hours for equivalent professionals.  It also finds that teachers in England spend comparatively more time on non-teaching tasks than their peers in other countries.[2]  Another study finds full-time teachers and middle leaders in England reported working 52.9 hours in the week surveyed.[3]  Frequent changes in policy appear to be connected to higher workload and therefore leaving rates.[4]  Teachers’ pay is lower in real terms than in 2010/11 and has lost competitiveness relative to the wider economy over the last decade, especially for experienced teachers.[5]  This problem appears to have become especially pressing in London, its recent steeper drop in ITE applications compared with other parts of the country attributed at least in part to comparatively low pay, in the context of marked ‘cost of living’ pressures.[6] More generally as regards terms and conditions, there has been speculation that the advent of greater working from home in other professions could also impact the relative appeal of teaching.[7]
2. From our day-to-day work with schools and student, newly qualified and experienced teachers, and reflecting the national picture outlined above, we see the following factors impacting teachers’ job satisfaction:

• First and foremost, excessive workload.
• Inadequate funding and support for children with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND), leading to frustration on the part of teachers from not being able to meet the needs of their pupils.  Inadequate capacity among child social and mental health services has generated a similar dynamic.
• The difficulty in combining teaching and domestic responsibilities, with long hours spent in school.[8]
• Limited time and space for creativity in teaching and limited subject-specific professional development, eroding some of the most engaging and satisfying aspects of teaching as a profession.
• Ongoing negative media portrayals of teachers and teaching.

3. Such elements are not new to teaching, but there has been a spiralling up in recent years.  This has been precipitated by the Covid-19 pandemic, but also by accountability measures, including the new Ofsted inspection framework.  As regards Covid-19, some impacts may be relatively short-term, such as a perceived worsening of pupil behaviour following the associated public health measures.  Others may yet be longer-term, such as continued high rates of Covid infection driving increased levels of staff absence, with knock-ons for colleagues.  IOE surveys its ITE graduates, and this local survey also indicates increased workloads over the past few years. 
4. These pressures on schools in turn curtail their ability to support the next generation of teachers, by limiting schools’ capacity to offer ITE placements and/or mentoring for student and newly qualified teachers.  In the absence of a significant number of ‘returner teachers’,[9] this becomes all the more significant for teacher supply.
5. The ITT Market Review is likely to generate further disruption to the ITE pipeline from 2024, including to existing ITE provider-school partnerships and the infrastructure they have built up for managing placements and in-school mentoring.  The Market Review accreditation process has resulted in a reduction of c20% in the number of accredited providers from 2024.  Of the current 226 providers, 158 have accreditation, as do 21 new providers.  In 2022/23, the 68 lost providers trained 4,491 (16%) teachers.[10]  The DfE envisages a ‘sector led approach to sufficiency’, whereby accredited providers partner with ‘de-accredited’ providers (where they do not simply exit provision).  There are examples of this emerging, albeit sporadic.  If de-accredited providers seek reaccreditation in their own right at the earliest opportunity we can expect this to generate further turbulence, with ongoing ripple effects for the supply and management of school placements.
6. Analysis of the international evidence by IOE’s Centre for Education Policy and Equalising Opportunities (CEPEO) indicates that in terms of attracting and retaining teachers in hard-to-staff schools specifically, financial incentives such as bonus payments are effective, though more so outside of economic downturns.  Non-financial aspects, including supportive working environments and collegial relationships also appear to be associated with teacher retention, but more evidence is needed.[11] 
7. The Committee’s inquiry is focused on school teachers, but of course there are equally pressing workforce challenges in the early years and post-compulsory education sectors.

What has been the impact of the new bursaries and scholarships announced in October?

8. NFER analysis of the national picture suggests that the presence of bursaries tends to attract more people into ITE, though there is no evidence regarding longer-term impacts.[12]  Our own local picture for the current year to date shows an uneven picture.  Sometimes large year-on-year increases in the funding amount have generated only small increases in applications and vice versa.  While there are limited funds for bursaries, from a provider perspective the frequent churn in allocations and levels of funding is difficult to work with in terms of planning and marketing, and presumably in and of itself impacts the perceptions of prospective ITE applicants.  The complete absence of bursary funding for ‘non-shortage’ subjects (e.g. Citizenship) sends an unfortunate message about the value placed on them.  It would be useful to consider the case for longer-term bursary allocations, over a larger number of subjects and phases.  Especially in the current economic climate, costs relating to undertaking ITE, particularly time spent on school placement (e.g. travel) are significant for many students, something that could be better recognized within national policy.       

What has been the impact of the Early Career Framework implemented in September 2021?

9. The DfE recently published an evaluation of the national roll-out of the ECF induction programmes at the first-year mark.[13]  At the point the research was conducted it was deemed too early to ask about overall satisfaction among early career teachers (ECTs).  Otherwise, the report provides a broadly positive picture.  In terms of challenges, those include a lack of time among new teachers and their mentors to make the most of the training, and concerns about the additional workload generated in the context of already heavy demands on school staff.  A sizeable minority of respondents also wanted content more tailored to their school.
10. This study did not differentiate between the six national ECF providers.  Although the ECF is common to all programmes, each national provider has created a unique curriculum around it.  IOE’s curriculum emphasises flexibility of access and adaptability to the contexts of the teacher and local delivery; we champion the voices of our teachers; and we stress learning as reflective, and teachers as inquiring practitioners.  Our own internal monitoring shows high rates of satisfaction and impact and, contrary to the findings of the aforementioned national report, these rates have improved the longer the programme has been in existence. Our internal analysis indicates that teachers and mentors respond favourably to a nationally mandated professional development programme when they feel trusted to adapt it to their own circumstances.
11. As part of a longitudinal research project, we are investigating the relationship between engagement with the ECF and intentions to remain in teaching. Early indications are promising.  There is strong evidence suggesting that the vast majority of mentors are highly positive about how their mentoring has contributed to the development of ECTs’ practice. Moreover, evidence strongly suggests that workload tensions relating to being a mentor should not be seen in isolation from the in-school workload culture. Mentors who feel that they are protected from administrative duties that interfere with their teaching are more likely to report that they have adequate time to carry out their role as a mentor. This points to important between-school variation and suggests that the ECF programme alone should not be blamed for lack of mentoring time in some schools.
12. Our evidence also strongly suggests that the vast majority of ECTs are positive about their learning experiences, especially in terms of their mastery of the programme content.  However, the extent to which and in what ways ECTs are able to master the content of the ECF programme and apply their learning in context are dependent upon the quality of in-school professional development cultures that are created by school leadership. This again points to the significant role of the school organization in enabling or constraining the impact of the ECF programme on the learning and development of ECTs.  This evidence also supports the strengths of IOE’s ECF partnership model with its delivery partners, which has a strong emphasis on building leadership and professional development capacities in the school system.

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

13. Fit-for-purpose accreditation processes.  A purely paper exercise, the ITT Market Review accreditation process assessed adherence to (new) frameworks rather than quality per se. Accordingly, while the accreditation process was a first step in this reform, in and of itself it is unlikely to prove a failsafe measure of quality in practice, and we may see related ‘teething problems’ from 2024.  While some new and untested providers gained accreditation, several experienced and established providers did not.  In several cases, the disparity between the provider’s Market Review accreditation outcome and Ofsted inspection outcome is notable.  For providers that have been successful in the first round of this accreditation process, which includes IOE, the workload generated by the exercise continues to be considerable, for little apparent gain, certainly among experienced providers of demonstrable quality; in that respect, a risk-based approach would have been appropriate.  This workload is also distracting from the important task of ITE recruitment for next year.   
14. Better support for school placements and mentoring.  Schools are not obliged to provide placement opportunities for student teachers.  This limits ITE providers’ ability to grow recruitment or serve existing student teachers optimally in terms of their placement experience.  It may also contribute to dropout, e.g. when a student teacher cannot obtain a placement sufficiently close to where they live this can add considerable expense and/or present too many difficulties in juggling domestic responsibilities, etc.  As noted earlier, the problem of lack of placements could be exacerbated from 2024 by turbulence in the number and location of providers stemming from ITT Market Review.  The ITT Quality Requirements from 2024 also place greater demands on schools in terms of mentoring, which could compound these difficulties.  One solution would be to make the provision of ITE placements part of the Ofsted inspection framework criteria for schools, though a more constructive approach would be to fund schools to a level that made engagement in ITE more feasible for them.  It would also require funding arrangements that enabled ITE ‘lead providers’ and their partner schools to plan over a longer period.  The DfE has so far not made any funding commitments to support mentoring beyond 2024.
15. It is of note that the demands of mentoring (as well as more general workload pressures) are cited as an impediment to school leaders pursuing an NPQ.  Despite NPQs being fully funded, just one in five places are being taken up at present.[14]  It will of course take time for the new ‘golden thread’ to bed in, but policy and funding to better support placements and mentoring, and creating much greater capacity in the system more generally will be necessary to realize the full potential of these reforms.
16. Fit-for-purpose content.  We do have concerns that recent reforms, if implemented bluntly at national or provider level could drive a reductionist approach to teaching in schools – with the transferability of a given approach across different classrooms and contexts taken for granted, and teachers reduced to ‘executive technicians’[15] expected to copy prescribed actions, in some respects divorced from the subject they are teaching. 
17. The Core Content Framework (CCF) for ITE provides a threshold level of content to be covered by programmes.  In and of itself, having such a threshold mechanism is not problematic and indeed can help to raise the floor.  However, the CCF is very full of generic content, leaving scant time for the subject-specific content that is equally important to teacher effectiveness – as well as to engagement, given that for many teachers it is teaching ‘their subject’ that drew them to the profession.  It is arguable that all aspects of initial and continuing teacher education should be subject based from their core.  This is on the grounds that each subject is learnt and taught in a particular way, with implications for effective approaches to aspects such as relationship-building and class management as much as matters of curriculum design, pedagogy and assessment.[16]  Local context is also significant in teacher education, in terms of individual student needs and the schools they are working in.  Again, current national frameworks leave less space to attend to these, which could lead to higher levels of dropout among student teachers, or be less motivating or useful to experienced teachers. 
18. IOE's work on building a curriculum around the ECF, delivered via a network of partners, demonstrates what can be achieved.  The resources adhere faithfully to the ECF and are carefully sequenced so that all ECTs can receive their full entitlement to an ECF-based induction.  They can also, however, be flexibly applied so that they suit the starting points and development priorities of each participating teacher, meet phase and subject-specific needs, and address local contexts.
19. A specific substantive area on which all teachers may increasingly require support concerns teaching about climate change and sustainable futures, which will need to include but go beyond the science of climate change.  IOE is addressing this through its newly established Centre for Climate Change and Sustainability Education (CCCSE).[17]  Research by CCCSE revealed an unmet need among teachers for such support, for example with this topic rarely covered within ITE.  It is developing free, research-informed professional development resources covering all phases and subjects, for teachers at all career stages.  This builds on the highly effective model provided by IOE’s internationally renowned Centre for Holocaust Education.[18]
20. More generally, if we expect teachers to advance the quality of the profession, we need to give sufficient space to research-informed reflective practice, requiring teachers at all career stages to critically engage with a broad, high quality research base, and take a ‘researcherly’[19] approach to their own practice.  This is commensurate with the autonomy enjoyed in other complex, intellectually challenging graduate professions.  Combined with concerted action on workload, supporting infrastructure (e.g. on SEND and pupil mental health), and competitive remuneration, it would arguably play a significant part in improving teacher recruitment and retention.

How well does the demographic makeup of the teaching workforce reflect that of the pupils they teach?

21. The teaching workforce in England remains predominantly female: 75.5% female as of 2021.[20] In the same year, out of those whose ethnicity was known, 85.1% of all teachers in state-funded schools in England were White British, compared with 70.8% of the working age population as a whole, and 65.5% of the pupil population.[21]  White British teachers made up 92.5% of headteachers and 90.8% of deputy headteachers.[22] 
22. Research from IOE’s Centre for Teachers and Teaching Research (CTTR) using data from the 2018 School Workforce Census found that while London was home to around 12% of schools in England it accounted for 21% of schools with at least one Black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME) teacher.  Typically, the concentration of BAME teachers in schools in England increased along with the proportion of support staff from BAME groups as well as the proportion of pupils who use English as an additional language.  There was also a relationship between the proportion of BAME teachers in a school and disadvantage among the pupil intake.  Alongside its analysis of national data, CTTR conducted interviews with 24 minority ethnic teachers.  These found that racism in the form of microaggressions, lack of diversity in a school or senior leadership team (also where that is reflected in organizational culture), and glass ceilings were factors in dissatisfaction with teaching careers among these professionals.[23]

April 2023

7