TTR0132

Written evidence submitted by the Association for Science Education (ASE)

The Association for Science Education is one of the largest subject associations in the UK. Members include teachers, technicians, teacher educators, researchers and others involved in science education. The Association plays a significant role in promoting excellence in teaching and learning of science in schools and colleges. Working closely with the science professional bodies, industry and business, ASE provides a UK-wide network bringing together individuals and organisations to share ideas and tackle challenges in science teaching, develop resources and foster high quality Continuing Professional Development. The Association for Science Education can trace its origins back to 1900. Incorporated by Royal Charter in October 2004, the ASE operates as a Registered Charity.

The Association welcomes the opportunity to provide a response to the Education Committee’s Inquiry on teacher recruitment, training and retention. This submission focuses on the question ‘How well does the current teacher training framework work to prepare new teachers and how could it be improved?’ and is informed by responses to our survey of our members and wider community who are involved in both HEI-led and school-led initial teacher education, and research.

The online survey was conducted over a two-week period (including the Easter bank holiday period) during April 2023. We received 46 responses from course leaders (12), tutors (24), mentors (3) and others (7) including at least one coach, researcher, science advisor and science consultant.

Respondents specialise in biology (6), chemistry (1), physics (9) and science (26). Respondents represented HEIs (30), schools (4), others (11) including at least one from a SCITT, Teach First, FE/HE college, educational charity, Institute of Physics and Ogden Trust. Of these, 33 represented institutions are accredited providers for ITT courses from September 2023 and 13 are not accredited. Nine institutions are taking on another institution/s to work with them and six are under the umbrella of another institution.

The survey questions focused on the impact of the recent ITT market accreditation process as well as the impact of the ITT Core Content Framework and Early Career Framework. Not all questions were answered by all 46 respondents: some respondents reported that it was too early in the rollout of these initiatives to be able to respond to some questions with confidence. Consequently, we will plan to revise and repeat the survey in 12 months’ time.

Whilst the number of responses is not high (reflecting the timing of this Inquiry and the availability of this survey) and so the figures below should be regarded as indicative only, the survey findings broadly correspond to key points raised in ongoing discussions with our members who are engaged in initial teacher education and early career teacher development.

Key findings:

1. The number of placements that institutions can offer have been affected to great extent (18%), some extent (36%), not at all (46%) in Biology; to great extent (21%), some extent (29), not at all (50%) in Chemistry; to great extent (25%), some extent (29%), not at all (46%) in Physics; to great extent (21%), some extent (36%), not at all (43%) in Science.
2. Staffing levels to meet the new quality requirements were identified as adequate (66%) or inadequate (34%).
3. The amount and quality of subject specific training has been affected to a great extent (14%), some extent (43%), not at all (43%).
4. The quality of school placements has been affected to a great extent (11%), some extent (48%), not at all (41%).
5. The numbers and quality of school-based mentors have been affected to a great extent (26%), some extent (52%), not at all (22%).
6. The research capacity of respondents’ departments is anticipated to be affected to a great extent (26%), some extent (44%), not at all (30%).
7. To what extent is your role affected? A great extent (32%), some extent (48%), not at all (20%).
8. To what extent is your workload changing? Greatly increasing (44%), increasing somewhat (44%), unchanged (12%).

Commentary:

The Association provided a response to the ITT Market Review consultation[1] in August 2021 where we raised concerns on the need for such widespread and potentially disruptive changes to the sector, the timescale for implementation, the potential impact on ITE provision and the potential impact on trainee teachers of science. The findings from this survey, although only indicative, add to the growing evidence base outlined in the call for evidence and provide some illustration for our continued concerns for the future of ITT and early career teacher development.

For all of the above figures, 50% or more of the respondents indicated negative impacts, to some extent or to a great extent. Twenty-one respondents also took the time to provide open response comments which can be categorised broadly within the following themes. Representative comments are included in italics.

1. Early indications of impact of the ITT Core Content Framework and Early Career Framework, including the lack of subject specific professional learning opportunities

There needs to be much greater development of the ECT programme from ITT through those first three years so that the focus is on guidance and support and not the current accountability and workload issue that it is for new teachers. Focus needs to be on support and retention of new teachers and better partnership working rather than HEI staffing.

The evidence base for the core content framework is highly selective and does not pay sufficient attention to what we know from research evidence about effective science teacher development (see, for example, Bell & Gilbert). Teacher education ideally needs to be much more subject-specific.

The market review and reaccreditation process are having the effect of sadly making teacher training more generic and less subject specific, which I am not happy with - physics education needs more physics specialist teachers who train knowing that they will learn how to teach their subject.

As many secondary teachers of the sciences are teaching out of their specialism, it is particularly important that sufficient time and emphasis is given to development of subject knowledge for teaching. We support the recommendations of the Subjects Matter 2020 report[2], led by the Institute of Physics – to improve the professional standards through a systematic approach to developing teachers’ subject knowledge for teaching; to fund, develop and implement a national system of subject-specific CPD in each subject; and to establish an entitlement for teachers which ensures that at least half of their professional learning is subject-specific.

2. Increased trainee teacher support needs, and impact on mentors of the new requirements

What hasn't been addressed is the increasingly diverse needs of applicants, partly caused by attracting applicants from a broader range of educational qualifications, plus the unprecedented effect the Covid pandemic has had on many of them who gained their degrees in the last few years. Therefore, there is a greater need for small group and individual coaching plus greater liaison with mentors in partnership schools.

We need to be aware that many schools are busier than previously, both still responding to learning recovery but also with high staff turnover, staffing retention and recruitment problems. This effects both the mentoring and also the time other staff have to support trainee teachers, and it is likely that various processes will be new and developing for most staff, not just the inexperienced ECTs.

The new requirements for mentors are out of touch with reality. Science departments are buckling under teacher shortages. There simply aren’t enough highly qualified, willing, and able people across the system for the training year plus two years of the ECF.

The reaccreditation process has enabled providers and their partnership schools to reflect on and re-establish the ways in which they can support and develop ECTs. While this is likely to take a year or two to evolve and adapt to the wide range of school and programme contexts, it is important that regular communication, monitoring and training aspects are in place but also that ECTs, mentors and tutors are not overburdened with unnecessary administration. Assessment should be focused on guidance and improvement rather than checklists and tracking. 

3. Impact on people – their workloads and wellbeing, potential impact on the workforce in the coming months/years

The workload increase for those of us in ITT has had an extremely negative impact on the workload and wellbeing of staff. Many of us feel that the government is out of touch and the inspection and accreditation regime is punitive and not supportive.

I think we are really going to struggle to meet the government’s expectations as a small independent provider, when the intention seems to be to push providers into delivering a uniform curriculum through Ambition, TDA, Teach First etc. I am finding workload, scrutiny and expectations from DfE so demanding that I have lost the love for teacher training.

I am desperately concerned about where my students, colleagues and I will be in 12 months. I see myself working in another aspect of the university or out of education altogether as our numbers of students are unsustainable financially, and the demands of reaccreditation, Ofsted and the support our schools need cannot be sustained.

I see myself hopefully in the same role as subject tutor, but who knows? Uncertain if a new government will keep the outcomes of this poorly thought out, unfairly judged and unnecessary process. Not sure it's the job I want anymore.

Given the mess created by the illogical reaccreditation I have decided to speed up my retirement plans.

Whilst not all respondents were unhappy with their roles, nor were considering leaving the profession, it is important to flag that workloads appear to be increasing - at least whilst providers and their partnership schools adapt to the meeting the requirements of the reforms – adding further pressure to an already fragile system. The comments on the importance of teacher autonomy and agency associated with job satisfaction in the Subjects Matter report (p15) apply equally to professionals engaged in ITT and ECT development and support. Addressing staffing, workload and associated wellbeing issues remains important.

The Association’s Retention Initiative for Science Education (RISE) programme[3] aims to tackle long-standing issues around science teacher retention by offering schools guidance and exercises to improve the wellbeing, job satisfaction and career intentions of their science teachers.

Deploying teachers, particularly ECTs, in their main field helps them become good more quickly and keeps them in the profession for longer by reducing their workload, further increasing their self-efficacy and confidence. Effective deployment also increases the opportunities for students to experience the best quality teaching available in their school. With worsening recruitment and retention in science, many teachers including ECTs will not be deployed in their main field. Research[4] commissioned by the Association for Science Education (ASE), Institute of Physics (IOP), Royal Society (RS), Royal Society of Biology (RSB) and Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC) showed that 78% of schools reported that teachers are required to teach outside of their main field at GCSE; this rose to 85% in schools that only offered Combined Science.

4. General comments on the reforms to date

Whilst I think there is value in some sense of a central curriculum for ITE, the accreditation process has been hugely over-regulated. The idea that in the second stage, we have had to submit materials is a step too far and has imposed a significant burden on providers. It is unclear why the existing process of regulation (i.e Ofsted) could not have assessed the materials we were using.

The stress and anxiety the ITE accreditation process has caused current providers is beyond belief. The autonomy universities used to have to develop critically thinking practitioners has been abolished. Research informed practice will be sporadic as we train technicians not teachers of education.

At a time of a recruitment and retention crisis, it is misjudged to put additional (unnecessary) pressures on schools, their mentors and ITE teams.

In summary, the responses from our members and wider community to the online survey are indicative of a very fragile system – and which reinforce our concerns raised about the proposed ITT changes in August 2021. Whilst we plan to repeat the survey in 12 months, this early feedback indicates that action is needed now. We are keen to hear from the Government on what plans and adjustments are being explored to address the burdens described by some respondents, and to provide more support for providers and partnership schools affected by the changes. We would be very happy to work with DfE and others to offer solutions and explore ways in which we can support providers and partnership schools at this time.

April 2023

ASE response Education Committee Inquiry Teacher recruitment, training and retention              21 April 2023