TTR0147

Written evidence submitted by the University of Sussex

1. Executive Summary

• The Committee should consider recommending that the Department for Education (DfE) pause the introduction of the Initial Teacher Training (ITT) market reforms; this would support the Government’s aim of increasing recruitment and allow existing providers to reapply for accreditation. The current approach will reduce the number of higher education providers able to provide Qualified Teacher Status (QTS) for students. The ITT market reforms will potentially have a major impact on the number of places available to train teachers, particularly in STEM subjects.
• The University of Sussex’s loss of accreditation risks losing over 330 trainees each year from across Early Years, Primary and Secondary schools, affecting schools, colleges and settings across the South East.
• Schools need to be made aware of the impact of whole-scale ITT reform, so they can plan how best to mitigate the potential impact on placement and mentoring capacity across ITT and Early Career Teacher (ECT) programmes.
• The University suggests that the DfE should consider restructuring ITT bursaries, such that: all student teachers receive a standard level of financial support; bursary levels are fixed for three-year periods; and funding is allocated to ITT providers to provide hardship support to student teachers in need. This would support recruitment to the teaching profession.
• The requirement for a two-year ECT mentoring programme has reduced the pool of Mentors for ITT trainees. Within the University of Sussex Partnership, headteachers have had to prioritise ECT Mentorship over ITT Mentorship, with direct impacts including higher turnover of Mentors and fewer experienced Mentors in ITT.
• Representatives from the University of Sussex would be happy to share expertise in person and answer any questions the Committee may have.

2. Introduction and reason for submitting evidence

2.1 Established in 1961, the University of Sussex is a leading research and teaching university. Over 18,500 students study at its campus near Brighton, with around 2,800 employees supporting the University’s activities and many thousands more regional jobs as a result of the institution. From its foundation, the University has maintained an international perspective in its academic activities and outlook, attracting students and staff from over 140 countries. 

2.2 The University’s Department of Education pioneered the model of school-based teacher training now adopted by all training providers in England. The most recent Research Excellence Framework (REF2021) ranked the Department of Education joint 12th with Cambridge: 88% of research outputs and 100% of the research environment in Education at the University of Sussex were assessed as world leading or internationally excellent, with 100% of research impact judged ‘outstanding’. The undergraduate ITT programme is ranked 15th in the Times Higher Education subject level rankings, and an Ofsted inspection, conducted in January 2023, concluded that ITT provision at Sussex is good or outstanding across all areas.

2.3 The University believes the removal of ITT accreditation may significantly impact recruitment and training, reducing capacity to train teachers when the numbers attracted into the vocation are decreasing.  Changes to accreditation give rise to multiple concerns relating to the future of teacher training.

3. University of Sussex ITT context

3.1. The University has been a successful provider of ITT for over 60 years with a proud history of effective partnership with diverse schools, colleges and early years settings across the South East.[1] Each year the University trains over 330 trainee teachers of the highest calibre. The University’s QTS and employment rates are above sector norms: over 75% of qualifying trainees enter early career teaching in its school partnership each year.

3.2. In October 2022, the University of Sussex was among the one in seven universities that did not secure DfE reaccreditation following the ITT market review. The ITT market review was a desktop review, different in nature to the detailed on-the-ground scrutiny of an Ofsted inspection. Ofsted’s recent judgement of the University’s programmes commented on the sustained strengths of ITT provision, with high retention and employment rates, characterised by ‘exceptional’ partnership working and drawing on ‘a highly ambitious curriculum that motivates trainees to shape their identities as confident and aspirational teachers’.

3.3. An appeal to DfE to reconsider the accreditation decision was rejected in December 2022; DfE would not allow the grounds for appeal.[2] The University is now exploring an appropriate new partnership with an accredited provider from September 2024 to continue to offer QTS across its ITT programmes.

4. What action should the Department for Education take to address the challenges in teacher recruitment and retention?

4.1 The Committee should consider recommending that the DfE pause the ITT Market Reforms, to increase the number of providers and support the Government’s aim to encourage teacher recruitment, particularly in STEM areas. Providing an additional opportunity for ITT providers of proven excellence to reapply for accreditation would support the aims of the Government to increase the number of spaces for trainee teachers. The loss of Sussex’s provision alone threatens over 330 trainees each year (Early Years, Primary and Secondary), affecting schools, colleges and specialist settings across the South East.

4.2 The Committee should consider how to encourage DfE to ensure schools are aware of the consequences of whole-scale ITT reform, so they can plan how to mitigate impacts on placements and mentoring capacity across ITT and ECT programmes. The impacts for schools at a time of significant recruitment and retention challenges and post-pandemic recovery must be recognised.

4.3 The positive outcome of Ofsted’s recent inspection of the University’s ITT indicates a mismatch between the assessment of quality used for the DfE Market Review and that of the body charged with inspecting standards of provision.  

4.4 Effective ITT programmes develop autonomous teachers who take pride in their vocation:[3] competent, confident and responsible agents, able to engage in enquiry-rich practice. Such programmes recruit high calibre candidates, aiding recruitment and helping retain skilled teachers.

4.5 The experience of the University’s ITT team indicates that issues associated with ITT market reform are exacerbated for schools in the context of other DfE requirements that have increase workloads for ITT leaders, and Mentors and Professional Tutors. Many Mentors in the University’s partnership schools are not given the time or financial reward to mentor, and due to the financial strain that mentoring has on schools, some avoid recruiting qualifying teachers. Dedicated funding, alongside greater flexibility staffing models, could help ensure Mentors and Professional Tutors have dedicated time for training ITTs and ECTs. The team’s experience is that this cannot be addressed by a short-term injection of money in 2024-25 to enable Mentors and Lead Mentors to undertake the required 20-30 hours of training; it depends on building longevity in mentoring and ensuring capacity in ITT school placements.

4.6 Potential trainees’ financial concerns pose a significant barrier to recruitment. The Committee should consider recommending that DfE ensures trainees across all subjects and phase programmes have access to a training bursary, so trainees can afford to pursue a teaching career.

4.7 The Committee should consider the need to improve occupational well-being.[4] Recommended strategies include:

• making the profession financially appealing to attract and retain skilled and knowledgeable practitioners;[5]
• implementing the Teacher Workload Advisory Group recommendations, including managing DfE data collection requirements, given the impact for Senior Leaders and teachers’ workloads;
• ensuring specialist external services (SEND and Mental Health in particular) are sufficiently funded, so children’s needs are met and teachers/schools can do their jobs;
• meeting the rising demand for flexible working post-pandemic, revisiting the 2019 Teacher Recruitment and Retention Strategy;
• providing guidance on communication between schools and parents/caregivers, addressing instant response culture;
• addressing the breakdown of trust between schools and Ofsted, instigating a more supportive system and removing the single word judgement.

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

5.1 DfE census figures (Autumn 2022) record the University of Sussex as the highest recruiter for Physics, English, Geography, Design Technology, History, Drama, Music and ‘other subjects’ and second or joint second for every secondary subject offered with the exception of Computing. These patterns demonstrate that pausing the ITT market reforms to allow an additional round of accreditation would aid DfE objectives for ITT recruitment.

5.2 Uptake of bursaries depends on availability of ITT provision. Bespoke Secondary PGCE and School Direct programmes at the University of Sussex are absent from other providers’ offer in the local area (e.g., Psychology, Computing, Drama, Business, Latin and Classics, Media); the University has also responded to partners’ recruitment needs by offering English and Media, English and Drama and Computing and Business. The significance of this local recruitment offer was highlighted by Ofsted as contributing ‘in a major way to recruitment and retention of teachers in the area’. Local schools cannot recruit to shortage subject areas if the University is not in the market due to the accreditation decision.

5.3 The University of Sussex has seen a modest increase of trainees recruited to bursary and scholarship subjects following the uplifts in the DfE incentive funding for the 2023-2024 cycle (see below, numbers at 31/3/2023 compared with 31/3/2022) and final numbers at the start of academic year September 2022.

5.4 The University of Sussex has seen gains in MFL (6) and Physics (1) recruitment from overseas following the new international bursary offer and location package. Of the international applications received, only a very small number meet the required standard for QTS training, the University has recruited 16 high calibre international trainees to date, compared with zero overseas acceptances this time last year.

5.5 A further issue for international ITT recruitment relates to lack of clarity on the Becoming a Teacher website and on the DfE Apply system: that international ITT applicants who are not MFL/Physics specialists must self-fund. It would be helpful to make this clearer to avoid costly inefficiencies in candidate selection processes, including the risk of interviewing candidates who are not able to self-fund.

5.6 Recruitment would be enhanced by widening the scope for bursaries for other subjects, such as Secondary RE, History and Business Education, all of which are seeing a decline in applications nationally and across the region.

5.7 Postgraduate Primary applications and acceptances have fallen nationally; at the University of Sussex, recruitment of Primary trainees is currently 39% lower than this time last year. This is highly concerning for teacher supply in September 2024, indicating the need for a training bursary to support the postgraduate route into primary teaching.

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

6.1 Overlap between the Early Career Framework (ECF) and the ITT Core Content Framework (CCF) gives rise to specific issues, including repetition and inflexibility, also noted in recent DfE research.[6] The Committee is asked to consider the following recommendations (6.2-6.6) in relation to the content of the two frameworks.

6.2   It would be beneficial to revise both ‘Learn That’ and ‘Learn How To’ statements:

• Repetition from CCF in ECF 'Learn That' statements means the ECF framework does not meet build on their foundational knowledge and starting points of Early Career Teachers (ECTs) as they enter teaching.
• ‘Learn That’ entitlements in the CCF and the ECF clearly articulate DfE Teachers’ Standards, but implementation functions to restrict curricula, because of lack of adequate space to engage and enthuse beginner teachers beyond minimum entitlements.
• Prescriptive ‘Learn How To’ statements position teaching as a homogenised craft, while uniformity of content means Mentors must backfill the programme with contextualised learning – creating an additional burden on heavy workloads.[7] The quantity of statements means they function as a tick list, reducing scope for tailored depth of engagement. Removing the statements from both frameworks would enable Mentors to exercise professional judgement and situate teacher development in their school’s context.
• The sequencing of ECT programme materials needs to be more flexible, revisited with greater depth to allow schools to adjust their approach to meet specific needs of ECTs in diverse settings.

6.3 Much of the included research, duplicated across both frameworks, is underpinned with narrowly scientific assumptions about the “best available” educational knowledge – an approach that has been widely critiqued.[8] To establish teacher identity and agency, ECTs and trainees must engage with diverse research, deepening professional knowledge and engaging in reflective pedagogic enquiry, practice and problem-solving. Narrow conceptualisations of evidence generate further tension with Ofsted, where inspectors expect to see trainees critically engaged in subject/phase research in addition to the implementation of the CCF/ECF readings. The CCF and ECF frameworks must enable teachers and trainees to be critical consumers of diverse forms of relevant research and professional knowledge.

6.4 Attention to Special Educational Needs and Disability is missing in both Frameworks. With increasingly diverse classes and growing numbers of pupils with SEN support and Education, Health and Care plans,[9] inclusion need to be at the forefront. Moreover, approaches to SEND in the ECF are focused on mainstream settings, not ECTs entering SEND settings or Alternative Provision. SEND should be a key strand for all teachers teaching in all contexts; specific strategies and student-centred approaches should be detailed in both frameworks, rather than merely signposting the SEND Code of Practice or giving generic advice to ‘tailor [providers’] curricula to the needs of their trainees’.[10]

6.5 The behaviourist approach to behaviour management in both frameworks is counterproductive for many children. Both frameworks should be informed by research which addresses key areas of practice that new entrants need to understand, and will deal with daily in schools, including: relational and trauma-informed approaches; intersections with SEND according to the needs of the child; and mental health.[11]

6.6 Omissions of references to race, racism, cultural or linguistic diversity in the CCF and ECF means that the ITT and Early Career curricula do not meet the needs of NQTs teaching within increasingly ethnically diverse classrooms, or of the children they teach.

6.7 The requirement for a two-year ECT mentoring programme has reduced the pool of Mentors for ITT trainees. Within the University of Sussex Partnership, headteachers have had to prioritise ECT Mentorship over ITT Mentorship, resulting in increased turnover of Mentors and more new Mentors in ITT,[12] and posing a barrier to creating a stable and experienced community of subject ITT Mentors. To address these challenges, the Committee could encourage DfE to:

• allow ITT providers greater flexibility to take account of mentor training undertaken prior to the introduction of the new requirements and in different settings;
• synergise mentor training and activities between ITT and the ECF;
• extend funding for mentoring beyond 2024/25; and
• allow mentoring funding to be used prior to the introduction of the new Quality Requirements.

6.8 ECT Mentors’ workload is a critical challenge: they often have multiple responsibilities or mentoring roles, and undertake training/self-directed study in their own time, making their jobs increasingly complex and demanding. These issues would be ameliorated, reducing critical pressure on staff and schools, by synergising training for ITT and ECF mentors.

6.9 A greater focus on the role of the Induction Manager is needed:

• often absent in ECF programmes, their role is critical in supporting ECTs;
• overly prescriptive facilitator training has diminished their knowledge and expertise;
• they often act as ITT Professional Tutors, co-ordinating both with scant increase in time allocation; and
• most Professional Tutors undertaking the Induction Manager role in partner schools are using provider-led programmes; very few opt for the school-led approach. Many report duplication of the University’s ITT content in the ECF materials, which in their view (according to feedback provided to the University’s ITT team), are of a lower quality.

6.10 The implementation of the CCF and ECF from local and regional providers, with increased accountability for embedding variant centre-based curricula into school placements, means schools are starting to move to one preferred provider; the demands of working with multiple providers are too high. This trend further destabilises the market, restricting the number of potential ITT candidates and squeezing teacher supply further.

6.11 Masters qualifications, which form the basis of many programmes internationally, would enhance professional status of teaching: developing teachers’ critical thinking and research skills; enabling schools’ collaboration with local research-intensive universities; and elevating teachers’ professional standing. The Committee should consider recommending that DfE establish scholarships for Masters level CPD, and amend eligibility regulations to allow partial postgraduate loans to allow teachers to build on existing Masters credits to secure a full Masters degree.

May 2023

6