The marketisation of Initial Teacher Training – a view from inside the system: Derek Boyle

The training and education of new teachers into the teaching profession within England, broadly falls into two major divisions.  Initial Teacher Training (ITT) which is generally organised and delivered through School Centred Initial Teacher Training (SCITT) organisations and University-based programmes that focus on an Initial Teacher Education (ITE) approach.

 

The Carter Review of Initial Teacher Training (DfE 2015) undertook an independent review of the quality and effectiveness of Initial Teacher Training (ITT) which highlighted areas of good practice and suggested areas for improvement across the sector.  The identified 18 key recommendations were aimed at the sector and the government and suggested ways in which the best practice could be shared and developed across the sector.

 

The Carter Review acknowledged the different strengths of the two main components of the system that supplies schools with new teachers within England but didn’t explicitly promote a specific model as being the most effective.  The first recommendation that came out from the Carter Review (DfE, 2015, page number?) was that the “DfE should commission a sector body (for example, the Teaching Schools Council, a future professional body (College of Teaching), or another sector body) to develop a framework of core content for ITT.”  This recommendation firmly recommends that the sector representative body should develop a core content framework.

 

In March 2016, the Government published their White Paper Educational excellence everywhere and contained within it is a promise to “Replacing QTS with a new, stronger accreditation” (p32) with the aim of bringing teacher training “in line with other high-status professions”.  A theme that ran through the report was that the Government categorically pushed for favouring the ITT route “we will accredit new school-led providers and support a major expansion of SCITT-led training, with a particular focus on covering priority subjects and in areas of the country where recruitment is most difficult”. (p31).

 

If we then fast forward to 2019, we have the publication of the ITT Core Content Framework (CCF) which was developed by the DfE appointed “Expert Advisory Group” and independently assessed and endorsed by the Education Endowment Foundation (EEF).  This then gave the Government response to recommendation 1 from the Carter Review, and with the support of the EEF it gave an evidential basis for the component ideas within the CCF.

 

In July 2021 the sector received the ITT Market review report, that cited as the rationale for forcing all existing providers to go through a compulsory reaccreditation process, was that the quality of ITT provision was of variable quality according to a sample of providers visited by Ofsted between January and March 2021.  This contradicts evidence that ITT performed extremely well in Ofsted inspections as cited by the respective sector representative bodies UCET (The Universities Council for the Education of Teachers) and NASBTT (National Association of School-Based Teacher Trainers). The report also cites that some providers have not been inspected for over 6 years which indicates a capacity issue with Ofsted not being able to carry out sufficient inspections.

 

What is puzzling for those within the sector, is that the 14 recommendations out of this latest report in themselves have some merit in places, but the evidential basis for them is hard to discern and it appears that they are being used to tidy up aspects of wider system reform by the DfE. Within the sector, providers and their representative bodies have asked for the peer-reviewed, evidence basis for the supposition that the current system is failing in terms of the quality of teachers being produced by it.

This development has been a perfect example externally induced turbulence on the established system (Beabout, 2012).  While this process can be a nucleating action for change if supported, explained and managed well, the market review holds a sword of Damocles over providers in that if they “fail” to gain accreditation against a set of quality criteria, the provider is going to be summarily closed down before September 2024.  As a sector we have been left adrift and have not had the rationale for this external turbulence explained to us, so that we process it and start to make sense of it and work out where our sense of ownership and agency will come from.

 

It is unclear why the training and education of new teachers for the teaching profession is now considered a “market”?  What type of market for Initial Teacher Training are they aiming for?  Can the Government identify an example of where a free-market type approach to professional formation has successfully delivered the workforce needs of a public sector?

 

At the time of writing, the sector is waiting on the outcomes of the second round of accreditation process with only 40% of providers “passing” in the first round.  The 60% who “failed” this process first time round, have had to either resubmit their revised bid documents or have already decided to exist the “market”.  For those exiting the sector, we are losing vast amounts of experience from dedicated professionals who are experts in training successive cohorts of teachers.  Some organisations have already decided to merge, and it looks like as a sector we will be heading into a period of rationalisation and reduction in the number of providers within the sector.   As we enter the start of the new training year, the final numbers entering training will not be published for several months, but in March 2022 the number of applicants for teacher training was down 23% on the previous year (NFER 2022).

 

Over the Summer, the DfE have engaged in a number of short research projects trying to find out views from the sector to inform their thinking on aspects of the impact of the policy, but how the impact of this turbulence will be felt across the sector will be down to ministers within the DfE.

 

Derek Boyle; FCCT. SCITT director for Bromley Schools’ collegiate.

Reference List:

Beabout, B. R. (2012). Turbulence, Perturbance, and Educational Change. Complicity: An International Journal of Complexity and Education, 9(2), 15-29.

Worth, J. and Faulkner-Ellis, H. (2022). Teacher Labour Market in England: Annual Report 2022. Slough: NFER

 

Carter Review

Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/399957/Carter_Review.pdf  (Date accessed 28/8/22)

 

ITT Core Content Framework

Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/974307/ITT_core_content_framework_.pdf  (Date accessed 28/8/22)

 

ITT Market Review

Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/999621/ITT_market_review_report.pd (Date accessed 28/8/22)

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *