This afternoon, the governmentfinally published the ,outlininghow the sector could be radically reshaped over the course of the next academic year.
The Department for Education (DfE)expert advisory group, appointed to draw up plans for a more “effective and efficient” initial teacher training (ITT) market, set out 14 key proposals for reform in its long-awaited report, including the controversial suggestionthat allproviders should go through a “rigorous” process of reaccreditation.
Guided by a new set of “quality requirements” for the sector, the department said this reaccreditation process could be completed by September 2022 -with successful applicants set to launchtheir “new”ITT courses the following year.
Review:All teacher trainers reaccredited in ITT ‘step change’
Reaction:‘Sledgehammer’ ITT plan ‘will cut teacher supply’
Exclusive:Teacher training providers may face DfE cull
The department will now consult on the group’s recommendations over the next seven weeksbefore deciding which course to take.
But it is already clearthat the proposals will provoke fierce backlash from parts of the sector.
Among the report’s firstcritics wasthe deputy general secretary of the NAHT school leaders’union, Nick Brook, who warned today thatthe planscould reduce teacher supply “for years to come”.
So, what is the group’s vision for the future of ITTand what could this mean for schools?
Here’s everything you need to know:
Would all providers have to be reaccredited?
Yes. The expert group makesclear in itsreport that the DfE will need to be“assured” that providers are capable of delivering the new quality requirements “in full”.
The group therefore recommends that all ITT providers are made to go through a “new accreditation process”, regardless of any prior experience.
Is it possible for everyone to meet the criteria?
Probably not as it stands. But that doesn’t mean certain providers will be written out of the system entirely. Instead, they may be encouraged to pair up with others to pool their resources.
The advisory group says it is “unlikely” that the new requirements can be delivered “successfully and in full”within the “current market configuration”.
Therefore it suggests “many providers will wish or need to create formal partnerships, either with organisations of similar type to themselves, or with different kinds of organisations or existing providers, in order to create the wide range of capacity which will be needed”.
This indicates that the group anticipates some providers will not be able to meet the criteria in their current form.
Who decides who is reaccredited and who is not?
It is not yet clear. In the consultation document accompanying the report, the government refers to the “DfE running an accreditation process early in 2022”.
However,what this will involveis not spelled out anywhere in the report. The group only says: “DfE will need to be assured that prospective accredited providers and their partnerships are capable of delivering the quality requirements in full.”
Vlogasked the DfE who would be running the reaccreditation processbut it did not provide an answer,sayingit would respond after the consultation closed.
What are the new quality requirements?
The group recommends thatall providers should be accredited against a new set of standardsfor “high-quality training provision”. These are:
Curriculum:Develop an evidence-based curriculum which explicitly delivers all aspects of the ITT Core Content Framework.
Mentoring and guidance: Establish a professional network of well-trained and expert mentors, who have a deep understanding of the curriculum, the relevant research base which informs itand their role in supporting its delivery and practice.
Assessment: Set out an assessment and progression framework which is aligned to the planned and sequenced curriculum.
Quality assurance: Develop quality assurance processes to ensure that all aspects of the delivery of the course meet the high expectations to which all trainees are entitled.
Structures and partnerships: Set out the essential features of their structures and partnerships, which will enable them to deliver teacher training in the way described in the preceding sections.
What happens after providers are reaccredited?
If they are successful in their bids, the expert group saysproviders should “continue to meet conditions for accreditation”. So it appears this is not a one-off assessment.
The report recommends that the DfE“formally notify” those who do not meet aspects of the quality requirementsas set out in the ITT criteria.
Where this is the case, the department should “mandate support between providers to ensure improvement as a condition of continued accreditation”.
And where a provider is unable or unwilling to improve, the DfE should “broker transfer of trainees to another provider”.
Will Ofsted be involved?
The report says all providers will be inspected by Ofsted using the revisedinitial teacher educationinspection framework.
It adds that negative inspection judgements should continue to trigger a reassessment of a provider’s suitability to deliver teacher training, with powers retained to “withdraw accreditation” if necessary.
The group also recommends that the DfE and Ofstedexplore how involvement in ITT might be included in the Education Inspection Framework.
This could potentially mean schools are judged on whether they play a part in training new teachers.
What is the timescale for the changes?
The report itself does not set deadlines for implementing the 14 recommendations.
However the DfE proposes its own timeline in the consultation document.
It says:“We think that implementation may be possible for the 2022-23 postgraduate recruitment round, with DfE running an accreditation process early in 2022 and successful providers being announced before the end of the 2021-22 academic year.
“Providers would then have a further year to recruit trainees and prepare for first teaching of the new ITT courses in September 2023.”
Thesuggestion that providers should be reaccredited in time to recruit from September 2022has proved controversial with key stakeholders.
Among those expressing their concerns today wasEmma Hollis, executive director of the National Association for School-Based Teacher Trainers, who argued that “the risks associated with the recommendation for reaccreditation are exacerbated by the timescale recommended in the report”.
“The development of truly high-quality partnerships and well-sequenced curricula takes significant time and resource,” she said.
“Forcing providers to submit applications for reaccreditation within just a five-month window risks the loss of exceptional providers from the system because they do not have sufficient time, resource and capacity to undertake the process effectively.”
Our school is part of an academy trust: will this affect us?
Quite possibly. The expert group proposes thatexpanding multi-academy trusts (MATs) should be expected to “actively meet their responsibilities for ITT involvement in the areas they serve”.
The report therefore suggests that regional school commissioners consider involvement in ITT as a “condition of growth” for MATs.
The groupadds that the DfE should makeinvolvement in teacher training a condition of “eligibility for academy funding streams”, such as the Trust Capacity Fund or sponsor grants.
What about teaching school hubs?
The group recommends that teaching school hubs play a role in delivering ITT by partnering with an accredited provider,unless they are already operating at that level.
The report suggests that the DfE should requirehubs to support local ITT delivery in “specific strategic ways”, such as “building school capacity” by developing an “active mentor network” in the area, providing support to schools serving disadvantaged communities, or “modelling high-quality intensive practice placements”.
