Asked by
To ask His Majesty’s Government, further to the Initial teacher
training (ITT) market review, published on 29 September, what
percentage of initial teacher training providers have not
received accreditation to enable them to continue offering
training courses from 2024; and what assessment they have made of
the effect this will have on ensuring all regions of the country
are able to offer such courses.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for
Education () (Con)
My Lords, adopting the recommendations from the Initial Teacher
Training Market Review and subsequently undertaking the
accreditation process to ensure that only the high-quality
providers remain in the ITT market is key to achieving this
Government’s aim of an excellent teacher for every child. One
hundred and seventy-nine providers have been accredited to
deliver ITT from 2024, covering every region in the country. We
are supporting the sector to develop partnerships and expand
provision to meet trainee demand in all areas.
(Lab)
My Lords, despite the fact that there was no evidence that the
quality of initial teacher education had a connection to the
failure to reach recruitment targets, two years ago the
Government introduced the review to which the Minister referred
for a complete overhaul of the system. Every existing provider
was forced to apply for reaccreditation, and many were
unsuccessful. Despite what the Minister has just said, in
Cumbria, for instance, there is no ITT provider remaining, and in
other areas such as Yorkshire and the Tees Valley, there are very
few—so much for levelling up. Last week, the DfE announced that
it had again failed to reach its targets for primary and
secondary school teacher trainee applicants—by 40% in secondary.
Can the Minister say how, in those circumstances, the Government
can justify cutting the number of ITT providers?
(Con)
The Government are focused on ensuring that there is the right
capacity in the market. The noble Lord is right that not all
existing providers have been successful, but the Government are
working with them to make sure that they can work in partnership
with accredited providers to make sure that we have capacity all
across the country.
The (CB)
My Lords, on top of the serious concerns that the noble Lord,
Lord Watson, has raised, we now have a shortage of teachers in
many subjects. Does the Minister agree that we should introduce
bursaries for all subjects not reaching their recruitment
targets? We need the teachers as well as the courses.
(Con)
The Government take bursaries very seriously and we review
bursaries each year. Amounts granted in 2021-22 took account of
the extraordinary circumstances of Covid, but we are increasing
bursaries in 2022-23 and in 2023-24 similar to the levels offered
pre-pandemic.
(LD)
My Lords, if we have a problem with training people for initial
teacher training then the review of special educational needs
will put extra pressure on them, because they will have to be
able to deal with problems that historically they are regarded as
being underprepared for. What will be the result of the
review?
(Con)
I cannot prejudge, but it is only a few weeks away that we will
be able to discuss the results of the review. Clearly the
Government initiated the review because they take seriously
issues for children with special educational needs and
disabilities.
(Con)
To what do the Government attribute their inability to meet
teacher training targets? Could school-based training play a
larger role?
(Con)
My noble friend asks an important question. There is no single
reason why the recruitment market is so challenging, but clearly
there is a very competitive labour market. Historically, teaching
has not offered the same flexibility that is now offered
post-pandemic for many graduate jobs. School-based teacher
training will play an extremely important part and we continue to
promote the role of a teacher, with its incredibly important
contribution to our children and our economy, as hard as we
can.
of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, data released by the DfE just last week showed that in
the 2022-23 academic year there were just 444 trainee physics
teachers across the whole of England. Some 400 schools in England
do not have a teacher for physics A-level. The next generation of
English scientists is being failed and it is catastrophic for our
international competitiveness. Specifically on physics, how will
the Government address this?
(Con)
The noble Baroness is right that physics is the most challenging
subject for recruitment, but I know that she would also
acknowledge that mathematics, chemistry and other important STEM
subjects see much more encouraging results. We are implementing
specific measures for physics, including the cunningly named
Engineers Teach Physics programme, which has now been extended to
all ITT providers from this academic year following the pilot
scheme.
(Lab)
The Minister will know that I have always felt that the
reaccreditation exercise was wasteful and badly timed. I cannot
help thinking that a 40% shortage in secondary school ITT places
is as near a crisis as we are going to get without the Government
acknowledging it. New national providers are untested and there
is no guarantee that they will be able to recruit. What does the
Minister think will happen if some of those that appealed against
being turned down for accreditation are accepted? Will the
Government bear in mind the areas that are not yet covered, which
my noble friend Lord Watson mentioned?
(Con)
I obviously cannot comment on those providers that are currently
appealing if they did not receive reaccreditation. There are some
very strong providers among the new ones—the National Institute
of Teaching and the Ambition Institute, among others—but as I
mentioned in reply to an earlier question, we are focusing very
much on building partnerships with those that have received
accreditation and those that were unsuccessful.
(Lab)
My Lords, I declare my interest as chancellor of the University
of Greenwich. Does the Minister recognise that there are very
many real concerns among universities that have been teaching and
training teachers for many years about this whole process and its
inadequacies? When the appeal process is completed, will she meet
with a delegation of vice-chancellors and chancellors to discuss
the learnings from this exercise?
(Con)
I hear the noble Lord’s concerns. We believe that the
accreditation process was thorough and fair, but I would be
delighted to meet the group, as he suggests.
(Con)
Can my noble friend clarify whether accreditation is still taking
place, or just on appeal? If it is just on appeal, what help is
her department giving to those organisations to make sure they
come up to standard? Presumably, they have been working for years
in this subject area.
(Con)
If I understood my noble friend’s question correctly, I can tell
him that there has been a reaccreditation of all providers in the
field. Some providers chose not to apply to be reaccredited, some
new providers applied, and the majority of both university and
school-based providers were successful—80% of universities and
83% of school-based providers. We have been looking at supporting
those successful organisations to work, where appropriate, with
those that were not successful, to make sure that we can build
those partnerships and ensure we have the capacity we need.
(LD)
With those accreditors that lost their accreditation, we are
obviously going to lose their skills and subject knowledge. How
can we use that effectively? Can the Minister assure us that, in
certain shortage subjects—we mentioned physics—accreditors that
have been the pipe stream providing those teachers are not ones
that have lost their accreditation?
(Con)
I really am sympathetic to the issues that the noble Lord raises,
but our principal focus is on the quality of initial teacher
training, and then of course on the whole early career framework,
to support teachers in the golden thread of support and training
that the noble Lord has heard me talk about many times. That is
our number one focus, and we will of course make sure that there
is sufficient capacity and that those skills are used in the
partnerships that I have already outlined.
(Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that, although there may be a
place for school-based training, the fact is that all schools are
under tremendous pressure of resources, and that training
teachers should strictly be the role of university schools of
education rather than our schools?
(Con)
I am afraid I cannot agree with the noble Baroness, try as I
might. The evidence is clear, from listening to teachers, that
practical experience in the classroom is extremely valuable and
that the school-based route is extremely popular and effective.
