2 Quantifying the retention issue
9. Professor John Howson summed up the judgement
that has to be made when assessing whether there is a problem
with retention of teachers. He told us:
"No employer would expect their entire workforce
to remain in the same post forever. Indeed, too little turnover
might lead to claims of a static labour force that was not ready
to accommodate change. However, too much turbulence in the Education
workforce can also be a problem, especially if it affects continuity
to such a degree that children's education is impaired."[6]
10. Research for the DfES conducted by the Centre
for Education and Employment Research, University of Liverpool,
looked at teachers resigning from their jobs in 2002. 12.8% of
secondary teachers resigned, but the largest proportion of those
(38.8%) were moving to another full-time post at a maintained
school. Some went on to other teaching jobs, such as supply teaching
(3.6%) or teaching in the independent sector (3.4%), or to other
posts within education (4.5%). Those leaving teaching and education
completely (to other employment, 5%, to travel, 4% and 13.5% retiring)
formed a relatively small proportion of those resigning. Therefore
wastage, the complete loss of teachers to the profession, does
not appear to be a significant issue for the teaching workforce
overall.
11. There are however some particular problems. One
concerns the age profile of the profession. As the Secondary Heads
Association (SHA) told us:
"The age profile of the teaching profession
is very worrying:
50% of teachers are aged over 45;
22% of teachers are aged 35 to 44;
28% of teachers are aged 21 to 34.
The implication is that rates of loss will rise significantly
over the next fifteen years, even if everything is done to reduce
the incidence of teachers leaving for other professions or retiring
early. More than half of the teaching force of 2015 is not currently
in teaching."[7]
12. As SHA goes on to say "Of particular concern
is the inevitable loss of the large number of experienced and
highly effective senior teachers due to retire during the next
ten years. These staff will be very hard to replace."[8]
13. Secondly, recruitment and retention difficulties
are not the same throughout the country. London and the South
East have particular difficulties arising from high costs of living,
particularly housing costs, and greater competition for graduate
employment. Professor Bob Moon of the Open University told us
about recent discussions with the education service in Hillingdon
about its fruitless search for maths teachers: "They could
not get a head of maths and they could not get any maths teachers."[9]
14. Professor Howson produced statistics showing
the retention rates for maths teachers who completed their training
in 1995. Of those who trained in the North, more than 60% were
still in teaching in 2001. For London, the figure was 50% and
in the South East, the figure was only 41%.[10]
Graham Lane of the National Employers' Organisation for School
teachers (NEOST) told us:
"The reason Essex is having particular problems,
and it is a large authority, is because a lot of teachers live
in Essex but can earn considerably more money in a London school
after a daily short train journey. Housing is cheaper in
parts of Essex than it is in London."[11]
15. The third issue is the recruitment and retention
of teachers from minority ethnic backgrounds. The National Union
of Teachers told us:
"Evidence from the NUT and others show that
black and minority ethnic teachers leave the profession earlier
and at faster rates than white teachers. A perceived lack of promotion
prospects is a major issue hindering the recruitment and retention
of teachers from some minority ethnic groups and needs a concerted
and focused strategy from the DfES, NCSL and the TTA in order
to redress the relatively low numbers of such teachers in the
profession."[12]
16. Fourth on the list are schools in challenging
circumstances. SHA told us that "Retention is harder in schools
serving disadvantaged communities."[13]
The DfES said that:
"Schools which have high proportions of pupils
who enter with low attainment or with behaviour problems; schools
which have poor and decaying buildings and fabric; and schools
whose leadership and management standards are poor are likelier
to have difficulties with both standards and retention".[14]
The Department argued, however, that this was not
inevitable: "…it is certainly not true that this necessarily
applies to all schools serving 'tough' areas, or with high proportions
of children entitled to free school meals. There are plenty of
examples of schools which succeed despite these challenges."
17. The final point is the shortage of teachers qualified
in certain subjects. There are five priority subjects for recruitment:
maths, science, design and technology, modern languages and English.[15]
As we discussed in looking at regional variations, in some areas
fewer than 50% of maths teachers, for example, are still teaching
after five years. The Teacher Training Agency highlighted the
fact that the difficulty of recruiting teachers for certain subjects
was related to the number of students taking first degree courses:
"Secondary trainees are more likely than primary
to be attracted through the postgraduate route, which means that
the supply of new trainees depends to some extent on the buoyancy
of recruitment to different first degree courses. In some subjects,
such as mathematics and science, this provides a serious challenge
to trainee recruitment. It has been estimated, for example, that
to fill all of the places for new secondary mathematics recruits
from a single cohort of graduates, some 40% of those taking mathematics
would have to choose to teach."[16]
Data on teachers in service
18. During the inquiry we talked to a number of witnesses
about the quality of the data available on the teaching workforce
and whether there was adequate information to enable informed
decisions to be made about the efficacy or otherwise of Government
initiatives. Professor Howson said that, "Clearly one problem
with any inquiry into retention is the paucity of available data
on the current position as opposed to the historical position."[17]
We asked him why the data was not available. He told us:
"I think one of the reasons is the Department's
genuine desire that information that goes into the public domain
should be as accurate as possible, and that because they do not
run schools they are working at arm's length in collecting that
data. They have to work, effectively, through local authorities.
As the role of local authorities has altered over the last 20
years—in
some cases it has diminished—the
collection of statistics may not have been a high priority any
longer for them because they are no longer seen to be the controlling
institutions for the schools."[18]
19. He drew a distinction between public sector statistics,
which he said the Office of National Statistics "clearly
demand are of the highest possible quality", and management
information on what is happening day-to-day :
"Throughout most of my career I have championed
the need for an organisation to have good management information."[19]
20. NEOST told us that it had conducted a survey
of teacher resignations and recruitment since 1987:
"The survey is based on information provided
by schools and is supported by the teacher unions and the DfES.
The survey allows detailed analysis of :
- turnover of teachers—this
is defined as a teacher leaving a school;
- teacher wastage—the numbers leaving LEA
maintained schools; and
- recruits."[20]
21. We asked how the data collected by NEOST differed
from that collected by the DfES. Graham Lane, Chair of NEOST,
told us "The difference is a series of wastage statistics
with [the DfES] data historically showing a higher level
of gross wastage than is shown by our surveys. They certainly
do collect data in a different way but we talk to them about the
different figures we get."[21]
Ronnie Norman, Vice-Chair of NEOST pointed out that not just the
Department and NEOST but also the GTC asked schools for data,
and agreed that it would be better if multiple surveys were not
required.[22]
22. We do not agree that there is insufficient data
on the teacher workforce. Indeed, the problem if there is one
is that there is too much data; the Department, NEOST and the
GTC all collect data on teachers in service, all on a slightly
different basis. This can lead to confusion with figures becoming
parts of different narratives about what is happening in the teaching
profession (although given that the GTC collects data on teachers,
we were surprised that those who gave evidence on its behalf we
not able to provide us with as detailed a commentary as we would
have expected on developments in the recruitment and retention
of teachers)
23. It would be a significant step forward if
there was to be agreement between the different organisations
on the form of data to be collected so that schools are asked
only once to provide the information and a consistent interpretation
of the trends is possible. One thing that is currently missing
from the published data which would be extremely useful is enough
information at a local level to establish, for example, how the
schools' funding problems in 2003-04 affected teacher employment.
6 Ev 29, para 1.1. Back
7
Ev 78,79. Back
8
Ev 79 Back
9
Q 159 Back
10
Ev 33 Back
11
Q 210 Back
12
Ev 97 Back
13
Ev 80 Back
14
Ev 169 Back
15
Ev 138 Back
16
ibid Back
17
Q 110 Back
18
Q 113 Back
19
ibid Back
20
Ev 68 Back
21
Q 197 Back
22
Q 198 Back
| 
