House of Commons - Education and Skills

Select Committee on Education and Skills Fifth Report

4 Recruitment, training and development

31. The trigger for concern about recruitment was the decline in numbers taking up places on ITT courses for secondary education, and the failure to meet targets for recruitment to courses. In 1998-99, 15,340 students were recruited to ITT courses for secondary education in England And Wales. The target for the year was 20,355. Recruitment was therefore 25% below the target, and 9% below the numbers recruited the previous year.[31] The following year saw no improvement. In 1999-2000, the target was lower at 18,470 but recruitment at 14,840 was still 20% below the target, and 3% lower in absolute terms than that in 1998-99.[32]That 14,840 figure represented just over 12% fewer trainee teachers than the 16,910 that had been recruited onto courses only two years before in 1997-98.

Financial incentives

32. In these circumstances, it is not surprising that the Government decided that action was necessary. In its memorandum the DfES told us:

"The Government and the Teacher Training Agency have taken measures to help ensure that teacher recruitment over the last three years has been able to buck the economic trend. This has been largely thanks to the introduction of a portfolio of financial incentives. The upturn in recruitment for mathematics and science began in 1999-2000 with the introduction of 'old-style' Golden Hello incentives for PGCE trainees in these subjects, consisting of a £2,500 bursary during training and a further £2,500 lump-sum on appointment to a post in a maintained school. From 2000-01, these payments were superseded by a training bursary of £6,000 for all home and European PGCE trainees, followed by a £4,000 'new-style' Golden Hello for those qualifying and completing their induction year in the priority subjects of mathematics, science, modern languages, technology and English."[33]

33. The effect of these financial incentives has been dramatic. As Professor Howson told us:

"It is quite clear that when the government finally announced the training grant of £6000 in March 2000 that marked a watershed. Until that point applications for teacher training had been declining across the board in secondary…From that point onwards virtually every subject has turned round and the only subject that is now below where it was in terms of March 2000 is religious education."[34]

In 2003-04, 18,080 trainee secondary teachers were recruited to ITT courses, a 25% increase over 2000-01. However, there were still shortfalls in recruitment in the shortage subjects of mathematics, physical sciences, modern foreign languages and religious education.[35]

Employment-based routes for teacher training

34. This is not the whole picture. As well as incentives, the Government has been looking to different methods of training to bring in more teachers. In particular, they have taken School Centred Initial Teacher Training (SCITT) one stage further and brought in employment-based routes for training. The most significant of these programmes is the Graduate Teacher Programme (GTP):

"The Graduate Teacher Programme (GTP), created in 1998, has quickly become a major contributor to secondary teacher recruitment. Under this programme, mature graduates are able to work towards QTS while being employed in schools (and paid) as unqualified teachers."[36]

In 1999-2000, 420 secondary teachers trained through the GTP. By 2002-03, the figure had risen to 2,550.[37] Other employment routes include the Overseas Trained Teacher Programme, which enables those who have trained elsewhere to work while achieving QTS (though those with at least two years teaching experience may be awarded QTS without further training), which accounted for 500 trainees for secondary education in 2002-03, and Teach First, which encourages graduates whose career aims might lie elsewhere to spend two years in the classroom before moving on to other sectors (there were 170 Teach First trainees in the autumn term of 2003-04, the only figures available).[38]

35. The Government is very keen to expand the employment-based routes. The DfES told us:

"In 2001-02, the employment-based routes provided 10% of all secondary trainees, and as many as 17% in the five priority subjects. The Government announced on 13 December 2002 that the number of employment-based training places on offer would double by 2005-06. Over 90% of entrants to employment-based training go on to gain QTS and take up jobs in the maintained school sector."[39]

Wastage from ITT and qualified teachers who do not enter teaching

36. Given the age profile of the teaching profession and the need to maintain the numbers of qualified teachers, the number of those who begin training but do not complete it or, having qualified, do not find employment as teachers is a matter of concern.

37. As mentioned earlier, Professor Howson provided an analysis of those who qualified as maths teachers in 1995 and where they were in 2001. There were regional differences, but the overall figure for England was that 53% were teaching in 2001, while 83% had taught at some point. If this is a guide, it appears that while the proportion those qualified as teachers who are teaching at any given point is little more than 50%, the substantially higher proportion of those who have taught at some time is potentially significant. A recurrent theme throughout the inquiry was that teaching could no longer be seen as a career for life, with those in the workforce seeking a range of different job opportunities. In a world where careers are no longer expected to be necessarily for life, this situation may be considered acceptable so long as recruitment continues to improve.

Retention rates of different training routes

38. The DfES told us that more than 90% of those training through the employment based routes gain QTS, which is considerably higher than other training routes. Ralph Tabberer of the Teacher Training Agency said:

"the drop-out on [undergraduate]courses will be higher than the one year postgraduate routes. …At the moment we are finding the new Graduate Teacher Programme giving us slightly better retention rates. To give you an order of magnitude, we could [lose] about 5% off GTP, about 11% off postgraduate and it will be higher, about 20-23 % of undergraduates off the longer courses."[40]

39. Mr Tabberer gave an explanation of why this might be:

"the way we have to approach recruitment—I think the same applies to retention—is very much thinking about different groups of people and different people's expectations of work. It is trying to make the proposition of teaching attractive to them in the short or long term. What we have done with previous injections of funding is to look for new schemes which are viable at bringing in able and committed people we have not had access to before".[41]

This suggests that one way of improving retention rates would be to expand training through the employment based routes. We would support this, but would also recommend that any expansion would have to be complemented by appropriate levels of support both to the trainees and to the schools in which they are working.

Induction of newly qualified teachers and continuing professional development

40. The DfES told us that a key to retention of teachers is the reinforcement of the parts of the job that teachers enjoy and which keep them teaching:

"It is here that Continuing Professional Development (CPD) has a key role to play. According to the GTC survey, most teachers are looking for 'appropriate support to be able to concentrate on teaching and learning', and time for professional development."[42]

The Department added that its current strategy, launched in March 2001, "aims to create better opportunities for relevant, focused and effective professional development leading to improved skills, knowledge, understanding and effectiveness in schools."[43]

41. One relatively recent development is the induction year for newly qualified teachers. The purpose of this is to provide support for a teacher is his or her first year of the kind that they would have received as a trainee and not just to expect them to be able to make the transition to the workforce without further assistance. Mr Graham Lane, Chair of the National Employers Organisation for School Teachers (NEOST), claimed credit for his organisation for the introduction of the induction year[44], and added that

"One of the things that came out very clearly from many young teachers is that they found the induction year extremely valuable but then it was all switched off. We would like opportunities to continue that in the second and third years. That is one of the reasons that many local authorities have actually done exactly that."[45]

42. Professor Howson also emphasised the worth of a proper induction process:

"One of the things that clearly the research evidence from the [Institute of Education] and elsewhere is showing is that where the induction year works properly, then it is more likely that people will stay in the profession at the end of that year. Where they have a very difficult induction year—either because the circumstances are different from where they trained or because frankly they are not being given what they should be in terms of assistance during that year—they are more likely to quit."[46]

43. The Association of Teachers and Lecturers also said that the picture was very variable:

"ATL welcomed the introduction of an induction year, with its specific provisions for induction support and a reduced time-table for each newly qualified teacher (NQT) but it is clear that it may not have made the contribution to retention and motivation that it should have done. The evidence of the variability from school to school is extensive, including the DfES Research Report 338 Evaluation of the Effectiveness of the Statutory Arrangements for the Induction of Newly Qualified Teachers...However, two of the researchers have gone on to investigate 'rogue' school leaders who 'treat new teachers badly or unprofessionally, wasting public resources and, in some cases, hindering or potentially ruining individuals' careers and losing them to the teaching profession'".[47]

44. The Department told us that it had an initiative to address these issues, the Early Professional Development programme (EPD):

"This is intended to support teachers better during the critical first five years of their teaching careers. Interim evaluation of the EPD Pilot by the National Foundation for Educational Research has shown that the pilot has had a positive impact on the morale of those involved and, consequently, their commitment to teaching."[48]

The EPD is to be extended nationally from September 2004.[49]

45. While the expansion of the Early Professional Development Programme is welcome, the research which indicates that the success of the induction process varies widely from school to school is worrying. Most worrying of all is the evidence of 'rogue' heads and managers who may blight someone's career before it begins. Training for the now mandatory National Professional Qualification for Headship, which we discuss later in this report, should emphasise the need to encourage and support new teachers, and give guidance on how to do that.

46. Integration of the ending of training, the induction year and subsequent support in the early years of a teacher's career is also extremely important, and we recommend that the Government and bodies such as the Teacher Training Agency and the National Employers Organisation for School Teachers put together a formal entry programme to bring these different elements together.

47. Continuing professional development for all teachers was seen as vital by most of those we spoke to, and was identified as a positive factor through the 2003 GTC/MORI survey. The GTC told us that "Teachers who had opportunities for professional development were far more likely to want to stay in teaching."[50]

48. There were criticisms of the current provision. For example, SHA argued that professional development should be available to teachers at all stages of their careers, but said that "[r]ecently training has often focused on the most recent government initiative rather than the professional development of the individual teacher. Funding difficulties in 2003-04 have resulted in cutbacks professional development."[51] The National Association of Schoolmasters and Union of Women Teachers (NASUWT) said that despite the national strategies "the provision within and between schools is patchy. This cannot be coherently addressed until teachers have a contractual entitlement to CPD within working time."[52]

49. The Department is strong in its commitment to CPD, but it does say that there are conditions which must apply:

"[W]e…know that offering training and development opportunities by themselves are not enough; they need to be linked closely to an individual's needs. That will sometimes mean their personal needs; sometimes the needs of their job. Teachers, like any other employees, need suggestions and feedback from managers and colleagues, to help them identify their needs."[53]

50. In that context the DfES argues for an effective performance management system in each school, and notes Ofsted's comments that only 1 in 6 schools have such a system and that teachers view them with suspicion:

"We are therefore taking action to improve teachers' and headteachers' annual appraisals; to issue plainer guidance on capability procedures; to streamline the threshold assessment process for experience teachers passing the 'pay threshold' relying more on school judgements; to open the debate around performance-related pay; and to improve the link between performance management and professional development. ..The aim is for more schools to start seeing performance management as part of a toolkit to support school and teacher improvement. This should directly affect staff retention."[54]

51. Continuing Professional Development is clearly very important in improving teachers' skills and morale and thereby in helping to provide better education for pupils. We urge all those concerned with the management of teachers to ensure that CPD becomes an integral part of teachers' careers. We also recommend that it looks for innovative ways of providing that development, and in this context we welcome the plans for the Teachers' TV channel for which programmes are currently being piloted with a projected launch date of early 2005.[55]

Teachers from minority ethnic communities

52. The proportion of teachers from minority ethnic communities is below the proportion of the minority ethnic population of the country. As the Institute for Policy Studies in Education (IPSE) at London Metropolitan University told us:

"There are particular concerns about the low proportion of minority ethnic teachers in the profession. No figures are maintained nationally, but we have recently estimated that the total number of black and other minority ethnic teachers in England is 9,100… This represents 2.4% of the teaching force, compared to 9.1% of the working-age population of England (and 12.9% of the school population). These minority ethnic teachers are broadly distributed between primary schools and secondary schools much as the white teaching force, but they are particularly concentrated in certain regions: London, where they form 7.4% of the workforce, followed by the West Midlands (2.0%), Yorkshire and Humberside and the East Midlands (1.5% in each)."[56]

53. On retention, IPSE told us:

"…that the level of retention for minority ethnic teachers is broadly comparable to that of white teachers. However, there are major issues in relation to promotion patterns that are likely, if they continue, to have a significant effect on future retention. Currently, of teachers who have between 15 and 25 years teaching experience, 16.9% of white teachers are in positions of head teacher or deputy head (primary and secondary phases). Only 11.1% of black teachers with equivalent experience, and 9.6% of Asian teachers, are in similar positions. Perceptions of this may affect the career decisions of the increasing numbers of minority ethnic teachers currently being attracted into teacher training."[57]

54. Mary Doherty of the Teacher Training Agency told us that there were targets for minority ethnic recruitment to the profession:

"We have been working very hard to increase the number of teachers from minority backgrounds into the profession and our target is 9%…of the 35,000 we recruit, we recruited 7.8 % last year. We look like we are on target for the 9% [this year] but we need to be relentless in pursuit of making teaching diverse and responding to minority ethnic groups."[58]

55. On progression in the profession, Heather Du Quesnay of the National College for School Leadership said:

"It is certainly a huge concern for areas like Lambeth, where you just do not get people who are visible role models for young people from the minority ethnic groups. We have run two or three pilot programmes which we developed with the National Union of Teachers, called Equal Access to Promotion, where we have had a couple of hundred people through, and that seems to have been quite successful for those individuals. There is a poverty of data about the ethnic background of head teachers. Plans are well in hand now for the Department to begin to collect that data. I would think once we have that we need to do training, as the Teacher Training Agency is doing, and establish some targets for NPQH recruitment, for example. It is not really defensible to be where we are."[59]

56. It is clear that there is a need for more teachers from minority ethnic communities, and a need to ensure that they are able to make equitable progress in the profession. Addressing the recruitment, retention and career progress of teachers from minority ethnic communities must be a priority for the DfES and the Teacher Training Agency.

Gender issues

57. There are two issues here: that there are significantly more women than men teaching in secondary schools (in 2002 the figures were 53.7% women 45.3% men);[60] and that more than 60% of headteachers and deputy headteachers are men. The Institute for Policy Studies in Education told us:

"Male teachers in secondary education are more likely to be found in the older age cohorts (Hutchings, 2002a). The Teacher Training Agency is making strenuous and, to an extent, successful efforts to recruit a higher proportion of men into initial training. But, nevertheless, the secondary school profession will become increasingly feminised in the coming decade. Yet many of the senior positions in secondary schools are disproportionately held by men. Of secondary teachers between 40 and 59 years of age, 44% are men. Yet men hold 68% of all secondary headships, and 63% of all deputy headships. The relatively new grade of Assistant head, to which all appointments have been made in the past three years, is 69% male. This pattern is not one likely to act as an aid to retaining female teachers, who will be increasing as a proportion of the workforce."[61]

This issue needs to be looked at in an historical context. In 1970, 42% of teachers in secondary schools were women[62]; the proportion has now risen steadily to approximately 54%. It is to be expected that this rise in the proportion of women teachers will be reflected in a rise in the proportion of women in senior posts. The situation needs to be monitored carefully, as the disproportionate number of men in senior posts and the lack of opportunity for advancement may be a significant disincentive for women teachers.

Retention issues

Workload

58. The GTC/MORI survey identified excessive workload as one of the main reasons for teachers leaving, or wishing to leave, the profession. The Government has acknowledged that action needed to be taken to reduce teachers' workload. In its memorandum, the DfES told us:

"The PricewaterhouseCoopers report on teacher workload, commissioned by Government and published in December 2001, found that teachers were spending 20% of their time on administrative and supervisory tasks that could be done by others. The subsequent School Teachers' Review Body report, building on the PwC work, made plain that teacher workload needed to be tackled. Teacher hours in term-time were on average 52 hours per week, and in some cases higher. The STRB made a series of proposals for reducing excessive workload, including thorough changes to the teachers' contract. In responding to these proposals, the Government entered into detailed discussions with all national partners with the aim of reaching an agreement on the nature and implementation of reforms that would turn the tide on teacher workload."[63]

59. The PwC survey calculated that headteachers in secondary schools worked an average of 2,527 hours over a year and a classroom teacher 2,114 hours per year. This compares with Office for National Statistics figures for all managers of 2,222 hours per year and for all professionals of 2,112 per year.[64]

60. The result of the PwC report was Time for Standards,[65] which set out the Government's proposals for addressing the problems: lessons delivered "more flexibly" with greater involvement of other adults and ICT, so giving teachers more time to teach.[66] This in turn led to the National Agreement on Workload, signed on 15 January 2003 by all "national partners" other than the NUT, the DfES describing this as "a broad, deep and determined coalition for a better deal for teachers and pupils".[67]

61. The workload agreement[68] sets out milestones for implementation in schools:

"Phase one—2003

Routine delegation of 24 non-teaching tasks

Begin to promote reductions in overall excessive hours

Introduce new work/life balance clause

Establish new Implementation Review Unit

Undertake review of use of school closure days

Leadership Time

Phase two—2004

Introduce new limits on covering for absent teachers

Phase three—2005 (at latest)

Guaranteed professional time for planning, preparation and assessment"[69]

62. Doug McAvoy of the NUT set out his union's position. He argued that the transfer of tasks was not controversial and that all were agreed on the tasks that should be transferred but added that "the NUT view is that they currently are not a requirement for teachers". Teachers undertook the tasks because there was no one else to do them or because they wanted to do them, but they are not, in the NUT's eyes, a contractual obligation. He said:

"We welcome the commitment to transfer that work, but sadly the draft contract is written such that for the first time teachers will become contracted to do the work other than routinely."[70]

63. Mr McAvoy's main complaint, however, was that the agreement was insufficiently funded:

"How can you afford to transfer the work [when] the funding crisis has caused local authorities and schools to make redundant or to decide not to replace not only teachers but support staff?"[71]

He said that on 15 January 2003 the DfES had quoted the figure of £1.1 billion being available to fund the agreement. In June 2003 at the Local Government Association conference the Secretary of State quoted the figure of £250 million, "So between 15 January and two weeks ago he had lost £850 million".

64. Mr McAvoy concluded that:

"[I]f the money is not there for [the transfer of the 24 tasks], nor for the rest of the workforce reform agenda, then what chance is there of teachers getting their marking and preparation time, limits to cover and a reduction in workload such as was recommended by the school teachers' review body."

65. It is not only the NUT which expressed scepticism about the workload agreement. SHA told us:

"Right from the beginning of negotiations we have been saying, 'Yes, this is fine provided we have the resources to deliver'. That is a major worry."[72]

The National Association of Head Teachers agreed:

"If this agreement turns out to reduce the workload of teachers but at the expense of increased workload of the senior staff, then clearly that is going to have an effect on the recruitment and retention of heads. There is a concern that unless it is properly funded there are dangers that senior staff in schools could end up picking up some of the pieces, ending up with a greater workload themselves… My worry may be unfounded but it is those sorts of concerns that are nagging away at us at the moment, and that is why we want to be certain that the agreement will go forward—that it will go forward and reduce workload across the board, not just in one sector of the service."[73]

66. Others were more positive. Eamon O'Kane of NASUWT told us:

"What we are seeing is indeed a remodelling of the profession which is an uncomfortable process for some and I can understand that. The fear is that in bringing other adults into the school to complement the work of teachers there could be a danger that those adults would be substituting for teachers in carrying out a pedagogic function of teachers which rightly should remain the prerogative of qualified teachers. I believe that the national agreement which has been negotiated, which has now been rolled out, will protect the role of the qualified teacher, but at the same time will relieve them from a whole raft of tasks which you quite rightly say have been the bane of teachers' lives for many years…I do think that for many teachers this is the first chink of light in this very, very important issue of reducing the excessive workload of teachers [and] concentrating the work of teachers on…the primary task of teaching."[74]

67. Mr O'Kane did once again emphasise the importance of funding, saying that "if the funding is not put in then clearly the measures will not succeed. It is absolutely crucial that that happens."[75]

68. When we put some of the concerns about the workload agreement to the Minister of State, he said that in his view what head teachers were saying was that "there is money across the system which more than funds the deal. What they are concerned about is the distribution across the system and whether individual schools are facing a particular squeeze."[76] He also emphasised the agreement as a tool for remodelling what teachers do, rather than merely an opportunity to hand certain tasks to others:

"…the work force agreement is about doing things differently and not just doing more, so it is not a matter of dumping more tasks; it is about changing the way in which support staff work and the way in which teachers work. I think you will see a really co-operative attitude from the heads and from the teachers' unions who are signatories and from the support staff unions to make it work, and it is our responsibility to work with them to make it work."[77]

The Minister referred to "doing things differently", but it is clear that the agreement is designed to reduce teachers' workload by taking certain administrative tasks away from them and providing more preparation and other non-contact time.

69. Figures on numbers of staff in schools in January 2004, released in April 2004, show that there were 4,200 more teachers in secondary schools in 2004 compared with 2003,[78] 10,000 more teaching assistants (across both the primary and secondary sectors) and 3,500 more administrative staff (again across both sectors). On publication of these figures the Secretary of State said

"I, of course, accept that a number of schools in certain areas of the country faced difficulties last year, but today's figures confirm that the measures we have introduced to restore stability and certainty to school budgets are addressing this. They also categorically prove that last summer's partial surveys predicting mass teacher and support staff redundancies were wrong."[79]

70. The DfES has provided the figures for the numbers of teachers and support staff overall in January 2004. Within that overall picture we still do not have information about winners and losers; how many schools were badly affected by the problems over schools funding last year and how many did well. We also note that the 13,500 extra teaching assistants and administrative staff were spread over both primary and secondary sectors and some 23,000 schools. Clearly more needs to be done in recruiting staff to implement the workload agreement in full.

71. The NUT undertook its own survey of headteachers and LEA officers on budgets for 2004-05. The conclusion of that survey was that the current year "is much more typical of previous non-crisis years".[80] It did note that heads considered that the provision of guaranteed time for planning preparation and assessment, and key part of the workload agreement was an issue that was not being properly tackled.[81]

72. The workload agreement has great potential to ease the burden of work on teachers, provided that it is funded appropriately so that the extra staff required are made available. The latest figures on school workforce do not prove that sufficient staff are currently in place, but they do suggest that the fears of those who argued that the effects on staff numbers of the problems with schools' funding in 2003-04 had undermined the basis of the workload agreement have not been borne out. It should of course be remembered that many of the NUT's concerns related to primary schools, which are not the subject of this report.

73. We hope that further progress will be made in the current year on numbers of additional staff to assist in the implementation of the agreement. The regrettable decision of the UNISON conference in June 2004 to withdraw support for the agreement is a substantial setback. Given the potential benefits of the agreement the DfES should make it a priority to keep all parties on board.

Pupil behaviour

74. Pupil behaviour is seen as one of the most significant problems in the retention of teachers in secondary teaching. The GTC told us that "46% of secondary respondents to the GTC survey identified pupil behaviour as a major discouragement to continuing in teaching."[82] NASUWT said that research it had conducted "confirms the adverse impact of pupil indiscipline on teachers' job satisfaction. The level of pupil indiscipline, violence and increasing levels of verbal abuse have a critical bearing on teacher motivation. These realities of daily life in school have impacted upon the workload of teachers and the stress of work in the classroom."[83]

75. SHA told us that "There have always been challenging pupils in schools, but the very poor behaviour of a minority is widely felt to be more burdensome on teachers, and indeed upon other pupils, than ever before."[84] It noted that dealing with bad behaviour was the aspect of teaching that young teachers had most difficulty with, and that it was an issue that should be dealt with much more fully in Initial Teacher Training: "New teachers still have to learn all their strategies for avoiding, containing and reducing bad behaviour during their first years of teaching. Many young teachers feel as if they are failures if they find some classes difficult."[85]

76. The DfES acknowledged the significance of the issue:

"Improving schools' and teachers' ability to deal with challenging behaviour from pupils is crucial to raising educational standards, as well as improving teacher retention and job satisfaction. The Government is therefore investing nearly £470 million over the next three years in a major programme to achieve that. The programme has two main elements:

a universal element, providing every secondary school with review, training and consultancy support; and
a targeted element providing intensive support for schools facing the greatest challenges."[86]

77. The universal part of the programme is the behaviour and attendance strand of the Key Stage 3 Strategy, implemented in September 2003. As part of that policy, "Every LEA will have expert behaviour and attendance consultants to help schools carry out reviews and deliver subsequent training. All this will enable schools to improve their systems and give staff greater confidence in managing behaviour."[87]

78. The targeted part of the programme is an extension of Behaviour Improvement Projects (BIPs) beyond the 34 LEAs where they had been piloted since September 2002. The DfES told us:

"BIPs are now part of the behaviour and attendance strand of the EiC programme. They will be extended to 27 more LEAs by September 2003, which means BIPs in all EiC LEAs supporting over 200 secondary schools, and to all Excellence Clusters by September 2005."[88]

79. There was a positive response from union leaders we spoke to about what the Government was trying to do. For NASUWT, Eamon O'Kane told us:

"I certainly welcome what the Government is embarking upon. First of all, it is a recognition of the problem and that is quite important. There have been quite unsuccessful attempts in the past to sweep these issues under the carpet…one of the ways in which I think the BIP programme has looked at this issue of managing pupil behaviour is the ability of schools to be able to tackle it on an individual basis, for example to have considerably more mentors, to have more adults being able to deal with problems, try to nip them in the bud before they develop… There is a series of issues which, when taken together, can produce disruptive behaviour in classes which causes teachers so many difficulties. If we can have more people in schools, helping on all those issues, through learning mentors, through helping with behaviour of pupils, then I think that is a good thing."[89]

80. Deborah Simpson of the Professional Association of Teachers agreed:

"Any measures which highlight the problem [of pupil behaviour] and actually go out to tackle that problem are welcome… The experience I have had from our members who have worked with learning mentors has been that they have found it overwhelmingly positive. Encouraging moves of this type, which give other adults time to spend with difficult youngsters, are to be welcomed. It is another way in which teachers are supported."[90]

81. The Government's strategies for dealing with disruptive and violent behaviour in schools have received a broad welcome, not least because they represent an acknowledgement of the problem. A reduction in the incidence of poor behaviour will help both teachers and pupils, so we need to be sure that the strategies are effective. In keeping with our desire and that of the Government to see evidence-based policy, we look forward to a proper evaluation of the effects of the Behaviour Improvement Projects.

Training teachers for challenging schools

82. As we mentioned earlier, retaining teachers in schools in challenging circumstances is difficult. Evidence from Professor Alan Smithers shows that turnover is higher in schools with lower than average GCSE results, and above average numbers of pupils receiving free school meals and with special educational needs.

Teacher Turnover and Wastage in Secondary Schools by Intake[91]

Group	GSCE Results		Free School Meals		Special Needs
	Turnover	Wastage	Turnover	Wastage	Turnover	Wastage
Above Average	11.48	7.06	16.21	7.55	16.52	7.58
Average	12.76	7.01	13.34	7.62	13.40	7.65
Below Average	15.54	8.02	12.10	7.42	11.99	7.32

83. Professor Howson referred to the issue of training and argued that to be a successful teacher in schools which had significant social problems it was necessary to be there willingly:

"…you need to identify, right from the word go, people who are actually socially responsible and wish to take on the challenge of working in those sort of schools, and give them the training and the support to enable them to be successful with those sort of children."[92]

84. In January 2004 the Committee went to California, one of the reasons being to visit Center X at UCLA, which is amongst other things a teacher training facility seeking out trainees who wish to work in challenging schools and aiming to provide them with the support and techniques to succeed and continuing support following graduation. Karen Hunter Quartz of UCLA provided us with a paper on Retaining Teachers in High Poverty Schools.[93] In this paper, the Center X Teacher Education Program is described as taking "a specialized approach to urban teacher preparation that is sensitive to the context of high-poverty communities within Los Angeles. An intensive two-year program leading to state certification and a master's degree, UCLA's core elements and principles are representative of the larger move towards multicultural teacher education."[94]

85. Most significant in the context of our inquiry are the findings about the effects of this type of training on teacher retention. The paper says that:

"Preliminary evidence—based on research of Center X graduates—suggests that teachers specially prepared to address the challenges of high-poverty school environments in the U.S. are retained at higher levels than their peers from traditional teacher preparation programs (Quartz, et al., 2003). Since the founding of Center X in 1995, 913 students have been attracted to its specialized urban teacher education program. Most are female (79%), yet there is an extraordinary diversity in their ethnic and racial backgrounds: 35% are white; 25% are Hispanic; 6% are African-American; and 32% are Asian. As a research sample, the Center X graduates represent the population of highly qualified, diverse, and committed urban educators reformers clamour for. To date, Center X graduates are staying in teaching at higher rates than the national average and we are engaged in a significant longitudinal effort to understand the myriad of factors that contribute to these higher rates, including the characteristics of teachers attracted to UCLA's specialized program, features of the program itself and factors related to schools, communities and the teaching profession."[95]

86. The findings of one study of teachers trained by one institution in another country cannot provide a precise blueprint for the recruitment and retention of teachers for challenging schools in England. Nevertheless, we were impressed by what we saw and heard at Center X, and the principle of training teachers to deal with challenging schools with pupils from deprived backgrounds which it has put into practice is innovative and worth close examination. We recommend that the Teacher Training Agency in partnership with training organisations develops a similar programme here to that of Center X to attract those who wish to teach in challenging schools and provide them with the skills and the network of post-qualification support necessary to succeed.

Pay and allowances

87. Teachers' salaries and other remuneration are obviously important factors in recruitment and retention. The NUT argued that "Teachers start at a salary disadvantage relative to other graduate professions and then fall further behind".[96] They quote figures from Income Data Services showing that the starting salary for teachers in 1994 was worth 96% of median graduate starting salaries, but that by 2002 that had fallen to 89%.[97] NASUWT said that there are serious weaknesses in the present pay structure:

"The pay structure fails appropriately to reward classroom teachers whose role is fundamental to the provision of high quality education…Too much emphasis is placed on management discretion and flexibility. The existing flexibilities are unduly complex and lack fairness and transparency. The absence of national criteria governing the numbers and levels of payment for additional responsibilities demotivates and demoralises teachers…A simple, transparent and fair national pay structure must be introduced which recognises the central importance of the classroom teacher and appropriately rewards those who remain committed to classroom teaching by providing access to higher salaries without either unnecessary barriers and complications or the need to take on additional management responsibilities."[98]

88. The Minster of State suggested that the views that had been expressed to us over the course of the inquiry indicated that salary was not a major issue for retention:

"I think there is a recognition that this is not just about pay which I think a few years ago may have been a knee-jerk response or reaction as to how you boost retention or recruitment. The issues that we face and the demands that professionals make are for a career that really brings the best out of them and that allows them to develop as professionals, and that is why issues of workload, training and working environment are important as well."[99]

He added: "I would not say pay never matters, pay does matter; but I would say that pay is not the main issue in terms of retention".[100]

89. The Minister argued that pay outside London was competitive:

"All of the evidence we have—and we talk about evidence-based policy—is that pay is competitive. That is why we argued last year for three years low inflation pay settlement because we did not believe that it was needed to meet recruitment or retention difficulties."[101]

He acknowledged that there were particular issues connected with London, specifically high housing costs, saying that was why the Government had introduced the £4,000 additional London allowance. He also referred to the mortgage credit for London teachers. However, the Minister declined to describe what the Government was doing as "adequate":

"I have to be very careful about saying something is adequate because I think it is very challenging… We have to accept that we are fighting against some pretty strong market forces in terms of London housing. We are making a fist of it, but it is tough. I certainly would not claim victory in this area."[102]

90. In common with the Minister of State, we would not say that pay does not matter, but it does appear to be less of an issue for retention than behaviour and workload for example, and improving recruitment to initial teacher training strongly suggests that the level of pay is not something which dissuades people from joining the profession. The principal issue appears to be the difficulties teachers have in finding affordable housing in London and the South East. The Government has sought to address the housing issue and deserves credit for doing so, but it does appear to us that these problems will continue for the foreseeable future and so initiatives of the kind the Government has introduced will continue to be necessary.

91. There is flexibility within the pay system to pay recruitment and retention allowances. These have been little used, however, because of concerns about distortions to the pay system that these would create and because some employers feared that they would be divisive.

92. There are five retention and recruitment allowances, ranging from £1,002 per year to £5,415, payable at the discretion of employers.[103] SHA told us:

"When in April 2001 the previous restrictions on the use of recruitment and retention allowances…were removed and a fifth allowance was introduced, SHA was concerned about the impact of such measures on schools' management structures, because a teacher could in theory be awarded a recruitment and retention allowance that was worth almost as much as management allowance…SHA was also concerned about the impact on school budgets of spiralling salary costs, due to the operation of market forces in the context of a severe teacher shortage."[104]

93. Fears about the consequences of the allowances have been assuaged because they have been so little used. SHA refers to data from the School Teachers' Review Body in January 2003 which "shows that 2.9% of teachers were in receipt of RR1 in September 2002, 1.1% in receipt of RR2, 0.2% in receipt of RR3, a small number in receipt of RR4 and that 95.9% did not receive a recruitment and retention allowance at all".[105]

94. SHA indicated that devices other than recruitment and retention allowances were used to entice teachers to join and to encourage them to stay. Drawing on evidence published by the STRB, they told us:

"The case study research indicated that heads disliked using RRAs and felt that they were divisive. As a result other devices tended to be used for recruitment and retention purposes—for example, payment for new teachers in July and August (an informal 'golden hello') and the award of management allowances. A starting salary that is higher up the main scale than is strictly permitted under the [School Teachers' Pay and Conditions of Service Document] is another tactic that is often used (the advantage of this and the award of management allowances is that they are seen to confer status and advancement)."[106]

95. NEOST agreed on the reasons for the very limited use of the allowances:

"It has proved difficult to persuade schools to use the existing flexibility in the salary framework of recruitment and retention allowances. Only 4.2% of teachers receive these allowances.

Reasons given for the limited use include:

limited resources
concerns about the divisive nature of targeted allowances
concerns, probably misplaced, about equal pay."[107]

96. Deborah Simpson of PAT addressed the issue of divisiveness and inequality:

"The reason [the flexibility in the pay system] is not being used to its full degree is partly because of funding, but because some of the flexibilities which are there are very unpopular. Just to quote one, it is the recruitment and retention allowances, because they are quite rightly found to be divisive. Our position is that within the national pay structure there should be some sort of guidelines as to the implementation of the flexibilities so that they are equitable and it is not sheer chance how a manager in one particular school exercises the flexibilities, whereas in a school down the road very similar jobs may be done for a good deal less money. That kind of inequity is not going to get anybody anywhere."[108]

97. The hostility to recruitment and retention allowances appears so entrenched that there seems little prospect of their current very limited use being expanded. Different approaches are needed, and the DfES, governors, heads and LEAs, should explore alternative ways of rewarding teachers working in challenging circumstances.

98. The Government has made use of allowances, in the form of Golden Hellos worth £4,000, for those completing training and their induction year in the subjects where there are shortages: mathematics, science, modern languages, technology and English. The supply of mathematics teachers has been a particular source of concern. In his report on an inquiry into post-14 mathematics education, Professor Adrian Smith of Queen Mary, University of London, made a number of recommendations on ways to improve recruitment and retention of maths teachers. On recruitment, the inquiry said:

"There is a shortage of mathematically qualified graduates and schools and colleges are competing with other sectors of the economy… The Inquiry recommends that more must be done to address the issue of pay and other incentives to teachers of mathematics and other shortage subjects."[109]

99. On retention, the inquiry made recommendations amongst other things on increasing the number of maths teachers in the Advanced Skills Teacher (AST) grade[110] and linking additional remuneration of maths teachers to successful completion of Continuing Professional Development courses.[111]

100. In response, the Government announced that it would increase the training bursary for mathematics trainees from £6,000 to £7,000 from September 2005, and the Golden Hello for those qualifying and completing their induction year in mathematics from £4,000 to £5,000. It also announced that, subject to the views of the School Teachers Review Body, it intended to remove the cap on pay for ASTs so that ASTs in mathematics would earn at least £40,000.[112]

101. The Government has made a positive response to the recommendations in the Smith Report on improving remuneration for maths teacher. The introduction of training bursaries had a significant effect on recruitment to ITT generally, and it may be that the enhanced level of bursary for mathematics will help to bring more graduates into teaching. The increased Golden Hello and the suggested increase in payment for maths ASTs may increase the appeal of teaching for maths graduates, but may also be thought to be divisive, in the same way as the recruitment and retention allowances, in creating three categories of newly qualified teachers: maths teachers, teachers in the other shortage subjects, and the rest. We do support the principle of using financial incentives to remedy teacher shortages in specific areas, but we are aware of the possibilities of unintended consequences (for example, physics trainees changing to mathematics to take advantage of financial incentives) so the effects will need to be closely monitored.

Leadership

102. We quoted earlier Professor Howson's research showing that schools with a PANDA grade of A* had the largest percentage of head teachers who had been in post for more than six years and those graded E* had the smallest percentage. This suggests an association between stable effective leadership and pupil performance. This echoes the views of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools, who wrote in his most recent report that strong and effective leadership lies at the heart of a successful school. [113]

103. The National College for School Leadership was established in November 2000 by the then Secretary of State Rt Hon David Blunkett MP to act as a focus for research and education on leadership issues. The College told us:

"There is general agreement that effective teaching in a school is unlikely without strong and effective leadership and management and we also know that there is a clear link between effective teaching and pupil achievement. Therefore, it is logical to suggest that strong and effective leadership in our schools is central to improving the opportunities for and achievements of our school children."[114]

104. The major innovation in leadership is the requirement from 1 April this year that all headteachers have the National Professional Qualification for Headship (NPQH) or to be working towards it, and the training for this qualification is one of the NCSL's main functions. The College told us:

"The College seeks to provide school leaders with the opportunity to develop the interpersonal and technical skills they will need to continue to inspire, motivate and influence both their staff and pupils. Excellent school leaders will provide good role models, which will be crucial to encouraging teachers to stay in the profession and aspire to be leaders themselves."[115]

105. The National Professional Qualification for Headship is apparently designed as a management qualification for head teachers, and from the information we have seen it does cover a great deal. We are not convinced, however, that training for the National Professional Qualification for Headship emphasises adequately that the way in which a head teacher manages a school can be decisive in persuading teachers to remain at that school. The impact of the retention of high quality staff on improvements in pupil achievement need to be emphasised and good practice on retention issues needs to be explicitly included in the training.

106. A related issue is the need for teachers at all levels to feel that they have a degree of control over their working environment, and that the entire responsibility for effective management should not be thought to lie with the head teacher alone. Heather Du Quesnay, Chief Executive of the NCSL, said that "one of the issues that affects teachers' morale and possibly demotivates them from time to time is that they do not feel [a] sense of control and [an] ability to shape their work." [116]

107. On the other hand, placing an excessive degree of responsibility on the shoulders of head teachers can be equally demotivating. As the DfES said in its memorandum:

"Retaining school leaders is an important aspect of overall secondary school retention. Headship is a demanding job, and heads rightly feel that they carry important responsibilities. But it is crucial that heads do not feel expected to carry sole responsibility for all aspects of their school's activities, because such a load, in a large secondary school, is not sustainable long term."[117]

108. The Department's solution is what it describes as distributed leadership:

"It is about developing leadership and harnessing energy at many levels, adapting structures, systems and cultures…In this model, even NQTs can take some leadership responsibility within their schools from the beginning of their career, maximising their opportunities to develop the skills that will make them outstanding school leaders in the future. And it gives a head the support they need to run a large and complex organisation."[118]

109. Clearly there are already different levels of management within secondary schools, and so this concept of distributed management may not quite be as new as the language the DfES uses to describe might make it appear. Nevertheless, reducing demands on heads to help keep their jobs manageable, and giving others responsibility from very early in their careers in order to motivate them and develop their skills, seems practical and worthwhile and is to be encouraged.

31 Statistics of Education: Teachers in England and Wales 1999 edition, Department for Education and Employment, 2000, Table 1. Back

32 Statistics of Education: Teachers in England and Wales 2000 edition, Department for Education and Employment, 2000, Table 1. Back

33 Ev 161 Back

34 Q 117 Back

35 Statistics of Education: Teachers in England 2003 edition, Department for Education and Skills, 2004, Table 1. Changes in the collection of data mean these figures relate to England only. Back

36 Ev 162 Back

37 Statistics of Education: Teachers in England 2003 edition, Department for Education and Skills, 2004, Table 2. Back

38 ibid Back

39 Ev 162 Back

40 Q 372 Back

41 Q 353 Back

42 Ev 165, para 40. Back