Education Bill

Additional memorandum submitted by million+ (E 49)

Professor Les Ebdon, Chair of million+ and Vice-Chancellor of the University of Bedfordshire gave oral evidence to the Education Bill Committee on 3 March 2011. million+ would like to clarify two issues arising from that evidence session:

· How RPI and a real rate of interest on differing fee levels will impact on student ‘debt’ on graduation

· Differing assessments of Initial Teacher Training (ITT) provision

These additional comments are best read in conjunction with the million+ written evidence.

1. Impact of RPI and real rate of interest on student ‘debt’

Ministers have indicated that, subject to the Education Bill, they intend to apply RPI plus a positive real rate of interest of 3% to the fee and maintenance loans of full-time students while they are studying, RPI alone for graduates earning below £21,000, RPI plus a taper of up to 3% for graduates earning between £21,000 and £41,000 and above £41,000, loans will increase by RPI plus 3%.

Professor Ebdon, used these figures to illustrate the debt of graduation of a student paying fees of £7,500 per annum –

"According to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills model, students will borrow, on average, £7,500 a year to pay for their education. In addition to that, they will take out a maintenance loan, which, the Secretary of State says, will become subject to interest at the rate of RPI plus 3% during the time a student is studying. That means that a student taking a £7,500 fee loan and an average maintenance loan would have debts of some £40,474 at the end of their period of study. Obviously, if the fees were set at £9,000, the figure would be higher." [1]

The £40,474 figure is reached by the combined impact of rising levels of inflation and a real interest rate of 3% on student fee and maintenance loans and is illustrated in full in Table 1. This models the impact of RPI plus a 3% on a fee of £7,500 and assumes that fee and maintenance loans increase by inflation each year (as under the present system) and that RPI remains at current levels (4.8% in December 2010). As the ‘full-rate’ of RPI plus 3% will be levied whilst students are still at university the final total could reasonably reflect debt on graduation of someone paying what BIS has assumed will be the average fee.

Table 1

The committee wanted clarification of the levels of debt on graduation if fees of £9,000 were levied. Table 2 models the impact of RPI plus 3% on a fee of £9,000 and again assumes that fee and maintenance loans increase by inflation each year and that RPI remains at current levels (4.8%). Table 3 models the impact of RPI plus 3% on a fee of £9,000 and assumes that fee and maintenance loans are frozen at £9,000 and £3,575 respectively.

Table 2

Table 3

It should be noted that in January 2011, RPI rose to 5.1% and if the figures in Tables 1, 2 and 3 were re-modelled to take this into account the final figures would be £40,816, £46,344 and £44,173 respectively. It is important to note that RPI does not stay constant so student debt levels will vary from the illustrations above. In the last 5 years RPI has been as low as -1.6 (June 2009) and as high as 5.4% (April 2010).

The OFFA guidance on Access Agreements (embargoed until 00:01am Tuesday 8 March) confirms that, as with existing arrangements, the basic and higher fee caps may rise each year to maintain their value in real terms. The Government will set out any permitted rises each year in line with the regulations. Universities will be able to apply annual increases in line with the amount set by the Government each year.

2. Differing assessments of Initial Teacher Training (ITT) provision

The abolition of the TDA has raised wider concerns and appears to be linked with Ministerial objectives outlined in the Teaching Quality White Paper. This White Paper presumes that Teaching Schools should replace ITT provision in universities or at least that such schools should take th e lead in future ITT provision.

Both Professor Ebdon and Professor Steve Smith , Chair of Universities UK and Vice-Chancellor of the University of Exeter used evidence from Ofsted to set out the differing quality of ITT provision led by universities compared to ITT provision which is school-led -

Professor Ebdon: "We know from their White Paper that the Government aims to switch a good deal more teacher training from universities to schools. Yet the evidence from Ofsted, which inspects all initial teacher training, is that the quality of the provision in universities is superior to that in schools. There is a marked difference in quality ratings-I know that Professor Smith has the figures in front of him. Universities make a very significant contribution to teacher training in showing that teaching is underpinned by good skills-much of the initial training takes place in schools whether it is based in universities or schools-but, equally, in ensuring that it is a knowledge-based profession. Teacher training needs to be sustained as something that involves knowledge as well as skills. As the Ofsted reports show, universities have an excellent track record in training teachers for our schools."

Professor Smith: "If I may give those figures very briefly. Universities, HEIs, are alone involved in 75% of teacher training, and closely so in the other 25%." [2]

Graham Stuart MP (Beverley and Holderness) (Con) queried these comments and stated that   –

"..the ‘Good Teacher Training Guide 2010’ suggested that school-centred training was more likely to be of a higher quality than university training centres. The guide said that if you took the top 10 school-centred initial teacher training centres, only two universities would make it into the top 10 on the basis of schools. That was Cambridge in first place and Oxford in fourth." [3]

It is important to note the differing measures used by Ofsted and the ‘Good Teacher Training Guide’ (Smithers and Robinson, University of Buckingham) to measure the quality of ITT provision.

Ofsted

Ofsted has a statutory duty to inspect initial education of teachers for schools and publicly funded training of further education teachers. Under the current inspection framework, providers are inspected within a three-year cycle. Inspections cover training for the early years, primary, secondary and further education. The inspection framework is common to all phases and training contexts and is purely based on the quality of the ITT being assessed.

Good Teacher Training Guide

The ‘Good Teacher Training Guide’ rates ITT by combining Ofsted reports with entry points scores and ‘employability’.

Entry Points

Entry points are not a means of rating the quality of ITT provision. Worse-still, the formula used by the guide appears to combine A-level points with degree classification and then reduces this to points. However, the exact methodology for this is unclear. It should be noted that ITT providers are required by the TDA to consider many other issues beyond A-level points and degree classification, including for example, suitability to teach. In addition all applicants have to be interviewed.

Employability

The employability stats used are again in points form, rather than percentage as per the national stats many ITT providers will use. The data does not match UNISTATS data.

The Good Teacher Training Guide acknowledges that ‘employability’ does not equal ‘quality’ -

" The third component in our rankings is the proportion of the final year students who are in teaching posts six months after completing the courses. We have been criticised for including this on the view that it has nothing to do wi th the quality of the training." [4]

The guide also acknowledges that school-based ITT providers do particularly well in the employability rating as training is provided in school s which are looking to recruit -

" Where the SCITTS real ly score over the universities.. is in entry to teaching.."

".. They have the advantage that the training is provided in the schools which are looking to recruit, whereas university ITT is a two-stage process with first the providers having to fill their places and then trainees having to look for a post on completion." [5]

As a result, the use of the employability rating will favour the ratings of school-based providers over university providers.

Critique of the definition of types of teacher training

The Good Teacher Training Guide uses inaccurate definitions of the types of teacher training and this will contribute to the perceived role that HEIs play in delivering ITT. The guide states –

" There are three types of teacher training: in the universities and colleges (which we abbreviate to the universities), the school centred schemes (SCITTs) and the employment based arrangements (EBITTs). "

However, as the TDA says below, ITT is about partnerships between universities and schools and these partnerships exist within all three modes of delivery outlined by the guide. For example, the University of Bedfordshire accredit qualifications in several SCITTS and EBITTs that are listed by the guide.

The TDA states -

There are three different types of initial teacher training (ITT) provider –

1. Training partnerships based in a higher education institution (HEI) or further education (FE) college

These are based in a university or college but, in accordance with the Secretary of State's requirements, must involve a close partnership with schools. While the HEI is ultimately responsible for the management of training, schools are heavily involved in selecting, training and assessing trainees. The training is funded by the TDA through the finance department of the HEI.

2. School-centred initial teacher training (SCITT)

The training is based in schools, usually as consortia, and is organised by them. The schools design the training programme and organise its delivery. If the SCITT chooses, it can seek the involvement of an HEI or local authority, but can only provide postgraduate routes that may lead to the award of qualified teacher status (QTS).

The SCITT may designate a lead school to carry out financial management and other functions. In these cases, the training is funded by the TDA through the governing body of the lead school. Alternatively, the consortium may prefer to work with a managing agent, which could provide some overall management functions, including the design of the training programme and the organisation of its delivery. Organisations such as HEIs, FE colleges, local authorities, subject association and religious or community groups may wish to play this role. In such cases, they are required to work in close partnership with the schools in the consortium. The training is funded by the TDA through the organisation designated as the managing agent.

3. Employment-based initial teacher training (EBITT)

The training programmes offered by EBITT providers are the graduate teacher programme (GTP), the registered teacher programme (RTP) and the overseas trained teacher programme (OTTP). This training is based in, and organised by, schools, and involves individuals being employed in schools as unqualified teachers while undertaking a structured training programme. The EBITT provider and schools work in partnership to design, organise and deliver training programmes leading to the award of QTS.

If the EBITT provider chooses, it can seek the involvement of an HEI or local authority (LA). In some cases, the EBITT provider will be an HEI or an LA. Depending on the type of EBITT place allocated, the TDA currently contributes funding towards salary, training and, where applicable, trainees' assessment costs. [1]

Conclusion

As outlined above, there are a number of problems with the factors used by the Good Teacher Training Guide in its assessment and comparison of ITT provision. The most reliable assessment of quality is that provided by OFSTED and OFTSED inspections have concluded overwhelmingly that university-led ITT provision offers consistently higher standards of excellence than that led by other providers.

March 2011