Great teachers: attracting, training and retaining the best - Education Committee Contents

5  Retaining, valuing and developing teachers

Movement, wastage, and barriers to retention

84. The Department for Education told us that "retention of teachers is low", and that "of those who are employed in the maintained sector in the first year of qualifying, 73% were still teaching in the maintained sector five years later".[141] However, the statistics for those who began teacher training show the percentage teaching in the maintained sector five years after qualification is even lower at 52% for undergraduate routes and 57% for postgraduate.[142]

85. Wastage—the loss from the maintained sector of qualified teachers, and particularly where it concerns those of the highest quality or in the most challenged schools—is clearly cause for concern. This is partly because teacher training and development incurs a cost to the state and to schools, as well as to the individual, but also because—as Cambridge University told us—"a key factor in inner city schools is the lack of teacher continuity and low retention rates".[143] This view was supported by Sir Peter Lampl:

This is probably the main focus of the money we are spending on [the] Education Endowment Foundation. We got £125 million to just address issues of kids on free school meals at inner-city schools. The most important factor in those schools is how you get good teachers into those schools in the first place and get them to stay there.[144]

Smithers and Robinson found that "the more challenged secondary schools are more likely to lose teachers to other schools",[145] which—although not wastage for the system as a whole—underpins the concerns noted above.

86. Teach First was founded to encourage graduates to spend two years teaching in a disadvantaged school before moving into their eventual career. In fact over half stay beyond the two years and of course we do not yet know how many others may return to teaching later in life.[146] In terms of gaining QTS, the proportion who begin training with Teach First and achieve qualification is higher (95%)[147] than the comparable average figures for university-led (88%), SCITT (91%) and EBITT (92%) provision.[148] To an extent, this further strengthens our support for the Government's expansion of Teach First, particularly given that a good percentage of those Teach First participants who do leave teaching in England remain engaged in education in other ways —for example, teaching overseas (3% of the 2009 cohort) or working in non-teaching education roles (7% from 2009).[149] Teach First has suggested some of the key factors which might improve retention including the leadership and ethos of a school, opportunities for career progression or additional responsibility, and awareness of and support for a teacher's wider role.[150]

87. These factors bear some relation to the most commonly-cited barriers to retention of good teacher: Smithers and Robinson find that the five main reasons which "underpin reasons for leaving" the profession are workload, new challenge, school situation, personal circumstance, and salary, with workload "by far the most important, and salary the least".[151] However, in later research, Smithers and Robinson also argue the important distinction between movement of teachers between schools (which they term 'moveage', and on which they argue for statistics to be regularly collected and published) and the loss of teachers from the system (wastage).[152] It is important, the research argues, "not to think of turnover as bad":

Indeed, this is one reason why it is important to distinguish moveage from wastage which by definition should be kept to a minimum. Attention should be focussed on what constitutes an optimal level for moveage since too little can be as damaging as too much.[153]

It is worth noting, as well, that wastage in itself may present little cause for concern if more good teachers and fewer weak teachers are recruited in the first place (as we discuss in previous chapters).

88. Although the loss to the system of good teachers is regrettable, it is worth noting that a teacher gaining QTS at age 22 could spend over forty years in a profession which, as we discuss later in this chapter, currently has limited promotion prospects. It is also worth noting that other broadly comparable schemes—public sector graduate professions with similar starting salaries—have similar retention rates to teaching, if not worse. For example, the NHS Graduate Management Training Scheme reports a three-year retention rate of 79%, dropping to 64% after five years. Furthermore, a report by the NHS cites research by the Association of Graduate Recruiters and argues that "it is clear that the days when a graduate joins a company from university and opts to stay for the bulk of their career are well and truly over".[154] The report suggests that 10% of graduates leave their company within a year, 20% within three years, and 35% within five years.[155]

89. We agree with research arguing that movement and wastage must be distinguished from each other, and that in light of that (and comparable figures from other professions) retention rates amongst the profession as a whole perhaps present less cause of concern than sometimes suggested. However, the retention of the best teachers is clearly desirable, and we recommend that the Department for Education commission detailed research on the barriers to retention, better to inform the development of policy on teacher training and supply. The research should also look at the impact of, and potential to diminish (including through incentivising staff), the loss of the best teachers, particularly in the most challenged schools. Finally, it should examine the quality of those teachers leaving the profession: whilst retention of the best is clearly important, loss of the worst is not to be regretted.


90. Our inquiry looked at pay and conditions only in the context of barriers to retention, although we did hear some calls for teachers' pay to be raised. Sir Peter Lampl argued that paying teachers more would increase their professional status,[156] and the teacher unions agreed, unsurprisingly.[157] Dr Mary Bousted, whilst acknowledging that the 1990s had seen "significant catch-up increases in teachers' pay", expressed concerns that "a two-year pay freeze and a 1% pay cap" meant that pay was perceived as being poor.[158] Whilst one headteacher in York said there was "no easy answer" on pay, and admitted that "no one will say no to more money",[159] a colleague was of the view that teaching was now "a well-paid profession".[160]

91. Despite this important debate, salary was not (as per the Smithers and Robinson research) cited as a principal barrier to retention, where new challenge and workload were. Evidence suggests that, as well as starting salaries being broadly in line with the OECD average (see Chapter 3 above), salaries after fifteen years for English teachers were also above OECD averages.[161] However, the salary at the top of the teacher pay scale was, in England, below the OECD average for both primary and secondary schools, and English teachers took much less time than their international counterparts to reach the top of the scale; compared to Korea, for example, English teachers earn comparably at career start, less after fifteen years, and almost half as much at the top of the scale, which suggests some need for rebalancing. However, compared to other world-leading countries such as Finland, England is broadly in line (or above) throughout, so it cannot be confidently stated that pay directly increases ease of recruitment or retention.[162] We make no separate recommendation concerning pay, as we believe our views and recommendation on career progression, below, cover the issue adequately. However, we do, below, discuss the case for performance-related pay and reward of those teachers who make the biggest contribution to pupil and subsequent societal performance.

Professional development and career progression

92. If evidence on the impact of both movement and wastage is somewhat scant, then proof of the importance of professional development and career progression in combating their negative side-effects is more abundant. Teachers interviewed in 2005 cited career development and the desire for new challenge as the two most important factors (by some margin) in moving between schools: over 50% of respondents ranked them as "of great importance" in determining a move.[163] 'Professional development opportunities' and 'moving on promotion' were also ranked highly amongst surveyed teachers.[164]

93. These findings support the range of evidence which acknowledges the importance of professional development opportunities, including chances for promotion, in teachers' careers, as for the majority of other professions. That evidence was, in turn, supported by the unanimous calls for improvements to teachers' professional development opportunities which we heard during our inquiry. Despite this, successive education ministers have neglected continuing professional development (CPD) and focused overly much on initial teacher training—at most, four years of a teacher's career, compared with a potential 40 or more thereafter—and the DfE's recent teacher training implementation plan featured almost no reference to CPD.

94. The benefits of professional development opportunities are various and profound. For individual teachers, CPD provides opportunities to update subject knowledge, to keep up-to-speed with policy and practice changes, to learn from colleagues in different schools or settings (and thus gain a valuable wider perspective, particularly crucial given the short length of ITT placements), and to develop new pedagogical techniques.[165] Not least because many completing ITT do not continue in teaching, "investment in existing teachers and their development" is, as the Institute of Education has said, crucial "if we are serious about improving educational outcomes for young people".[166] This view was supported by some pupils we met who suggested that older teachers, in particular, benefited from opportunities to develop or improve their practice. Because CPD can be the "engine of change in schools" as well as improving the practice of individual teachers, its importance should not be underestimated.[167]


95. The Institute of Education cited evidence showing that the "proportion of teacher time devoted to CPD in England is lower than in the best-performing school systems".[168] In Singapore, Committee members saw first-hand the benefits of a fixed CPD 'allowance': there, all teachers are entitled to 100 hours of CPD per year, as well as a small personal budget (equivalent to around £200-£350 per year)[169] to spend on materials to support professional activity (such as magazine subscriptions or personal computers). Both research studies[170] and evidence to our inquiry[171] support replicating such a policy in England, which also proved popular with teachers we interviewed. However, teachers did not support the idea of extending the school year to accommodate this (as is the case in Singapore), explaining that much CPD already takes place in their 'free time' as it is. Nonetheless, a number of academies have already rearranged or extended the school year, and others have plans to do so; one advantage of this is that it increases time for teachers to spend on their own professional development during paid hours.[172] At academies in the Harris Federation, for example, teachers work an extra five days (or equivalent, at evenings or weekends) per year, specifically for CPD, and are paid accordingly. This is a model which might be replicated by other such networks of schools, whether formal (in the case of the Harris Federation) or more ad hoc. In addition, the federation runs a number of CPD events of its own, including for support staff.[173]

96. Other solutions proposed include a national strategy for CPD,[174] chartered status or other career structure improvements (which we discuss below), and creating more space in a teacher's timetable for CPD, as in Finland[175]—although teachers argued that might have the same ultimate effect of increasing the school year. Both the perception and accreditation of CPD were raised as key concerns. Teachers pointed out to us that, crucially, CPD must not just be seen as 'going on courses', with some arguing that external training had had its day, and that in-house CPD was often more valuable as it was easier for teachers to keep in touch after the event. Academic and teacher trainer Alison Kitson agreed that an entitlement to CPD would prove beneficial only "as long as it is high quality CPD" rather than "a 'Tick, I have done my 30 hours this year'".[176]

97. The idea of sabbaticals and secondments for teachers was also raised, and the potential summarised by Professor Chris Robertson thus:

Often, if you want to engage in some deeper understanding of the work of another country or another system, you need a longer period of time, rather than the tourist going in and just trying to catch the feel for something [...] It might be because [teachers] want to do some research in a particular area, or it might be because they have identified leadership in another organisation that they would like to explore. I think those learning opportunities could also be built very well into a professional development package. However, they do need more time invested in them than just going on a day here and there [...][177]

98. The idea won considerable favour with Sir Michael Wilshaw who, in his pre-appointment hearing with the Committee for the position as HM Chief Inspector at Ofsted, said:

I have never had a sabbatical so I would strongly support that, because there is an element of burnout and people need to be refreshed. This all comes down to money at the end of the day and whether it can be afforded. I think it has to be, and we have to look at creative ways of doing this—of giving people who are successfully doing very tough jobs time off to refresh themselves. Although I have never taken a sabbatical, when I have noticed someone on my staff suffering because of burnout—a successful person who is not backsliding and wanting more time off—then I have found the money to do that.[178]

It also won support from teachers and heads themselves; Anna Cornhill said that to have such sabbaticals "sanctioned as a good part of the profession would be fantastic".[179]

99. We are clear that, for too long, CPD for teachers has lacked coherence and focus. Despite financial constraints which we acknowledge and appreciate, we are concerned that England lags seriously behind its international competitors in this regard, and recommend that the Government consult on the quality, range, scope and content of a high-level strategy for teachers' CPD, and with an aim of introducing an entitlement for all teaching staff as soon as feasible. The consultation should include proposals for a new system of accrediting CPD, to ensure that opportunities are high-quality and consistent around the country.

100. Alongside our proposed CPD entitlement, we recommend that the Government develop and implement a National Teacher Sabbatical Scholarship scheme to allow outstanding teachers to undertake education-related research, teach in a different school, refresh themselves in their subjects, or work in an educational organisation or Government department. In addition to the likely positive impacts on individual teachers and schools, we believe such an investment would help raise the profession's status amongst existing and potential teachers.


101. Our inquiry also heard numerous arguments in favour of more structured career progression opportunities for teachers, in particular for those who do not want to become school leaders. Philippa Mitchell, a primary headteacher, argued that "we still have a system in which the most effective teachers are encouraged to go for promotion and thus out of the classroom within a relatively short space of time",[180] and Professor John Howson noted that that even those who become departmental heads can face "the possibility of approximately a quarter of a century with either no or only very limited further promotion possibilities".[181] Dr Mary Bousted, of the Association of Teachers and Lecturers, said that "the system just does not think about career paths for teachers who want to stay in the classroom",[182] a statement supported by many of the teachers we met during our investigations; similarly, Stephen Hillier argued that "the greatest thing we could do over the next ten years is [...] in creating a real pinnacle for the subject expert".[183]

102. In Singapore, frequently cited by the Government as an education system from which England should learn, teachers elect to join one of three career paths (between which they can move), all of which offer opportunities for progression throughout a teacher's career:

Fig. 7: Career paths for teachers in Singapore


This career structure allows all teachers to pursue their own particular interests and strengths, whether in pedagogy, leadership or an area of specialism such as behaviour management or curriculum development. It also allows teachers to spend time working across a group of schools, in local roles, or in the Ministry of Education, and enables career (and pay) progression without forcing the best classroom practitioners to reduce their teaching hours. Although the leadership track was perceived as the most valuable, Singaporean teachers generally appeared supportive and appreciative of the pathway system.

103. Teachers and trainers in England were also attracted to the idea. One academic and former teacher supported the possibility, recalling her own experience:

I did not want to become a headteacher, and yet I was a forward-looking, ambitious teacher wanting to make a real difference in the classroom. Finding routes, when I was a young teacher, was very difficult [...] I know that a lot of younger teachers [and] experienced teachers also feel that strongly. Having a route for teachers, other than headship and management, is really important.[184]

Tony Finn, Chief Executive of the General Teaching Scotland for Scotland, reminisced similarly that he "never set out, as a classroom teacher, to end up doing the job I am doing", and argued the case for a system allowing "different routes of progression, which are not exclusive one to the other, and allow people to move between pathways".[185]

104. There have been attempts in England to create an 'advanced' level for classroom teachers, including Post-Threshold, Excellent Teacher, and Advanced Skills Teacher (AST), all of which are being discontinued following the recent review of Teacher Standards (see paragraph 115 below).[186] Although some witnesses told us AST had been "incredibly successful"[187] and "a good thing to have",[188] our inquiry also heard concerns which echoed the Secretary of State's view that the current standards system was "complex and highly bureaucratic".[189]

105. The standards review recommended the introduction of a new, single 'Master Teacher' standard. Our predecessor Committee's teacher training inquiry suggested an alternative, more overarching solution to the issue of teachers' career development: a framework "establishing a clearly articulated set of expectations for teachers and progression routes", with the potential to link "professional development, qualifications, pay and the licence to practise" (which the report recommended should be renewed every five years).[190]

106. Although there would be complexities involved in the design, development and implementation of a new career structure for teachers in the UK, such a move could bring considerable benefits, not least ensuring that workloads and responsibilities between schools are more equal, and addressing concerns, summarised above, about the lack of career opportunities for those who wish to remain in the classroom. Such a system might enable teachers from all paths to become leaders eventually, but allowing more promotion opportunities to roles other than conventional leadership posts earlier on, perhaps along the lines of the model below:

Fig. 8: Possible career paths for teachers in England

107. Clearly, such a simplistic model would require refinement to make it, for example, appropriate to both primary and secondary schools, and to take account of the range of other roles in schools,[191] but it could equally bring a number of benefits, including giving coherence to the existing and proposed schemes discussed above. It could also provide a cadre of specialists in, for example, behaviour, educational psychology, and special needs provision, who could provide specialist advice and training across a number of schools whilst continuing to teach in their 'home school'. This might be a particularly valuable function in light of the increasing number of schools outside local authority control, and given cuts to local authority support teams.[192] Teachers on Paths 1 and 3 would be required, as part of their promotions, to work with colleagues and other schools to improve practice, thereby linking such a structure with Teaching School alliances and other partnership working arrangements as well.

108. As our predecessor Committee recommended, such a structure would bring together pay and conditions, along the lines of promotion structures which exist in other public, private and voluntary spheres. It would also, as Dr Mary Bousted said any career structure must, be linked to CPD,[193] with teachers required to demonstrate mastery of their leadership, pedagogical or specialist skills, positive impact on pupil progression, and strong knowledge, before promotion. Indeed, it could link well with an entitlement to CPD, with specialists able, for example, to study for a SENCO qualification during their allotted hours. (To move between pathways, teachers would need to provide evidence of CPD relevant to the new pathway, especially to gain promotion.) Such a solution might aid recruitment of top graduates as well who, as we saw in Chapter 3, can view teaching as a profession "with poor career prospects and promotion opportunities".[194] An overarching, national career structure for teachers could therefore contribute to improving recruitment, increasing the number of applicants for training places (as in countries like Finland and Singapore) and thus ensuring a higher-quality teaching profession and more choice over trainees for providers.

109. In light of the evidence we have heard here and abroad, and building on our predecessor Committee's work, we recommend that the Government introduce a formal and flexible career structure for teachers, with different pathways for those who wish to remain classroom teachers or become teaching specialists, linked to pay and conditions and professional development. We believe that the introduction of such a structure would bring significant advantages to the recruitment and retention of high-quality teachers, and bring teaching into line with other graduate professions in this regard.

The case for a new College of Teaching

110. The proposals outlined above, in relation to both CPD and career progression, would involve considerable change for teachers and the wider system. They would also require an organisation with the capability to administer and implement such schemes, accredit CPD opportunities, and ensure equivalent standards for promotion across the country.

111. Whilst the Government would be likely to have an important role, as would the teaching profession itself, a number of witnesses raised with us the potential for a new College of Teaching which could, amongst other roles, fill some of the functions noted above. Both the National Union of Teachers and the Association of Teachers and Lecturers argued in favour of a professional body for teachers, and the NASUWT for a "robust regulatory body [which] enhances the professional status" of teachers.[195] Tony Finn explained that the General Teaching Council in Scotland, which he leads, is "in effect [...] a professional body",[196] and he outlined some of its key functions:

We accredit all courses of teacher education. We set the entry standards for teaching at the point when someone goes into a faculty of education. We also declare what is the expectation of professional standards at different points of a teacher's career, including standard for headship [...] We are responsible for the teacher induction scheme in Scotland [...] and, as of 2 April [2012], we become a fully independent body, which is quite separate from Government but which will be required to work closely with all partners in a consensus body.[197]

Mr Finn suggested that any similar body being set up in England should not be "about representing teachers, because there are other bodies that represent teachers and their interests", but rather "about representing teaching [,] promoting teaching and quality of teaching."[198]

112. A College of Teachers already exists, and representatives of it gave evidence to the Committee during this inquiry. The College proposed a new 'Chartered Teacher' scheme (different from the overarching framework recommended by our predecessor Committee, and discussed above), which would be a "generic status at a consistent standard", and "not tied to any particular role or job description".[199] To achieve the status, teachers would "need to demonstrate significant successful teaching experience, advanced knowledge of education and their subject, and ability to lead the professional learning and development of other teachers".[200] However, the College was unable to provide specific details of support for such a scheme from named organisations outside its own membership, [201] and explained that it did not, as an organisation, have the reputation and role of similar bodies in other professions.[202]

113. The Schools Minister argued that a new College of Teaching would need to "come from within the profession".[203] Mark Protherough, representing the Institute of Chartered Accountants, explained that his organisation was "set up by members", but that "the world has changed slightly since then in terms of what Government does".[204] He therefore argued that "oversight by various aspects of Government" was important in relation to a professional body like his.[205] The evidence to our inquiry from the Institute of Chartered Accountants, as well as other chartered institutions or professional bodies, and the references in evidence to Royal Colleges in other fields such as health, highlighted the fact that teaching is, perhaps, unusual in having no equivalent organisation at the present time.[206]

114. We acknowledge and support the case for a new, member-driven College of Teaching, independent from but working with Government, which could play important roles, inter alia, in the accreditation of CPD and teacher standards. We are not convinced that the model of 'Chartered Teacher' status proposed by the existing College of Teachers will bring about the changes required to teachers' CPD and career progression opportunities, or that the existing College has the public profile or capacity to implement such a scheme. We recommend that the Government work with teachers and others to develop proposals for a new College of Teaching, along the lines of the Royal Colleges and Chartered Institutions in other professions.

Performance management and teacher standards

115. The terms of reference for our inquiry covered teachers' performance management in relation to the recruitment, training and retention of outstanding practitioners. They also asked for views on the new Teacher Standards. A review of the standards, led by headteacher Sally Coates, recommended in July 2011 "that a single set of standards should replace the existing QTS and Core standards",[207] which aim to "provide a clear framework within which those users can exercise their professional judgement as relevant to context, roles and responsibilities" rather than to "prescribe in detail what 'good' or 'outstanding' teaching should look like" or "to attempt to specify gradual increments in the expectations for how a teacher should be performing year on year".[208]

116. From some witnesses, we heard support for the new 'Master Teacher' proposal, which we have discussed above. With regards to the simplification of the new standards, the Association of School and College Leaders said there was "a danger in a document that specifies only the minimum" as it "may have the perverse effect of lowering teacher aspiration, ambition or vision."[209] However, few other written submissions debated the new standards in depth, and one university training provider said that "the fact that the standards are now shorter than those used up to 2011 will be welcomed by most members of the teaching profession".[210]

117. The ASCL, along with the other unions which gave oral evidence, explained current procedures for performance management.[211] The Government has announced that it will enable the dismissal of poor teachers to happen faster, and make it easier for schools "to manage their teachers and help ensure they are performing to the best of their abilities".[212] The Education Act 2011 confirmed the closure of the General Teaching Council for England, which currently registers and regulates teachers; several of its key functions will be taken over by the new Teaching Agency, including responsibility for awarding QTS, regulating the profession, and hearing appeals against failure to complete induction.[213] This is in direct contrast to arrangements north of the border, where the General Teaching Council for Scotland gained further independence on 2 April 2012, becoming the "world's first independent self-regulating professional body for teaching".[214]

118. We support the Government's desire to reduce bureaucratic burdens on teachers and school leaders, and therefore welcome the simplification of the Teacher Standards. Following our call for a radical improvement in career opportunities for teachers, we would expect the Government to update the Standards when implementing a new and better career structure.

119. We heard evidence that some governing bodies do not currently receive sufficient performance management information to hold the head and staff fully to account. We encourage school governors to be rigorous in their scrutiny of performance management in schools, and recommend that the Department for Education, with Ofsted, provide additional information to governing bodies following inspections, aiding them better to hold headteachers to account for performance management arrangements.

120. In this report, we are concerned with the performance and celebration of the best teachers. In Singapore, we learnt that, although teachers' starting salaries are broadly in line with those in the UK, the award of bonuses to high-performing teachers is both an incentive and a positive aid in recruitment.[215] Sir Peter Lampl drew our attention to practice in Florida, stating that "pay is now based on teacher performance so that salary and increases are based on how good a teacher you are".[216] There is currently a much weaker link between pay and performance in the UK.

121. There are, currently, huge differences in teacher performance in the UK; no longer should the weakest teachers be able to hide behind a rigid and unfair pay structure. We believe that performance management systems should support and reward the strongest teachers, as well as make no excuses (or, worse, incentives to remain) for the weaker. Given the profound positive and negative impacts which teachers have on pupil performance, as demonstrated earlier in our report, we are concerned that the pay system continues to reward low-performers at the same levels as their more successful peers. We strongly recommend that the Department for Education seek to quantify, in a UK context, what scale of variation in teacher value-added equates to in terms of children's later prospects. We further recommend that the Department develop proposals (based on consultation and a close study of systems abroad) for a pay system which rewards those teachers who add the greatest value to pupil performance. We acknowledge the potential political and practical difficulties in introducing such a system, but the comparative impact of an outstanding teacher is so great that we believe such difficulties must be overcome.

141   Ev 134 Back

142   DfE, A profile of teachers in England from the 2010 School Workforce Census (DfE Research Report 151, September 2011), p. 81 Back

143   Ev 161 Back

144   Q 179 Back

145   Smithers, A., and Robinson, P., Teacher Turnover, Wastage and Movements between Schools (University of Buckingham / DfES Research Report 640, 2005), p. 29 Back

146   Teach First states that "90% stay for a minimum of two years, over 50% stay longer and 67% of those placed since 2003 remain actively engaged with addressing educational disadvantage through Teach First's ambassador community" ( In additional evidence submitted to the inquiry (Ev 299), Teach First notes that its retention rates are increasing over time. Back

147   IbidBack

148   Good Teacher Training Guide 2011,p. 27 Back

149   Ev 299 Back

150   Ev 169 Back

151   Smithers, A., and Robinson, P., Factors Affecting Teachers' Decisions to Leave the Profession (University of Liverpool / DfES Research Report 430, 2003), p. Iii.  Back

152   Smithers and Robinson 2005, p. iii Back

153   Ibid., p. v Back

154   NHS, Payback - return on investment for the NHS Graduate Scheme (2011), p. 6 Back

155   Idem. Whilst teaching is not directly comparable to an individual company, the figures do suggest that a fair level of turnover is common in public sector graduate professions. Back

156   See Q 139 Back

157   See Q 296 Back

158   IdemBack

159   Q 602 (Steve Smith) Back

160   Q 603 (Trevor Burton) Back

161   See Bolton, P., Teachers' pay statistics (House of Commons Library, SN/SG/1877, December 2008), p. 11 Back

162   IdemBack

163   Smithers and Robinson 2005, p. 52 Back

164   Idem. (professional development was cited as 'of great importance' by 36%, and moving on promotion by 35%) Back

165   The importance and benefits of CPD appeared in vast swathes of written evidence we received, but see, inter alia, Ev141, Ev w18, Ev 294, and Ev w48. Back

166   Ev 199 Back

167   Ev 294. Christopher Chapman, in Improving Schools Through External Intervention (Continuum, 2005), offers case studies where professional development of existing staff had a strong impact on school improvement. Back

168   Ev 199, citing 2007 Teachers' Workload Diary Survey from the School Teachers Review Body. Back

169   Based on exchange rate at 27 March 2012 Back

170   See, for example, Margo et al 2008 Back

171   See, for example, Ev 178 and Ev 199 Back

172   See, inter alia, Back

173   Information supplied to the Committee by the Harris Federation Back

174   Ev 178 Back

175   See Q 312 (Alison Kitson) Back

176   Q 314 Back

177   Q 332 Back

178   Q 43, Education Committee pre-appointment hearing with Sir Michael Wilshaw, Government's preferred candidate for HM Chief Inspector Ofsted,1 November 2011; transcript available at Back

179   Q 623 Back

180   Ev w1  Back

181   Ev 193 Back

182   Q 303 Back

183   Q 46 Back

184   Q 322 (Professor Chris Robertson) Back

185   Q 467 Back

186   See Back

187   Q 323 (Alison Kitson) Back

188   Q 619 (Trevor Burton) Back

189   Letter from the Secretary of State for Education to Sally Coates, 12 December 2011, available at Back

190   Training of Teachers, pp. 52-53 Back

191   That said, roles such as the SENCO could fit within the Path 3, and there is no reason why a Master Teacher or Senior Specialist should not act as a deputy or assistant head in a smaller school. Back

192   In April 2012, the Secretary of State noted that "more than 50% of secondary schools are either full academies or en route to converting to academy status" (HC Deb 16 April 2012, col. 9). Although not directly related to accountability, the proposed 'specialist' pathway might also have potential benefits in light of Sir Michael Wilshaw's call for an "intermediary layer of monitoring" between Whitehall and schools. See Q 15, and more generally qq. 6-17 (Sir Michael Wilshaw), evidence before the Education Committee, 29 February 2012; see also Sir Michael's speech 'Good schools for all-an impossible dream?', 28 November 2011, available at Back

193   Q 303 Back

194   Ev 151 Back

195   Q 226 (Christine Blower, Dr Mary Bousted, and Chris Keates) Back

196   Q 454  Back

197   Q 450 Back

198   Q 455 Back

199   Ev 196 Back

200   IbidBack

201   See, especially, qq. 413 - 420 (Professor Derek Bell and Dr Raphael Wilkins) Back

202   Q 398 (Dr Raphael Wilkins) Back

203   Q 743 (Nick Gibb MP) Back

204   Q 394 Back

205   Q 395 Back

206   Our inquiry took oral and written evidence from three chartered institutions -the Institute of Chartered Accountants, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, and the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development. A transcript of this, and other oral evidence, can be found in Volume II of this report. Back

207   First Report of the Independent Review of Teachers' Standards - QTS and Core Standards (July 2011), p. 6 Back

208   Ibid., p. 7 Back

209   Ev 190 Back

210   Ev 141 Back

211   See Qq 286-295 Back

212 Back

213 Back

214 Back

215   See the Singapore Ministry of Education website at, which confirms that: "Trained teachers are also eligible for consideration for the Performance Bonus. The Performance Bonus is an additional bonus awarded in March each year for the work done during January to December of the year before." Back

216   Q 156 Back

previous page contents next page

© Parliamentary copyright 2012
Prepared 1 May 2012