Education CommitteeFurther written evidence submitted by The National Association of School-Based Teacher Trainers (NASBTT)
This evidence submitted by NASBTT on behalf of its member institutions; school-led accredited providers of initial teacher education. We would be pleased to supplement this evidence at an oral hearing.
Having been specifically asked to address the recruitment of trainees for 2013–14 courses we offer the following observations. It is recognised that whilst many of these issues could have been anticipated in the introduction of a new programme, they are important in ensuring that appropriate changes are considered.
1.From the outset the communication between NCTL and ITT providers was poor. Bulletins and Guidance documents were posted to DfE websites without providers being notified and members report that UCET and NASBTT have been their principal sources of information.
2.Providers were not given access to the School Direct recruitment portal until after it had been opened to applicants. Thereafter the recruitment process has been characterised by confusion and muddle. Members report that the portal has not been easy to use and the lack of links with other relevant databases has made life difficult.
3.Initially, there appeared to be no limit of the number of applications an individual could make. There was a problem with closing courses that were full.
4.In some instances schools offered a very small number of places with particular candidates in mind. This has equal opportunities implications when others apply.
5.Ongoing monitoring of the recruitment from under-represented groups is problematic due to the fragmented nature of the recruitment process.
6.Two parallel application processes meant that there was (and still is) no way of understanding the progress of recruitment. The effectiveness of both School Direct and GTTR processes was severely affected. It was difficult to establish the seriousness of an individual application and the number of “no shows” at interview and refusals of offers have risen significantly. There has also been a marked rise in withdrawals after acceptance. Providers could not hope to quantify the tremendous waste of time and resources experienced in this process. Whilst it is accepted that applicants appreciate the apparent extension of choice, they may not have enjoyed the way in which this has lengthened an already extended process or appreciated the level of waste of resources (essentially paid for by their fees) that has accrued.
7.Providers have found it very difficult to determine how many offers will be accepted and what the rate of subsequent withdrawal might be. Previous statistics held by providers have proved meaningless. Thus a number of applicants were offered interviews at a point when the provider could not tell whether they had places or not. Equally, courses closed as full have had to be re-opened, often several times. The situation has been worsened by the slow recruitment to School Direct places and the NCTL continuing to offer new places to School Direct for a September 2013 start as late as June 2013.
8.The addition of the pre-entry skills tests has exacerbated these difficulties. The fact that applicants could not register for the tests before making an application and that providers had only 28 days from receiving an application to make a decision to interview or reject, meant that many interviewees were offered places subject to passing the skills test. It has become apparent that an effect of the three strikes and out rule introduced this year is that applicants who have failed the test once are delaying their retakes. An unknown number of those offered places will not be able to begin training in September. It is very unlikely that such withdrawals will be made in time for them to be replaced.
9.The penalties for over-recruitment mean that providers cannot risk offering places on an estimated allowance for withdrawal. The effect will be under-recruitment at the beginning of the courses. Many providers have found it expedient to offer some support with preparing applicants for skills tests but there are many factors regarding liability for success which make this unsustainable. However, there are simply not enough applicants to ignore the possibility of support to increase the success rate in these tests.
10.The proposals for a single application system for recruitment for 2014–15 courses are applauded in principle. However, there is a concern that the use of the system may not be mandatory, which it has to be if it is to be of value. There tension between applicant choice and a workable process remains, and the proposed 40 working days from application to offer is likely to be unworkable. The increased involvement of schools in the process for mainstream allocated provision is welcomed, but the day to day responsibilities of school staff will make arranging the number of interviews required very challenging. It will be even more important that interview slots are not wasted by “no shows”.
11.The imposition of deadlines for response does not take into account that in many school-led processes an interview is most often a sequence of interviews. School Direct interviews often have three stages, concluding with an interview with the placement school. This is laudable, but time consuming.
12.The additional stages in recruitment may in part account for the slower recruitment on School Direct routes. Members also report that because there is an implication of future employment, schools are being understandably cautious. There is a feeling that schools’ expertise is in teacher recruitment as opposed to trainee selection and that applicants with potential are being missed in seeking a “finished article”.
13.There is also a concern that an over-emphasis on degree classification has caused many good applicants to be overlooked. The continued fall in the overall number of applicants to ITT is worrying. It is not clear that there are enough applicants with firsts and 2:1s to meet our recruitment targets.
July 2013
