Education CommitteeWritten evidence submitted by the Association of School and College Leaders
Introduction
1. The Association of School and College Leaders (ASCL) represents over 17,000 heads, principals, deputies, vice-principals, assistant heads, business managers and other senior staff of maintained and independent schools and colleges throughout the UK. ASCL has members in more than 90% of secondary schools and colleges of all types, responsible for the education of more than four million young people. This places the association in a unique position to consider this issue from the viewpoint of the leaders of secondary schools and of colleges.
2. ASCL welcomes the intention behind the School Direct programme. Just as hospitals take a leading role in the training of the next generation of doctors and nurses, it makes strong sense for schools to be at the forefront of preparing applicants to the teaching profession. School Direct offers an opportunity to link theory to practice by giving entrants to the profession early experience of working in school and the opportunity to learn from outstanding teachers.
3. We also welcome the opportunity that School Direct provides for direct recruitment. We recognise the intention to link planned future need to the recruitment of staff, giving schools the opportunity to oversee the development of staff at an early stage. The opportunity to customise training in order to respond to the specific needs of the school is potentially very helpful.
4. For all of the reasons above, our concerns about School Direct relate to the implementation of the scheme, rather than the concept behind it. There is however a danger that operational flaws will undermine the whole scheme and leave the nation with a supply of teachers that is not sufficient to respond to future demand. Our concerns are set out in the sections below.
Regional Variations in Recruitment
5. ASCL members in some parts of the country report difficulties in filling School Direct places. Schools report that many applicants lack the necessary qualifications, offering 2:2 or third class degrees. Indeed, in some cases applicants have lacked even GCSE qualifications in mathematics and English. In some areas recruitment has been very slow with allocated places being unfilled both in shortage subjects such as mathematics and physics and also in areas such as history which have traditionally been easier to fill. Additionally, applicants are often qualified in relatively obscure subjects that did not relate clearly to the national curriculum. However, the pattern is not consistent.
6. Two regional case studies illustrate this inconsistent picture. A School Direct consortium in the South East had 23 places which it sought to fill through adverts in the local newspaper, information and briefing evenings and days which offered direct experience of working in the school. Despite all this the overall quality of applicants was poor and numbers were sparse. Overall, the consortium has been able to fill only eight of its 23 places (with two of these successful applicants coming at a late stage). The higher education partners for the consortium report a similar picture across the region.
7. In the West Midlands a School Direct consortium followed a similar set of strategies to attract applicants for its 18 places. Whilst a number of poorly qualified applicants came forward, there were also a reasonable number of suitably qualified applicants. As a result the consortium has been able to fill 16 of its 18 places.
8. In the light of this variation, our anxiety is that the lack of an over-arching strategy for teacher recruitment will lead to shortages in areas where recruitment to School Direct has been more challenging. Whilst headline figures suggest that large numbers of candidates apply for School Direct, in reality many applicants are eliminated at an initial style by virtue of their poor qualifications.
Bureaucracy
9. Many of those involved in School Direct have raised concerns about the cumbersome nature of the scheme and referring to needless “red tape” at all stages of the process. Candidates apply through the Teaching Agency, which passes on applications to the higher education institution (HEI) for an initial sift, which then passes to the teaching school or lead school, which then sends applications to interested schools, which then go back to the teaching school, which then gets applications checked in greater detail by the HEI ... and so it continues for some time. Delays within this convoluted process mean that it can be 2–3 months before applications actually reach the lead school. There have been assurances that the new UCAS-led application process will improve matters, but only time will tell if this is actually the case.
10. Other concerns focus upon long drawn-out interviews that can cover several months and long delays before applicants can be accepted onto the scheme. All of this combines to make the process needlessly complex and likely to deter potential applicants. Many consortia have managed to overcome these barriers to make the scheme work, but this has been done despite the bureaucracy, not because of it.
Difficulties in Predicting Future Need
11. Those participating in School Direct have to predict likely recruitment needs up to two years in advance. Estimates made in this way can be very close to guesswork and so make it more likely that recruitment will focus upon the wrong areas. A simplification of the process with a less drawn out application period would enable schools to provide a sharper and more accurate estimation of need and so improve the workings of the scheme.
The Role of Universities in Teacher Training
12. Some comments on the role of universities have focused upon an outdated model of study which assumes that candidates are prepared for teaching through a diet of lectures and tutorials. In reality almost all HEIs moved some time ago to a model that focused upon classroom based learning, with considerable amounts of training being delivered by serving school leaders and teachers. Hence School Direct has not involved a radical departure for most HEIs, with many students being integrated into existing PGCE courses. However, there is a danger that the growth of School Direct will lead to the closure of many faculties of education and that trainee teachers will not be able to engage through them with the latest research into what constitutes effective teaching and learning. Trainee teachers do need a high degree of confidence in the classroom, but they should also access the best and most recent research and develop the academic skills that will enable them to make continuing use of research throughout their careers.
Differing Attitudes to School Direct Amongst Higher Education Institutions
13. Some HEIs have a “can do” approach and make the new system work well, others are more cautious and view with suspicion a scheme which they see as threatening their existing role in initial teacher training. If a school is in an area that has a wide choice of HEIs this is less important. However, if a school is in area where effectively there is only one HEI that they can work with, its attitude to School Direct becomes crucial.
14. Different attitudes are sometimes reflected in different costs, as illustrated by the amounts charged by three HEIs in the West Midlands for a salaried School Direct place:
University A: £3,600 (including masters level study).
University B: £3,400 (but candidates later discover that they have to put in £2,000 of their own money if they want masters accreditation).
University C: £8,000 (but schools only discover this after they have signed up to work with them).
15. These variations in costs mean that schools have to put in varying amounts to top up the costs of salaried School Direct places. Similarly, variations in HEI costs lead to some applicants feeling that they have been misled by publicity which focuses upon generous scholarships. In some cases a large part of the scholarship then goes to the HEI in fees.
Employment
16. Promises about jobs at the end of the course may not be kept for a variety of reasons, not least the legal requirement to have a fair and transparent interview process for each vacancy. Once again, schools are concerned that the publicity accompanying School Direct may create the misleading impression that a job is guaranteed at the end of the course. Whilst many are successfully securing posts, it certainly cannot be guaranteed that everyone entering the scheme will go on to secure employment. A simple change of wording would address this issue, with applicants being told that there was a ‘likelihood’ of employment rather than an absolute entitlement.
17. The scheme offers an ideal opportunity for schools to train talented support staff as teachers. However, at present schools are not allowed to “earmark” for recruitment an applicant who has been a Teaching Assistant or Unqualified Teacher within their own school.
School Direct Statistics
18. Data collection about successful applicants for the scheme focuses only upon the number of applicants with 2:1 degrees and above. Hence those with a 2:2 and below who apply are disregarded, presenting a misleading impression of the calibre of those who are applying to the scheme. Schools also report inaccurate centralised data collection, with consortia being shown as filling places that they have actually “returned” to the system because of difficulties in recruitment.
Conclusion
19. ASCL welcomes the potential benefits of School Direct, but we are concerned by the significant operational problems outlined in this paper. In particular, we are anxious that uneven patterns of recruitment may create potential shortages in particular subjects or geographical regions over the coming years. It remains our view that there is a need for an over-arching strategy for teacher recruitment which analyses emerging patterns and seeks to address any potential shortages that might arise.
20. I hope that this is of value to your inquiry, ASCL is willing to be further consulted and to assist in any way that it can.
July 2013