Education CommitteeWritten evidence submitted by Universities UK and GuildHE

Introduction

1. Universities UK and GuildHE are the two representative bodies for higher education institutions, together representing the vast majority of higher education institutions and higher education ITT providers. The Teacher Education Advisory Group (TEAG) is a joint advisory group bringing together 15 vice-chancellors whose institutions deliver ITT.

Executive Summary

Universities have a strong track record of delivering high quality ITT in partnership with schools, with school placements playing a substantial part in their programmes.

Universities provide essential subject expertise and support the development of a teaching profession through research-informed teaching, developing skills suited to a variety of school needs and producing trainees who are committed to learning and developing throughout their career.

Universities also provide an efficient and effective way to recruit students, satisfy quality and accountability requirements and through networks provide a meaningful route to engage with large numbers of schools.

We have supported School Direct as a way of engaging more schools in ITT and as part of a mixed model of ITT delivery and have devoted considerable time, energy and resources to support school engagement with School Direct.

School Direct has inherent instabilities that create uncertainties over recruitment, subject balance, geographical spread, teacher supply and quality.

These uncertainties and risks would be exacerbated in England if the ultimate policy aim was to move to a system of ITT delivered entirely through School Direct.

Royal College of Teaching

2. We are generally supportive of efforts to enhance the professionalism of teaching, raise its status and reinforce the importance of trainees being committed to continuing professional development and learning throughout their career. The Royal College could play a leading role in developing a self-improving, evidence-led teaching profession through research-informed practice.

School Direct

3. TEAG has supported School Direct as a way of engaging more schools in ITT, developing partnerships between schools and universities and recognising an increased leadership role for schools. School Direct can build upon the high quality track record of higher education ITT providers (as evidenced by Ofsted annual reports) and their existing partnerships with schools (many providers partner with hundreds of schools).

4. Universities provide essential subject expertise to inform teaching, and if the teaching workforce is to further develop as a profession—one that is critical, challenging, reflective and flexible—we believe that higher education programmes with a strong element of school-based experience are essential to achieving this. Both existing partnerships and the PGCE qualification are highly valued by a large number of schools and students.

5. The introduction of School Direct has provided universities with the opportunity to explain the many ways in which they support schools and the services that they offer. This includes the role universities play in managing effective and fair recruitment processes and meeting quality assurance and accountability requirements. Dispersing these functions across schools could lead to inefficiencies and increased costs.

6. Universities have been instrumental in supporting school engagement in School Direct, devoting considerable staff time to promoting and explaining the policy to schools via numerous meetings and training events. They are also encouraging students to apply to School Direct as one of the options for trainees.

7. However, the School Direct model has increased uncertainty and instability in the supply of teachers. The move of a significant number of core allocated places to School Direct combined with a more extended and confused recruitment process has had a number of impacts:

It has made some subjects in some universities unsustainable. The NCTL has recognised the vital role universities play in supporting School Direct by reallocating places to universities to support subjects at risk.

It will potentially undermine the ability of universities to respond to recruitment shortfalls. Universities have been able to respond quickly to recruitment shortfalls; because they have had a critical mass of subject expertise and operate throughout the year, including over the crucial summer period, there will be less flexibility in the future to do this.

It is very difficult to identify trainee numbers and any shortfalls in time to respond effectively. With the start of term only a few months away we still do not know final trainee numbers and whether there will be an overall shortfall or shortfalls in certain subjects. This makes the effective allocation of resources and support for trainees more difficult and risks confusion and uncertainty for trainees, damaging the reputation of ITT.

There is an increasingly varied and random impact on the geographical spread of provision. This will reduce school choice and could create numerous regional subject shortages; for example, we understand there is now only one art and design trainee in England north of Peterborough.

8. Many of these uncertainties, especially in terms of recruitment, are inherent in School Direct. It has the potential to create a serious strategic risk in terms of undermining the ability of the NCTL, DfE and universities to respond effectively to any future recruitment needs in England. Combined with the other strategic challenges and uncertainties facing universities, School Direct will challenge higher education support for ITT and could lead to withdrawal of provision, impacting on future supply. It is unclear to us how, in the School Direct model, these strategic risks can be addressed. Should the rapid implementation of the School Direct model lead to a significant shortfall in recruitment we are very concerned about the loss of potential high quality teachers, the impact on the supply of teachers and the longer-term damage to the promotion of teaching as a career.

9. We would argue for a balanced system of ITT with a variety of routes on offer, with a strong emphasis on partnership and a core higher education allocation providing a stabilising role in teacher supply and quality. The system should enable providers to respond effectively to student and school demand including through transfer of places. Genuine school choice includes the choice to continue with existing partnerships and arrangements. The responsibilities of universities and schools in relation to recruitment should be the same and all routes into teaching should be promoted by the NCTL, not just School Direct. It seems inappropriate to us and a questionable use of public money for the NCTL to just promote School Direct and promote it as an alternative to existing routes. We need to promote teaching through every route, not just School Direct.

July 2013