Education CommitteeWritten evidence submitted by University of Sunderland

Executive Summary

The early implementation of School Direct during 2012–13 has been beset with difficulties. Some of these are operational and organisational—some have arisen from untried or unwise policy. HEIs are vital partners in the success of School Direct but have been marginalised at times. The clear national prioritising of School Direct over HEI-led ITT and the sheer scale and pace of these changes may have unintended detrimental consequences for teacher supply.

Evidence

1. Implementation difficulties with SD have included:

(a)Inadequate prior support to schools; for example the use of the GTP portal caused confusion for both schools and HEIs where log-in details were not sent to the right contacts in the institution.

(b)Time delays in schools which were preparing for short-listing and interviewing; many were unsure of their responsibilities for this and clearly would have preferred the HEI to do it.

(c)Schools were often unclear as to the subject knowledge levels required. Some seemed more comfortable with applicants already known to them and may have been slower to spot the potential of unknown outside applicants.

(d)Traditionally subject teachers rather than senior staff (including Headteachers) have been involved with this level of ITT interviews. Some Heads seemed disappointed at the calibre of applicants—perhaps because they were unaware of the progress typically made by trainees once they are placed in schools on a PGCE or equivalent route.

(e)In many instances HEIs were unable to service the school’s desire for elaborate individual support (including attendance at all interviews) It was not appreciated that HEIs had no funding for these aspects and were already committing significant resources.

2. NCTL Linked Issues included:

(a)NCTL have clearly seen application rates and take-up data as sensitive and have therefore been unwilling to divulge relevant information. Thus even at this late stage, we are unsure whether recruitment targets will be met. This was compounded by, inter alia, the schools being in the first instance able to make late requests and changes to their agreed SD allocation without specific discussion/agreement with the HEI partner. This has now been rectified in that although schools are still encouraged to make late requests or changes, they do require HEI partner approval and we of course send the forms direct to NCTL.

(b)There have at times been significant delays in the TA allocations email support. This has led to instances of the HEI being unable to respond to lead schools in a timely manner.

3. Policy and Operational Changes:

(a)Late changes of direction have caused difficulties in a time constrained process. For example, subject bars on salaried SD places came very late and have proved problematic.

(b)Applicants are currently able to hold both a Core PGCE place and a SD place without penalty and without pressure to make a clear decision.

(c)Multiple applications were initially allowed—this was later restricted to three. In consequence HEIs were obliged to contact all applicants with more than three applications in order to clarify the three choices they wished to progress. This was particularly time consuming.

4. Variable support for Different Routes:

(a)Although School Direct is self- evidently an important national initiative and a major new direction it does need all parties to have relevant support and involvement—this includes the HEIs. It is our view that the overwhelming focus of TDA/NC support and involvement was for SD schools with very little for HEIs.

(b)Early in the process it appeared that HEIs were being kept out of information trails & meetings with schools. This may have been oversight although the situation only improved after a great deal of lobbying.

(c)NCTL appears to market SD as the only route into teaching. This bias at one point extended to issuing an e-mail encouraging mainstream PGCE applicants to switch to SD.

5. General Comment:

All major initiative has teething problems. We suggest that the inevitable hiccups which beset even the best planned initiatives have been compounded by the aspects summarised above. Undoubtedly the situation will improve as schools and HEIs begin to understand the requirements of the system more fully. However, the NCTL’s drive to maintain sustainability by pressing schools into partnership with Lead Schools and by requiring a significant allocation request from that lead School may have the unintended consequence of taking SD places out of the system altogether if schools continue to experience the difficulties observed during this first iteration.

July 2013