It could be argued that this year’s new teachers - now a third of the way through their first year in the profession - were lucky, despite the obvious challenges of training for, and then beginning, their career during a pandemic.

While their preparations were completely disrupted and their first term ravaged by the fallout of Covid, they did have something every other trainee in the past has not had: the Early Career Framework (ECF).

It was launched with the promise of providing new teachers with “high-quality support… particularly in those first years of teaching when the learning curve is steepest” to ensure that new teachers are supported to stay in the profession for as long as possible. 

To do this, the ECF would provide an ”entitlement to a fully funded, two-year package of structured training and support for early career teachers linked to the best available research evidence” and “ensure new teachers have dedicated time set aside to focus on their development”.

However, one term in, has all that promise shown early signs of being true? While we need to be cautious about putting too much weight on the experiences of a scheme taking its first steps during a time of enormous upheaval in schools, the experiences of Early Career Teachers (ECTs) - as they are now known - need to be taken seriously. And on the early evidence, some changes - and increased clarity - around the ECF would appear to be necessary. 

The Early Career Framework ‘adds to teacher stress’

“Lacks nuance”, “extra work”, “not enough time,” “hard to navigate”, “part of the job that I hate the most”.

These are just some of the criticisms ECTs have made publicly about the ECF in its first term. 

Esme Duncan*, an ECT at a secondary school in Suffolk, says the ECF made the first term feel “chaotic” with “lots of plates to spin” - all adding to the anxiety at an already very stressful time.

“The admin side is much heavier than I thought it would be - if you drop a plate then it’s all on you,” she adds.

• Background: What you need to know about the Early Career Framework
• Retention: Third of heads fear new teachers will quit over ECF
• Framework: How to tackle workload issues

Natasha Barker, who began her ECT programme in September after graduating from the Teach First scheme, says she has found the ECF “hectic and full-on - just like my training year, but the difference is now I’m an ECT there has been more responsibility”.

Yet doesn’t every new teacher feel this way? It could be argued these new recruits have nothing to compare the ECF to. 

However, headteachers are also concerned.

In a survey of almost 1,000 heads carried out by the NAHT school leaders’ union in December, 95 per cent said the ECF had increased workload for a newly qualified teacher, while 32 per cent said they feared the ECF would negatively impact on recruitment. 

At the time, NAHT general secretary Paul Whiteman described the findings as “enormously concerning”.

“One of the key aims of this new system is to improve retention of early career teachers. That obviously won’t happen if they are so overwhelmed in their first two years,” he said.

‘A lot of extra work is expected from both ECT and mentor, which doesn’t necessarily fit with the time allocation’

This is the opposite of what was supposed to happen. The extra time for teacher development the ECF is meant to deliver was meant to be found in numerous ways, such as doubling the induction programme for new teachers to two years and keeping the 10 per cent timetable reduction NQTs have in the first year but then offering a 5 per cent reduction in their second year.

Not only this, but the old practice of the mentor ticking off the NQT standards has also gone - replaced by a more ”reflective and holistic assessment” that is completed with the trainee by the professional tutor, leaving the mentor to get on with the mentoring.

So what has potentially gone wrong?

There’s a lot to unpack, but for Rachael Taylor-Wareham, head of English and media and ECF mentor at Hoe Valley School in Woking, Surrey, perhaps the biggest problem is simply that the framework has been launched without a true understanding of how busy ECTs and mentors are during a working day.

“A lot of extra work is expected from both ECT and mentor, which doesn’t necessarily fit with the time allocation on our teaching timetables,” she says.

For example, on the funded programme used by her school, ECTs and mentors are expected to complete weekly reading and to watch videos in preparation for their sessions, and this can take one to two hours per week - but no time is set aside for them to do this.

As the above comments from Duncan and Barker underline, this is putting a lot of pressure on ECTs - a point that Harry Smith*, another ECT, also makes.

“You’re having to plan work for students to do at home, as well as plan and teach the lesson, and you can’t spread the workload for the ECF as these things are happening last minute, so you find things pile up,” he says

“It’s very full-on and parts have been really challenging, especially when staff absence happens on top of the ECF tasks.”

Extra workload for mentors

This workload increase is not just impacting on new teachers, but their mentors, too.

Taylor-Wareham tells Tes that the time it takes to do the training has now quadrupled, and their provider now requires them to do a “three-hour training session” at the start of the year and then “more further training each half-term”.

She worries that because the workload for mentors is “much higher” it could “potentially put people off” taking the role.

The NAHT survey shows this is a valid concern, with 95 per cent of school leaders saying that the ECF is already negatively impacting on the workload of mentors, and Whiteman notes that almost one-third of respondents said that their mentors were rethinking their involvement in the programme.

“Just under a third (28 per cent) reported that mentors did not want to continue their mentoring role as a direct result of the impact of the ECF,” he says.

Given all this, Catherine Scutt, director of education and research at the Chartered College of Teaching, who was part of the expert advisory group that was consulted in the development of the ECF, says it is clear that the workloads involved in the ECF are a major challenge. 

“Effective professional learning and high-quality mentoring takes time, and it’s not yet clear whether the volume of training and mentoring expected is actually in line with the amount of time being made available for teachers and mentors to engage with it,” she says. “It’s vital that mentors and ECTs have protected time for what is expected of them.”

Covering old ground

Not only is the time that the ECF takes up proving troublesome, but Taylor-Wareham also says too much of the programme covers ground that ECTs have already looked at in their training year, so it often feels like they are simply “repeating what they’ve [already] done”. Therefore, not all the time that the ECTs dedicate to the ECF feels like time well spent, impacting motivation.

“The ECTs are doing tasks and training in content they are already familiar with,” she says. “It obviously varies for the individual, but a portion of the work is what is covered in teacher training.”

‘The ECTs are doing tasks and training in content they are already familiar with’

Another ECT told Tes that because the ECF is a set framework, she felt as if the focus of the training sessions “got in the way” of what she really needed to talk about.

“In my first week the school had a serious safeguarding incident,” she explains. “The focus [of the ECF] that week was something totally unrelated, and because we had to complete the form by the deadline, the issues raised by the incident had to be squeezed in.”

An ‘inflexible’ approach 

This problem of an overly prescriptive training regime is something that Phil Ruse, an experienced mentor and ITT strategic lead at Dartmoor Multi Academy Trust, has seen, too. He warns that the ECF is “over planned” and “lacks nuance and adaptability for different scenarios”.

“This year we had an ECT who had done three years of supply, and another who had done six months in a cover supervisor role; the first-term focus on behaviour and relationships wasn’t a priority for them,” he says, but there was no choice but to go through the motions and thereby waste what should have been useful contact time.

Ruse acknowledges that for a new ECT fresh out of a disrupted training year, this is probably “really useful”, but because of the way the programme is so rigorously planned, there is no leeway to adapt for those coming to teaching with more experience.

Barker agrees, saying her route into teaching meant she had already covered a lot of what is in the ECF, and, as a result, it has been “difficult to engage with the online reading and tasks that have been set as they are just reminders of things I have already spent a lot of time learning”.

‘It feels like a one-size-fits-all approach’

Taylor-Wareham says that, overall, the idea that all ECTs’ career journeys will map to the rigid programme structure clearly doesn’t work, as it “doesn’t necessarily fit with the ECTs’ individual needs at each point”.

She gives the example of one week when the planned focus was on “breaking down instructions and cognitive approaches”, but after the ECT had to undergo a period of self-isolation and teaching from home, what that teacher needed was help with behaviour management. 

This, though, had to be ignored for the sake of the ECF’s ever-demanding schedule.

“It feels like a one-size-fits-all approach,” adds Taylor-Wareham. An ECT, meanwhile, labels if a “conveyor belt” mentality. 

Too much content, too little time

Not only is the ECF seen as too prescriptive and inflexible to the needs of the trainee, but it also doesn’t leave much scope for flexibility on the setting in which it is being delivered, according to Scutt. 

“Some of our members who are undertaking the ECF have felt that some of the training is very repetitive of their ITT, or is not aligned enough to their specific context, subject or phase,” she says.

This is something that Holly Wilson, an ECT from the East of England, found frustrating when she first took up her post in a secondary English department in September.

When tasked with the weekly reading, she found herself “trawling” through the online content trying to find the parts relevant to her context.

The quality of the advice provided wasn’t the problem, she says, but the issue was the time it was taking to find that good advice because everything had been packaged together for every possible school setting so she had to spend a long time finding the bits useful for her.

“It was a big demand on our time, and it didn’t feel as if it was a good use of the allocated hours,” she says.

After listening to feedback, the school went back to the guidelines and found it could make changes to its approach that avoided this - showing that there are workarounds to some of the problems that have been encountered.

“Now instead of the pre-reading, we have training on pedagogical approaches each week in an after-school session,” Wilson explains.

“It’s much better because what we’re being trained on is relevant for our school setting and we have our mentor meetings back to discuss more personal or departmental issues.”

Raising the profile of mentors

So far, then, we have heard that the ECF is inflexible, time-consuming and often too generic. Not a great report card. However, there are undoubtedly positives, which those involved in the ECF are happy to acknowledge.

For example, Ruse says one big green tick should be put against how the ECF has raised the profile of mentoring.

“I feel that over the years mentors have given a lot of time and expertise and have not really had the investment back in themselves,” he says. “The coaching element of the ECF is good for the ECT mentors’ own development.”

This positivity is shared by Sian Cumming, assistant head and induction tutor at The Mountbatten School in Hampshire.

“The relationship between mentor and ECT is incredibly important...and the ECF has allowed us to invest in upskilling our mentors to ensure we can deliver a high-quality ECT experience for our staff,” she says.

‘The ECF has allowed us to invest in upskilling our mentors to ensure we can deliver a high-quality ECT experience for our staff’

Like Ruse, she has also found that the ECF has provided her school with the perfect opportunity to raise the profile of its mentors - especially as it has used the “core route” for the ECF that has allowed it to adapt the provider-produced resources to suit its context.

“It means we have had to invest more time into the design, but it fits our school calendar and meets our needs,” she says.

This has given her school the freedom to pick what it wants, so it has trained its mentors using an accredited coaching and mentoring qualification - investing in its mentors in a way that benefits their ECF delivery and beyond.

“It is expensive because it is a level 3 qualification, and you have a licence,” says Cumming. “However it does mean we can train other schools and recoup our costs. Staff have bought into it as they see it as CPD for themselves.”

Although this fixes one part of the problem, even if your mentors are well trained and motivated to work with their ECT, you still need space on the timetable to do it.

For example, many have said that finding time to fit in the new ECF style of observations has proved tricky.

Whereas before NQTs were observed once a term for a full lesson, now ECTs will be observed as much as once a week using the “instructional coaching” style of feedback.

No wonder one professional mentor at a secondary school in the South of England described the expectations of observations as “unworkable” and the cover planning as “hellish”.

However, teachers can use their ingenuity to overcome these sorts of issues, with Cummings saying that her school found a nifty way to do this using that classic edtech friend: the tablet

“We got around [observation issues] by using tablets so the ECTs can film themselves and then pick a 10-minute clip to share with their mentor,” she explains.

You might not be surprised to learn that this suggestion wasn’t met with overwhelming enthusiasm at first. After all, not many people feel comfortable being on camera - let alone on camera with 30 children in the room, especially when you’re in your first year of teaching. 

However, Cumming says the benefits soon won everyone around because the ECTs could see they received “better quality feedback” as they could be observed with classes of their choosing, and this meant the “coaching [was] much more effective”.

This sort of adaptability to deliver the ECF in a way that starts to overcome the issues it has created shows that, as ever, teachers can often find solutions to problems that at first seem unworkable.

This is something the past two years have shown us in spades.

Covid problems

And, indeed, we cannot overlook the impact of the pandemic on the ECF either.

After all, a lot of the requirements of ECF have no doubt been made more onerous by the pandemic: cover is harder due to higher teacher absence, and inconsistencies in training have been exacerbated by the disruptions.

For example, Duncan explains that measures taken by schools around social distancing have made observations harder.

“I would like more time to go and observe in other departments, too, but that hasn’t been possible,” she says. “It would be nice to have more whole-staff mingling, so you’re not just in your department.”

Wilson has experienced similar Covid issues that have prevented her from taking up opportunities to observe in different departments.

“First of all, I was off school because I caught Covid, and then my son’s bubble closed so I missed another opportunity then, too,” she explains.

However, like Cummings, Wilson has found that, with adaptations, some of the problems of the ECF can be resolved if the school can adapt the programme to suit its context.

It’s also important to remember that some of the benefits of the new framework won’t be seen just yet.

Cummings, for example, says that in years to come, schools may appreciate the “consistency it gives new teachers” because sometimes a “poor induction might knock your confidence” but if the ECF sets out the same pathway for all, it should, in theory at least, ensure that all teachers receive the same overall training and guidance

Because consistency is a big thing in education, the idea that the new framework means the experience won’t differ so much between schools is a persuasive one. But this won’t count for much if those responsible for delivering this consistency don’t want to do it - which the NAHT survey suggests could well become a problem.

Will things change?

So, given all of the above, will we see changes to the ECF in light of the early feedback from those on the frontline?

At the moment it’s not clear.

In response to the issues raised by those interviewed for this piece a spokesperson Department for Education defend the aims of the ECF and said that many of those involved as new teachers were finding it a useful way into their first year as a teacher.

“Our Early Career Framework aims to make sure new teachers receive high quality training and support at the start of their careers, and we have already received lots of positive feedback on how the programme is supporting their professional development,” they said.

They also said they would “continue to gather feedback from the sector” about the first engagement with the ECF to ensure it would deliver on its aims.

“We are confident that by working with our lead providers, schools and teachers, these reforms will help new teachers feel more confident and in control, helping them to have the maximum impact on the pupils they teach.”

What about the training providers themselves? Could they be working on changes in response to the early issues they are no doubt hearing about?

Well, if they are, they’re keeping quiet about it, with all six providers - Ambition Institute, Best Practice Network, Capita, Education Development Trust, Teach First and UCL Institute of Education - either declining to comment or not replying to requests.

However, Scutt, of the Chartered College of Teaching, says that while there is no doubt that “raising expectations of the quality and quantity of support and development received by new teachers” through the ECF is positive, it is clear things need to change.

“It’s vital that mentors and ECTs have protected time for what is expected of them - if it’s just another thing they are asked to do on top of the rest of their roles, it will be unmanageable. So this needs to be addressed,” she says.

“The other area that will need further development is balancing the need for consistency of what content is delivered through ECF training with the need for flexibility to meet the needs of different schools and individual ECTs, all of whom may have different starting points and experience.”

Will this happen?

It’s possible, but - given that right from the start of the ECF’s life, the profession was told the “structured training” of the programme would lead to it becoming the “cornerstone of a successful career in teaching” - it seems unlikely that the inflexibility many have encountered is going to disappear.

Perhaps, then, we simply have to wait and see.

After all, the ECF has only been in place for one term, and we have five more to go before we can see how it works in its entirety and this first cohort of teachers and mentors can truly reflect on their experiences.

After that, the proof of the pudding will be in the retaining - and that means waiting for the 2026 retention rates to give us the answers as to whether the ECF has truly delivered on its promise of helping new teachers to get the best possible start to their careers.

*Some names have been changed at the request of those interviewed