The headline outcomes of the first round of the initial teacher training (ITT) accreditation process have created understandable rumblings in the sector.

However, this is not the time to be speculating about worse-case scenarios in terms of established and proven ITT providers exiting the system, the impact on the market and what that might look like at a key moment in recruitment.

The Department for Education (DfE) is well aware of the implications of losing quality providers.

As such, there is still a very real opportunity for the vast majority of providers to be accredited.

Disappointed but stoic 

Early indications from National Association of School-Based Teacher Trainers (NASBTT) members who have not yet been accredited are that they remain stoic and, while understandably disappointed, are, for the most part, looking to their next steps and resubmissions.

They now have the opportunity to resubmit in round two, having received feedback on their application. Also, while 80 providers have been accredited so far - and we extend our congratulations to them - it should be stressed that not all providers applied in the first round.

My message is clear: we are only part-way through the process and, while some providers have been counted in, nobody has been counted out.

That was echoed by Robin Walker MP, who asked to meet me on Tuesday and said he is clear that we are only at the start of the accreditation process.

In that meeting, he wanted to understand how NASBTT members were feeling about the outcome of round one and encourage any providers who have not been accredited to continue to engage in the process as we move to round two.

This spirit of partnership from the DfE was continued in our member accreditation briefing on Wednesday, where it took time to answer questions from ITT professionals, with more than 200 present.

Concerns about submissions processes

That said, in the same meeting, a number of common concerns were expressed by providers. For example, while the DfE wants to encourage collaborative working, the process itself is, in some cases, causing conflict in the sector.

Questions were also raised about the experience in ITT of those evaluating the bids, the lack of consistency and clarity on feedback, and how some providers were approached for further information and others were not.

Also, on the application itself, one of our members asked: “Are you confident that the process will ensure that the very best providers are accredited as opposed to the best bid writers?”

This point is important: we believe that the relatively small number of providers accredited so far is a symptom of the flawed nature of a paper-based application process (the ability to fill in a form is not the ability you need to deliver effective teacher education) - and also a symptom of the time given for round one applications - rather than anything else.

Simple errors blight submissions

Moving forward, the DfE has provided some common pointers about why some providers may not have been successful in round one.

Many applicants described what they planned on implementing rather than stating how and why, and were too high level and generic to communicate a detailed understanding of the question asked. Applicants need to be explicit in describing how their approach will ensure high-quality ITT against the question asked.

Some responses did not make clear how applicants planned to deliver high-quality ITT in line with the 2024-25 ITT criteria. This was considered a key omission.

Some applicants stated what they currently do in ITT delivery, rather than what they plan to implement in line with the 2024-25 ITT criteria, and need to contextualise their curricula.

There were also some practicalities. Some applicants did not adhere to the submission requirements on word count and submission format. Exceeding the word count resulted in redactions while the inclusion of hyperlinks violated the word count and were therefore not reviewed. Guidance has been reassessed to make this clearer for round two.

It’s not over until it’s over

Once again, I strongly encourage all providers who have not yet been accredited to resubmit.

We remain confident from the data we have gathered that there is no pattern or preference emerging in the accreditation process for size and scale of provider - a fear expressed by many.

Partnership negotiations, should these be considered, do not need to be rushed, and must involve time and due diligence. They also need to be based on a strong foundation - it is risky for all parties to form them at speed.

Irrespective of the interim outcome, this sector is incredible and we are privileged to be in it.

The quality is evidenced as more Ofsted inspection reports are published, with 73 per cent of providers (at the time of writing) now inspected under the new framework judged as good or better. We must remain calm in order to be effective.

It isn’t over until it’s over - let’s see where we are in September.

Emma Hollis is executive director of the National Association of School-Based Teacher Trainers