The Department for Education is set to face mounting appeals from teacher training providers that have failed to win approval to continue offering courses as part of its shake-up of the sector, Tes has learned.
Around a third of current providers that were unsuccessful in gaining accreditation for initial teacher training (ITT) courses during the DfE review are expected to appeal the decision, including Durham University and North East Partnership SCITT, Tes understands.
The challenges to the government’s reaccreditation process come after fears its decision to remove a quarter of current providers from the market will lead to cold spots after a Tes analysis revealed multiple regions in England could lose hundreds of trainee teacher places.
About a quarter (70) of the current providers were unsuccessful in their applications to be reaccredited to offer ITT courses, leaving a total of 179 now approved to continue offering courses to trainees from 2024.
In addition, 21 new organisations that applied for accreditation were unsuccessful.
Providers were given 15 working days to submit appeals after the results of the review were announced at the end of last month, but concerns around a lack of information and restrictive guidelines on the content of the appeals have now emerged, Tes understands.
Emma Hollis, executive director of The National Association of School-Based Teacher Trainers, told Tes that 10 unsuccessful school-based teacher trainers (SCITTs) have so far confirmed they intend to appeal the decision by the DfE.
Ms Hollis added that she is also aware of three SCITTs that will be looking to close their provision this year or next year after failing to gain reaccreditation for their courses.
Concerns over the process emerge
Concerns have also emerged after no formal information about the appeals process was published by the DfE.
A 500-word limit on appeals has also been criticised, although this was raised from 300 words soon after the DfE started accepting appeals earlier this month.
One SCITT director who submitted an appeal last week told Tes of fears there has been a “discrepancy” in the marking.
They added that they believe the challenges over decisions will be “honoured more in the breach than the observance”, which is proven “by the fact that the word count for the appeal was increased from three to five hundred words five days into the appeal process”.
“This means that anyone who appealed early in that process has been hindered against somebody who appealed later,” they said.
“With 500 words to play with, it’s difficult to make a case when we had to submit 7000 words of bid material plus appendices in the first instance. I think there’s an imbalance there.”
Three grounds for appeals
The appeals can be placed if cases fall under one of three grounds.
Two of these are if providers believe an administrative error has taken place: the score and feedback text do not match, or the feedback text does not relate to applicant materials.
The third ground for appeal is if the provider believes materials have not been taken into account.
If an appeal does not fall into these grounds, it won’t be considered, Tes understands.
Providers have ‘solid grounds’ for appeals
James Noble-Rogers, executive director of the Universities’ Council for the Education of Teachers (UCET), told Tes he expects “a significant proportion” of the 12 unsuccessful higher education institutions (HEIs) to appeal the decision and that his organisation was ”in the process of supporting members who are likely to want to appeal against the accreditation judgements”.
He added that the providers involved “seemed to have solid grounds” for appeals.
Mr Noble-Rogers previously said UCET would support legal action against the government after he warned providers who had failed to pass the process could leave the market entirely, and was also considering a judicial review of the “unnecessary and flawed” process.
University of Cumbria vice-chancellor Professor Julie Mennell told Tes that the university intends to appeal its unsuccessful bid for accreditation.
“The DfE has now informed us that it is not satisfied that the University of Cumbria has demonstrated it will have the mentoring training capability, required from September 2024, to meet the changed accreditation criteria.
“We are disappointed by this outcome, and will be appealing the decision.”
In a letter seen by Tes, North East Partnership SCITT, which provides training for physical education teacher trainees for both secondary and primary phases, said it was “disappointed” by the outcome and “fully intends to appeal”.
Director Sarah Ramsden said: “The long history of developing the next generation of outstanding PE teachers in secondary education, and now also in the primary phase, the growing community of likeminded colleagues across a partnership of more than 70 schools, the exceptional early career teachers entering the profession and, ultimately, the effect on young people’s learning, participation and lifelong physical activity and health, will now be significantly impacted.”
Ms Ramsden said there were now “concerns around the future quality and supply of primary PE specialists and secondary PE teachers across the North of England” after the DfE decided not to reaccredit the courses offered by the SCITT and Durham and Cumbria universities.
Ms Ramsden also raised concerns over the SCITT’s failure to receive accreditation despite its judgement of “outstanding” by Ofsted under the new framework.
She adds: “While the DfE has made clear there is no link between an Ofsted grading and the future ability to meet the quality requirements to be implemented in 2024-25, questions must be asked of how the department intends to support successful but considerably weaker providers to meet the requirements.”
