The Department for Education today published its long-awaited plans to reform teacher training following a consultation on recommendations made by its advisers in the controversial Initial Teacher Training market review.

Here’s everything you need to know:

Have the ITT market review proposals been accepted?

Funding for providers

Providers have welcomed the £37.5 million commitment to funding over the next Spending Review period for the new plans, which the DfE say “will ensure trainees get high-quality mentoring support from experienced teachers”.

Up to £5.7 million will be made available to providers in the financial year 2024-25 to help meet the requirements around intensive training and practice.

This means that providers that pass accreditation in 2022 will receive a grant of £25,000 to support them in implementing the review’s recommendations.

£25 million will also be allocated to ensure trainees can receive high-quality mentoring support from experienced teachers and other experts.

ITT market review: DfE pushes teacher training shake-up start back to 2024

Background: All teacher trainers reaccredited in ITT ‘step change’

ITT reaction: Engage schools or teacher training shake-up “will fail”

Delay to start date

Following concerns raised in the consultation around the tight deadlines for recommendations to be implemented by providers, the DfE has pushed back the start date for the newly reformed courses to September 2024. 

In today’s response, the DfE said: “The sooner we have an ITT system of the highest possible quality, the sooner new teachers and their pupils will benefit.

“However, we understand that for these reforms to be successful, we need to give schools and ITT providers enough time to prepare for their implementation.”

However, the dates for the first round of provider reaccreditation has not been delayed and will take place in 2022.

Assessment of trainees

The DfE has made changes to their Quality Requirements on assessment. 

Following feedback, the review explains that providers’ assessment frameworks should examine both “trainees’ recall of the knowledge, skills set out in the curriculum and their ability to apply them to classroom practice”.

University providers

University providers previously voiced concerns over the ITT market review changes becoming “disruptive”.

The DfE says it has addressed these concerns in its plans and will continue to allow providers to design and implement rigorous quality assurance arrangements as set out in the quality requirements, as a condition of accreditation.

However, in a statement made this afternoon, the University of Cambridge said that, while they welcomed some of the modifications, they had “significant concerns about a number of important inconsistencies which continue to prescribe and constrain how teacher training should be delivered” and it would be seeking further clarification from the government.

The statement continued: “We are concerned that a number of the proposals enforce a high level of standardisation which would constrain our ability to provide an innovative, personalised curriculum, which is fundamental to high-quality, evidence-informed teacher education.”

It added it was also concerned about the “intensive training and practice” plans, amid fears it would “significantly reduce the existing opportunities for trainees to fully engage with the latest evidence in their subject areas and age” and also that the proposals must go “much further” to permit flexibility around mentoring.

Timeline of the new ITT market review so far

Work initially began on the review in the early months of 2020, however, this was paused when the Covid pandemic hit in order to focus efforts elsewhere. 

In January 2021, the work on the review began once again with the first report published in July 2021 aiming to make “further improvements across the sector”.

Along with the publication of the review, the department opened a public consultation that has led to the new plans published by the DfE today.

How will ITT change?

Under the new changes, all teacher trainers will have to be reaccredited. 

Accreditation 

The DfE has confirmed that all teacher training providers will have to undergo a reaccreditation process to achieve “quality assurance of ITT provision” as set out in the ITT market review in July.

Providers will be asked to submit a number of curriculum samples and discuss their mentoring plans and partnership proposals.

The DfE said: “We will work closely with providers to ensure feedback from these and from the accreditation assessment is built into a mutually agreed action plan.”

Under the new teacher training curriculum, the DfE says that every ITT programme should be centred on a carefully sequenced, evidence-based curriculum that prepares trainees for success in the teaching profession. These curricula must continue to cover all aspects of the core content framework.

There has been no change to the minimum programme design requirement for school placements. This will remain at 120 days (24 weeks) for postgraduate and 24 or 32 weeks for undergraduate, depending on course length.

Ofsted inspection cycles

Under the new guidance, there will now be a three-year inspection cycle for providers from September 2024, and the current cycle needs to be completed earlier than expected in July 2023.

The DfE will continue to “formally notify underperforming providers of an improvement period before reinspection and, in line with the provider closure and withdrawal of ITT accreditation guidance, to withdraw accreditation if improvement is not made.”

School teaching hubs

As part of the proposals put out to consultation in July, it was recommended that teaching school hubs should partner with an accredited provider to play a role in the delivery of ITT.

In its response, the government said: “Teaching school hubs are critical to our ambition of providing teachers with high-quality professional development at all stages of their career.”

However, it says that all teaching school hubs must be part of an “accredited provider partnership”.

“This may be as the accredited provider or as a lead partner; each hub should consider local training needs and infrastructure when determining its role in ITT.”

Lead Mentors

Following feedback from the consultation, the DfE has reduced the minimum initial training hours that all lead mentors and all members of a mentor leadership team need to undertake from 36 to 30 hours.

The DfE added that they would be providing schools with funding to obtain teaching cover while mentors are undertaking training.

Mentor support for trainees

After consultation feedback suggested that a ratio of 1:50 minimum for lead mentors to trainees was not personal enough, the DfE plan does not set a minimum requirement.

However, it stated, for the purpose of calculating funding requirements, “we have assumed that providers will have no more than one lead mentor to every 25 trainees”.

The minimum initial training time for general mentors was also reduced to 20 hours from the originally suggested 24.

The minimum mentor support for trainees during general placements has also been reduced from two to one and a half hours. 

Funding provided

There will be grant funding of up to £15 million for general mentors and up to £10 million for lead mentors available to providers and schools in the 2024-25 financial year.

What do school leaders and providers think?

Providers, school leaders and teacher leaders have welcomed the £35.7 million commitment to funding, as well as the fact that teacher trainees will not start the newly reformed courses until September 2024. 

Emma Hollis, executive director of the National Association of School-Based Teacher Trainers (NASBTT), said that the commitment to funding was “warmly welcomed”. 

Ms Hollis said: “We are cautiously optimistic about the commitment this government is showing to building the capacity of the mentor workforce in schools. The steps taken in this response represent some important pieces in the puzzle and are definitely to be applauded.”

“However, the wider issue of capacity in schools will need to continue to be monitored closely and concerted efforts made to ensure that capacity is built over time to support this and other initiatives they aspire to deliver.”

Concerns over accreditation remain

Ms Hollis warned that the timeline for the accreditation process demonstrated “a complete lack of recognition of the pressures in the school sector” and “shows the government to be unresponsive to the reasonable arguments put to it over the past few months regarding the incredible strain everyone is under”.

She added: “Whilst the government has, rightly, recognised the need for more time for implementation, this recognition has not extended to their plans for the accreditation process itself.”

The National Education Union also voiced concerns about the additional pressure on schools, with Kevin Courtney, joint general secretary, saying that ”the overall reaccreditation of providers is still a cause for concern, as is the extent of change at this still precarious time. We will examine the government’s response to each of the proposals in detail.”

He added: “Given that the report also confirms that the Ofsted inspection cycle will be accelerated, with all providers inspected by July 2024, we would strongly suggest that the accreditation process is an entirely unnecessary additional burden for providers whose readiness to deliver the new requirements could more easily, and with less disruption, be assessed through the existing quality assurance process of Ofsted inspections.”

Meanwhile, Sara Ford, deputy director of policy at the Association of School and College Leaders, said it welcomed the fact that its ”significant concerns” about the timescales had been listened to but “remained cautious” about the timing of the shake-up because of the “potential impact on schools” whose “primary focus” needs to be education recovery, and while they are also embedding early career framework changes.

Nick Brook, deputy general secretary of the NAHT school leaders’ union, also welcomed the start day delay, but said: “The devil will be in the detail”.

He said: ”It is critical that any changes to teacher training improve stability and increase the supply of well-trained teachers in the subjects and areas of the country that need them most.”