Providing mentoring is “not necessarily” the “right role” for teachers early on in their career - and training providers may need more incentives to support mentors properly - the chair of the government’s controversial teacher training review has said.
Last year providers warned of “huge concerns” over schools’ mentoring capacity following a surge in teacher training applications sparked by the Covid-19 crisis.
Asked for his thoughts on the issue, and specifically how the Department for Education’s initial teacher training (ITT) market review is hoping to address the problem, chair Ian Bauckham warned against encouraging teachers to take on the role after only a short time in the profession.
Teacher training: ‘Huge concerns’ over post-Covid school mentor shortage
ITT market review: Fears of new ‘strict’ teacher training hitting supply
NFER: Prolonged teacher pay freeze risks supply ‘challenge’
Mr Bauckham, who is chief executive of the Tenax Schools Trust, acting chair of Ofqual and chair of Oak National Academy, said mentoring capacity issues are “not irrelevant” to the market review, adding that there are “questions that could legitimately be asked” about how ITT providers are “incentivised” to supply “rigorous and detailed support for mentors”.
Initial teacher training: Giving more support to mentors in schools
“I’ll say something about the mentor question because I think it’s a really interesting one, and it’s obviously not irrelevant to the initial teacher training market review,” he said.
“So I agree completely with both Emma [Hollis, executive director of the National Association of School-Based Teacher Trainers] and Alison [Dame Alison Peacock, chief executive of the Chartered College of Teaching] that mentors play a central role in initial teacher training, and I also agree with Alison that it’s not necessarily - it can be, but isn’t necessarily - the right role for somebody who is themselves in a very early stage of their teaching career, although there are exceptions to that and I wouldn’t want to rule it out completely.
“But I think there is something here about the quality and scale of training and support that mentors get, and I think there might be some questions that could legitimately be asked about the extent to which providers of initial teacher training are incentivised to put in place very rigorous and detailed support for mentors.”
Mr Bauckham argued that “one of the key things” in ITT is that “trainees get aligned messages from all aspects of training”.
“That means from any inputs that they have on theory and research, to messages that they get from teachers whom they meet in their teaching practice schools, right through to the more detailed messages that they get via feedback, for example, from their specific mentors,” he said.
“So having really good quality training in place and good supervision for mentors, I think, is key to making them successful.
“It isn’t good enough simply to say: ‘You’ve been teaching for a couple of years, you know a little bit about teaching now after two years - you could be this person’s mentor.’
“I mean, I am caricaturing here a little bit to make a point, but it is really important that mentoring is taken very seriously, and the investment is made in the preparation and training of mentors if ITT is going to be successful.”
Mr Bauckham was speaking with Ms Hollis and Dame Alison at a webinar launching a new report from the National Foundation for Educational Research (NFER) on the teacher labour market.
The report says that the pandemic is “likely to have led to lower teacher turnover and higher retention”.
However, continued pay restraint could lead to new retention challenges in the long term, it warns.
Earlier this year it emerged that the DfE was about to resume its review of the ITT market, following a pause due to the Covid-19 pandemic.
The review has proved controversial among providers, with the Universities’ Council for the Education of Teachers (UCET) warning that the process is “shrouded in secrecy”.
The DfE has said the review will focus on how the ITT sector can “provide consistently high-quality training, in line with the CCF [Core Content Framework] in a more efficient and effective market”.
But the UCET has expressed fears that it could lead to a “strict and inflexible” curriculum for ITT, which would “destroy the teacher supply base”.
The association has also said there are “concerns that a new system will be introduced under which a small number of selected organisations offer short-term contracts” to ITT providers.
