I have worked in education for 20 years, as a primary and early years teacher, early years lead and now as a teacher education lead in a university, working in partnership with hundreds of schools and settings.
Recently, I have been very concerned about some big changes proposed for initial teacher education (ITE), which I believe (and lots agree with me, including the All Party Parliamentary Group for the Teaching Profession and others) could have a huge impact on teacher supply. With my ‘early years’ hat on though, I can see another potential problem on the horizon
Some basics first; you may have heard that the DfE have recently consulted on a Market Review of Initial Teacher Training, with the consultation period ending on the 22 August. But you are forgiven if you didn’t hear about it – the consultation opened on the 5 July, which you could argue isn’t the best timing if you want to get a wide response from the education sector during a global pandemic.
The Market Review seeks to improve the quality of teacher training through 14 recommendations for changes to current practices (you can read the whole report here and the summary of recommendations starts on page 36). Obviously planning for improvement is a great idea, and there are some worthy recommendations made.
What has become clear is that both university-led provision and school-centred provision is threatened by the review; with concerns ranging from the un-costed reforms, burdens on schools and settings, providers withdrawing from the market, through to anxiety about potential narrowing of the ITE curriculum.
The Market Review specifically targets teacher training in primary and scondary phases; as pointed out here in the document itself, early years and further education are potential areas for future consideration:
The review’s remit covered only ITT that leads to QTS, which consists of primary and secondary phases of ITT. Early years ITT that leads to early years teacher status (EYTS), and further education ITE, form the other phases of ITT. Quality in those areas is likewise critical to improving educational opportunity and outcomes overall. (ITT Market Review, 2021, p.8)
And so, on reading this, I felt initially relieved that for now, colleagues in EY provision would not have the threat of rapid reaccreditation and additional training costs to meet, to ensure they could continue training and supporting EYITT trainees.
But then I began to think about the potential domino effect that the ITE Market Review could bring about. Providers of teacher education have already voiced their intent to withdraw from the market if the reforms are enacted, with a recent survey showing that more than 30 providers have already suggested that they may pull out of ITE, taking with them over 10,000 teacher training places a year (TeachBest, 2021).
I thought about the three-to-seven and three-to-five age range trainees I had worked with as an EY lead, and how many of them had decided a career in early years was the right one for them – potentially, ITE providers withdrawing would mean those people couldn’t or wouldn’t train to teach, with places reduced in their areas.
I then had another thought, about the number of EYITT students who are training alongside PGCE and other routes in universities, and what it would mean for their programmes if providers withdraw from teacher education? Over the last five years, numbers of EYITT trainees has varied between 300 – 600-plus a year, and has been a gateway to mature students joining the workforce; around 75 per cent of these trainees are over 25 years old (DfE, 2020). Almost certainly, any withdrawal of providers from ITE would see their courses closed down, too.
And then, worse still in terms of impact on the sector – in universities where ITE is a thing of the past, what will happen to the education departments who run programmes such as early childhood studies undergraduate degrees and diplomas?
Having worked with graduate practitioners in early years settings, they offered a lot more to the team than just a ratio boost: they came in to placements or employment with fresh ideas and theories, as well as critical thinking and research skills from their undergraduate degree programmes.
I also began to consider the professional development opportunities that my team had engaged with from our local university education departments, from day courses and conferences right through to apprenticeships, masters level study and SENDCo accreditation, which many of us had gained through our geographically closest university education department.
Having time to think about domino effects and possibilities is a luxury I know, but I would urge everyone involved in education to be aware of the Market Review and to think about the impacts (both positive and negative) this could have on your local area, setting and network.
