Teacher recruitment, training and retention

There are now over 468,000 teachers which we accept as an improvement in absolute terms though not relative to pupil numbers. However, we recognise that this is still insufficient, particularly when we know recruitment targets continue to be missed, the number of teacher vacancies doubled between 2020 and 2022 and that secondary pupil numbers are expected to peak at around 3,230,000 this year. Progress on recruitment needs to be sustained and improved in order to manage and meet the needs of this demographic ‘bulge’.

Our evidence suggests that recruitment and retention issues occur at every stage of education, from primary school through to further education. However, the challenge increases as we move up the phases with more vacancies and a greater retention challenge in secondary than in primary and again in post 16. The Department must ensure that efforts are being made to improve recruitment and retention throughout all stages of education and that any demographic bulges are tracked, planned for and responded to right the way through the system.

We welcome the Department’s approach to setting postgraduate initial teacher training recruitment targets using the Teacher Workforce Model. However, changes need to be made if a more holistic picture of the demand for teachers across all subjects and phases of education is to be achieved. The Department should ensure that pupil demographic trends are included in analysis to ensure future demand is taken into full account when setting recruitment targets. We also recommend that the Teacher Workforce Model should be extended to cover the post-16 and further education phases, meaning the model estimates the number of qualified teachers required by state-funded primary and secondary schools (including nursery and post-16 provision within such schools), academies, free schools, post-16 providers and further education colleges in England. (Paragraph 28) Financial incentives for recruitment and retention

Teacher salaries need to be attractive in order to boost recruitment. We welcome the introduction of a £30k starting salary as a step towards improved competitiveness. However, it is clear that this salary will have to be increased in the coming years if it is to remain competitive. Whilst initiatives such as the levelling up premium may help in certain areas, the issue of pay competitiveness will need to be kept under review across the board and both starting salaries and progression must be taken into account.

We understand the Department’s budgetary pressures. However, in order to compete with other sectors and improve recruitment and retention, teacher pay must keep pace year on year with other comparable sectors. It is also essential that funding to enable the continued competitiveness of teacher salaries does not adversely impact levels of funding elsewhere in the schools budget. (Paragraph 45) 76 Teacher recruitment, training and retention

We welcome the most recent pay agreement for support staff; however, we have heard persistent concerns that low pay is resulting in difficulty recruiting and retaining staff in these vital roles which help both teachers and pupils and provide essential support to children with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND)

We are also concerned that despite support staff pay increasing additional resource has not been made available to schools from the DfE to fund these increases. We are concerned about the additional pressure this puts on school budgets and that without additional funding from the Department schools are unable to employ the support staff they need.

We recommend the Department complete a review into the cumulative impact of excluding funding for support staff pay increases from school funding allocations. Further, going forward, the wage growth of support staff must be factored into school budgets and the Department must allocate sufficient funding to schools to cover the growth of support staff salaries.

Where available, bursaries and scholarships improve teacher recruitment. We heard strong evidence that bursaries should be targeted where they will be most effective, such as for subjects with longstanding under-recruitment, subjects where demand is expected to increase and subjects that have particularly competitive job markets. However, we also heard concerns about the negative impact of targeted financial incentives on recruitment to teach non-bursary subjects.

Bursaries should continue to be targeted according to under-recruitment so the subjects struggling the most with recruitment receive the highest bursaries. However, additionally, the Department should introduce lower bursary offerings for shortage subjects where there is no existing offer alongside continuing to promote non-bursary subjects through broad, above-the-line advertising that focuses on teaching as a vocation more generally.

Though concern remains about the retention of teachers in receipt of bursary funding. Evidence tells us that the current structure of bursaries offers sufficient value for money in terms of recruitment and retention, given that retention rates are similar for those who do and do not receive Initial teacher training (ITT) bursaries. We recommend the Government keep the option of ‘golden handcuffs’ under review and commissions further research on how retention can be improved.

We welcome the initial success of existing retention payments such as the Levelling Up Premium and Early Career Payments. The Department should expand the Levelling Up Premium and Early Career Payments according to subject and regional demand. We have heard concerns about the restriction of these payments to Education Investment areas and that they may be needed elsewhere. The eligibility criteria for these payments should be reviewed periodically in order to adapt and respond to shortages; a national roll out of these payments should be considered if they continue to be a success. (Paragraph 73) Teacher recruitment, training and retention 77

The Department should also monitor the attrition of those who receive these payments. This would improve understanding of whether there is a “postponement effect” amongst recipients, where they leave the profession once these payments stop. (Paragraph 74) Alternative routes into teaching

We have heard that there remains a lack of awareness and understanding about the variety of routes into teaching and what routes into teaching are most appropriate for prospective teacher trainees. The Department should improve communication around the different routes into teaching with a particular focus on clarifying what these routes entail and what applicants they are best suited for.

The Department’s recruitment efforts currently focus heavily on new graduates. However more needs to be done to encourage recruitment from other groups. There should be more and clearer pathways for groups such as non-graduates, former military personnel and those interested in changing their career to teaching at a later stage of their life and returning former teachers who want to return to the role.

We welcome the Department’s plan to introduce a non-graduate apprenticeship, specifically for experienced non-teaching staff alongside the existing graduate apprenticeship, as an opportunity to recruit non-graduates who are already working within the education sector into teaching. However, we are concerned that fewer than 1000 people have taken an apprenticeship route into teaching since 2019. Which suggest this remains a minor and specialist route into teaching, given the wider expansion of higher-level apprenticeships we believe there is more scope to expand the use of apprenticeships in growing the teaching workforce.

The Department should continue to promote and expand the existing Graduate Teacher Apprenticeship, setting intake targets for each academic year. The Department should also move forward with plans to introduce a non-graduate teaching apprenticeship, specifically for experienced non-teaching staff with further detail on this published by Autumn 2024.

Given the extent of the teacher recruitment challenge, in particular severe shortages being faced in certain secondary school subjects (see chapter 5) the Department should be using all available channels to recruit specialist secondary teachers. The decision to remove funding from Now Teach undermines efforts to improve teacher recruitment.

The Department should urgently rethink the decision to cut funding for Now Teach as career changers are an important group that have the potential to positively contribute towards improving secondary teacher numbers. Further, the Department should introduce more paid routes into teaching and a bursary specifically for those making a career change. The value of this bursary should be determined on a multi- year basis to help improve the stability of these routes, benefiting both applicants and Initial Teacher Education providers. (Paragraph 89) 78 Teacher recruitment, training and retention

The Department should encourage the return of former teachers into the profession by introducing and promoting specific training and bursary routes for returners. We also recommend that the Department reviews how returning teachers can be used to address current issues in the teacher workforce such as the shortage of secondary school teachers and teachers for specific subjects.

We welcome the Department’s continued efforts to encourage ex-military personnel to enter the teaching profession. We view their experience managing people with differing levels of education as extremely valuable to schools. However, the Department should do more to promote the undergraduate bursary for veterans to increase awareness. Further, the Undergraduate veteran bursary scheme and its subject eligibility criteria should also be reviewed and expanded in order to improve uptake. We also recommend the introduction of a non-graduate route specific to ex-military personnel similar to the Undergraduate veteran bursary scheme.

We recognise the need to use all available options if teacher recruitment is going to increase in England. This must include international teachers, and efforts should be made to ease the pathway for international teachers to be recruited and to teach in English schools. For the teaching of Modern foreign languages, an English Baccalaureate (EBacc) subject in which the department has consistently missed its recruitment target, this is an essential part of the teaching recruitment cohort and there appears to be no rationale for cutting it off.

We were encouraged by the ‘Apply for Qualified Teacher Status in England’ digital service launched in February 2023. We would like an update and review of the success of this service in response to this report.

We are disappointed about recent changes to the international relocation payment which will exclude trainee teachers from the 2024 and 2025 academic years. We viewed this payment as a positive intervention to encourage the recruitment and training of international teachers in key subjects and do not view this decision as a step in the right direction. We urge the Department to review this decision and reevaluate the scheme’s potential to help in providing high quality teachers in our schools. In particular, we are concerned about the late notice given for this change and urge the Department to work closely with Universities to ensure that no students on their way to qualify as teachers in shortage subjects are lost as a result of this At a minimum, this change should not apply retrospectively and international candidates accepted prior to April 3rd 2024 should be able to continue on to their studies in September 2024 with these payments.

The Department must also collaborate with other relevant government Departments to ensure routes and pathways into teaching for international teachers remain open, attractive, and easy to navigate. (Paragraph 102) Teacher training and professional development

We are pleased that initial concerns that the initial teacher training review would result in ‘cold spots’ and further disparities have not come to fruition. We welcome the use of partnerships to allow de-accredited providers to merge with accredited providers in their region and we are happy with the growth of new providers entering Teacher recruitment, training and retention 79 the market. The Department should continue to monitor the impact of the Initial teacher training (ITT) reviews to ensure that regional capacity and the provision of Initial Teacher Education is sufficient.

We recognise the need to get more people onto ITT courses; however, this should not be achieved by compromising on quality, and ITT providers should continue to uphold high entry standards. The Department should continue publicising teaching as a profession through broad advertising that focuses on teaching as a vocation more generally in order to attract high quality candidates.

Criticisms of the Early Career Framework (ECF) such as repetition, lack of subject focus and the additional burden for mentors need to be addressed. We welcome action which has already been taken by the Department to tackle these issues, including reviewing the content of the Framework and removing duplicated material.

The Department should continue to consult and engage with teachers for feedback on the Early Career Framework. We recommend that the content of the Early Career Framework is reviewed annually by the Department, and that duplicate material continues to be removed. The Department should also work with providers to develop and expand the subject specific elements of the Early Career Framework.

For the mentoring aspect of the ECF we recommend that more time and resources are given to mentors, in order for them to provide early career teachers with the necessary time and support. Mentoring provides a key strength of the framework, but retention of experienced mentors will be key to its long-term success.

The opportunity to partake in Continuing Professional Development (CPD) is crucial to teacher retention; we recognise, however, that pressure of workload and lack of spare time limits teachers’ engagement with CPD. We consider issues relating to teachers’ workload further in chapter 6.

We also recognise that cost can prevent teachers from engaging with Continuing Professional Development. Consequently, we are concerned about the announcement that from Autumn 2024 funding for National professional qualifications (NPQs) will only be provided to teachers and school leaders at select schools. We urge the Department to rethink this decision to restrict funding for NPQs which can benefit teachers in every school, and we recommend that this decision is reversed so that funding is reinstated for all teachers to be able to benefit from NPQs. Further, we recommend that the Department creates standalone funding for NPQs so this is not reliant on temporary programmes such as the Department’s catch-up programme.

We understand that when Continuing Professional Development is exclusively focused on leadership teacher retention can be undermined as teachers unwilling to take up such roles have limited opportunities for promotion or progression. We welcome the move towards more subject specific NPQs as well as the NPQ for special educational needs co-ordinator’s (SENco) that will be available from Autumn 2024. (Paragraph 139) 80 Teacher recruitment, training and retention

The Department should build on improvements in its Continuing Professional Development (CPD) offering and there should be more scope in the system for teachers to gain and maintain seniority through subject specialism. The Department should expand its subject specific NPQ offering beyond numeracy and literacy and establish clearer career progression pathways for teachers who want to focus on and develop within their subject, for example as head of subject within a year group or subject lead across their school. We would recommend that the Department consider further NPQs for subject leaders with cross disciplinary application such as heads of science or languages. (Paragraph 140) Subject specific teacher shortages

We do not believe that the Department’s decision to reduce the postgraduate initial teacher training (PGITT) recruitment target for maths teachers between the 2021/22 and 2022/23 academic years was justified given the importance and priority the Government has given to maths. Government plans to make maths education compulsory until the age of 18 will inevitably increase demand for maths teachers so the reality of the challenge to recruit maths teachers must be acknowledged and appropriately acted upon.

Targets for maths and other shortage subjects should not be reduced unless the shortage is reversed, and recruitment targets are met, over a sustained period of time. Considering Government plans for compulsory until the age of 18 the maths target must be increased substantially unless the Government can set out other plans for delivering functional or practical mathematics through an alternative cohort of teachers.

High attrition rates in shortage subjects mean that a two-pronged approach is needed to address subject specific teacher shortages. This should look at the retention of existing teachers in addition to the recruitment of new teachers. Reliable data on the number of teachers leaving by subject and the reason for their departure are also needed, to better understand attrition rates.

The Department should collect and publish data on the attrition of teachers by subject, particularly those in their first 5 years of teaching. Data should also be collected on the reason teachers are leaving, to improve understanding of why particular subjects are experiencing higher attrition than others and to help target retention strategies as effectively as possible.

We have significant concerns about the negative impacts of subject specific teacher shortages. These include compromising the quality of teaching where subjects are being taught by teachers without subject expertise and the reduction of subject provision where schools do not have sufficient specialist teaching capacity. We also heard that lack of specialist teachers can have an adverse impact on take up of certain subjects. This is evidenced by modern foreign languages having the lowest take up by pupils when compared to other English Baccalaureate (EBacc) subjects. Out of the 86.2% of pupils who entered four of the five EBacc components 88.9% were missing the languages component in 2022/23. (Paragraph 163) Teacher recruitment, training and retention 81

We know subject specific and regional teacher shortages persist and we acknowledge the Department’s interventions to address this. However, we have heard that there is limited data and understanding of how these shortages interact and where they overlap. Further analysis is needed to better target financial incentives, Initial Teacher Education provision and the Early Career Framework mentor programme.

The Department should collect and publish data on regional subject shortages in teacher supply. This data should be used to inform the expansion of financial incentives such as the Early Career Payment and Levelling Up Premium according to where there are overlaps in regional and subject shortages.

As discussed previously in this report, we have heard convincing evidence about the importance of interventions such as bursaries in targeting recruitment to subjects where there are teacher shortages. Bursaries should continue to be targeted towards subjects where there are shortages and shortages subjects should continually be reviewed to ensure bursaries remain where recruitment is most needed. The Department should increase the value of lower valued bursaries, particularly in subjects experiencing persistent shortages such as RE, DT and modern foreign languages.

We recognise the positive impact both the Early Career and Levelling Up Premium Payments can have in improving teacher retention in subjects that are experiencing teacher shortages. In line with earlier recommendations in this report the Department should expand the Levelling Up Premium and Early Career Payments according to subject and regional demand. The eligibility criteria for these payments should be reviewed in order to adapt and respond to shortages.

The Department should also analyse the impact of the Levelling Up Premium and Early Career Payments. There should be a particular focus on their regional impact, for example, to find out whether recruitment in places nearby education investment areas has been negatively impacted or resulted in ‘brain drain.’

We welcome the use of subject knowledge enhancement (SKE) programmes within Initial Teacher Training, where appropriate, as it is clear these programmes provide an opportunity to improve teaching capacity in subjects where there are specific issues in recruitment and retention. While it is important that these programmes are flexible in order to attract more individuals, high standards and quality must also be maintained.

Subject knowledge enhancement programmes should be used where there are minor gaps in subject knowledge, for example, where individuals have a relevant A-Level or degree qualification. The Department should review current subject knowledge enhancement provision with the aim of balancing quality and flexibility of provision. This review should also look specifically at options for upskilling teachers in the areas of RSHE and financial education, as we have heard in evidence from our other inquiries that teachers would benefit from enhanced training in these areas.

We strongly disagree with the Department’s decision to axe five subject options from the Department’s subject knowledge enhancement programme offering. Subject knowledge enhancement programmes are crucial in closing knowledge gaps to allow more people to teach in shortages subjects. We consider the removal of 82 Teacher recruitment, training and retention five subjects from this offering to undermine teacher recruitment efforts. We urge the Department to rethink this decision and reinstate funding for subject knowledge enhancement programmes in primary school maths, DT, English, biology and RE.

Beyond the specific subject knowledge enhancement programmes that may be delivered within initial teacher training, upskilling is a useful and effective way for non-specialist teachers to gain the necessary knowledge to teach certain subjects once qualified. This approach has the potential to significantly mitigate the impact of subject specific teacher shortages. However, the current inconsistency of opportunities to upskill across subjects undermines its potential. (Paragraph 201) Flexibility and workload

Upskilling should be used as a mitigation across subjects experiencing teacher shortages. For subjects such as Maths, a compulsory subject that has experienced persistent shortages in teacher supply it is even more pertinent that mitigations such as upskilling are used to manage teacher shortages.

The Department should work with subject associations where there are current teacher shortages to coordinate support and funding efforts with the aim of developing upskilling opportunities across these shortage subjects.

Since the pandemic, flexible working has been widely embraced across different professions and sectors of the economy. However, this has not been replicated in the education sector. If the education sector is to remain competitive, particularly in the recruitment of graduates, more must be done to increase opportunities for flexible working in schools.

The Department have told us they will put flexibility at the heart of the new recruitment and retention strategy. This should include the promotion of existing approaches to flexibility that have been proven to be successful such as job shares and part-time working. However, it is clear that the education sector faces unique challenges; these include the high degree of in-person working it requires; issues around timetabling; and the significant and ongoing problem of high workload. The Department will need to find creative ways to address all of these if flexibility is to become a reality for teachers.

We welcome the Department’s initial efforts to support flexible working through the Flexible Working Toolkit launched in summer 2023. However, with only 15% of senior leaders aware of its existence, and even fewer - only 4% - reporting that they found it useful, far more needs to be done to increase awareness of the toolkit amongst school leaders and ensure it is meeting their needs.

The Department should redouble efforts to promote the Flexible Working Toolkit with school leaders, with flexible working ambassador schools playing a central role in this. In addition, this should be backed up with a strategy to monitor the extent to which schools are offering flexible working. We ask that the Government provides a full update on this in response to this report. (Paragraph 221) Teacher recruitment, training and retention 83

There is a lack of understanding about how flexibility would impact schools, particularly the impact on pupils’ learning and school finances. Further information on this is required in order for school leaders to be able to implement flexible working policies with confidence that these are not going to have a negative impact on learning outcomes or school finances.

The Department should commission research into the impact flexibility has on teaching and learning for pupils as well as teacher retention. Further research is also needed into the resource and financial implications of flexible working arrangements on the school budgets.

We welcome the progress made towards reducing teachers working hours, acknowledging that the 5-hour reduction between 2016 and 2019 was a move in the right direction. However, workload remains a top concern for teachers. We welcome the Department’s ambition to reduce working hours by a further 5 hours but urge that this needs to be achieved much sooner than the Department’s 3-year target.

We welcome the Department’s efforts to reduce workload through the Workload Reduction Toolkit. However, we are concerned about the lack of awareness of the Toolkit despite being published over five years ago. If more progress is to be made the Toolkit needs to be made accessible and easy to use so school leaders and teachers can properly benefit.

The Department must continue to promote and build on existing efforts to reduce teacher workload. This should include condensing the Workload Reduction Toolkit, so it is more easily accessible for school staff. We endorse the Workload Reduction Taskforce recommendation that the DfE should “commit to enhancing knowledge and accessibility of the School Workload Reduction Toolkit, including improving the design for users and ensuring that case studies and resources remain relevant and include new, impactful, solutions that schools and trusts have implemented.”

The Department should also put measures in place to monitor the implementation of strategies and solutions across schools and trusts. The listed recommendations from the Workload Reduction Taskforce should be introduced as a matter of urgency with the Department reviewing progress on this by Spring 2025.

It is evident that accountability pressures contribute to additional non-teaching workload for teachers with perceived expectations undermining efforts to implement best practice around reducing workload. This persists despite guidance from the Department.

The Department should increase myth busting efforts around Ofsted to reduce accountability related workload. The joint update from DfE and Ofsted that the Workload Reduction Taskforce recommendation should be published without delay and efforts to reduce the accountability related workload should be monitored on an ongoing basis.

A wide range of non-teaching tasks are contributing to excessive teacher workload so efforts towards reducing teacher workload cannot be limited to reducing teaching hours or the Workload Reduction Toolkit. (Paragraph 259) 84 Teacher recruitment, training and retention

We are concerned that since the pandemic teachers are spending more time on addressing issues that would typically fall outside the remit of schools, including family conflict resolution and mental health support. Wraparound support must urgently be made more widely available and delivered by the appropriate organisations including local social care services and Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS).

We recommend the Department clearly defines the parameters of schools’ and teachers’ responsibilities. To support with issues that are not within the scope of schools’ responsibilities Wraparound support should be easily available and accessible. Schools and teachers should be able to easily signpost pupils or parents to other organisations better suited to address barriers to attendance, wider concerns or care, and improvements are needed in both awareness of and access to this type of support.

Once again, we recommend that the Department leads a cross-government assessment of the scale of mental health difficulties amongst pupils and review the current provision of support available in schools and outside of them. The Government should conclude this review and report its findings by Autumn 2024. There then needs to be significant and well co-ordinated joint working across the Government and additional funding to ensure Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services provision is adequate to meet the needs of school age children, in line with the Department’s previous commitment to a 4-week waiting time for NHS mental health support for children. (Paragraph 262) Pupil behaviour

Though the issue of poor pupil behaviour it not new, it has become worse since the pandemic with more disruptive pupil behaviour, school exclusions and suspensions. Poor behaviour not only undermines pupils learning and a positive classroom culture, but it also impacts teacher recruitment and retention. Reports of worsening behaviour have the potential to discourage prospective teachers from entering the profession and to contribute to existing teachers’ desire to leave the profession.

The Department needs to reinforce the importance of positive and effective partnerships between schools, pupils and parents in addressing and improving pupil behaviour and attendance. This is particularly important for special educational needs and disabilities pupils who represent an increasing proportion of pupils.

We recognise the importance of the work done through the behaviour hubs programme since 2020. Schools need practical advice and guidance on managing pupil behaviour and creating a positive behavioural culture. We recommend expanding the behaviour hubs programme to increase capacity and allow more schools to benefit from this programme, which could also help teacher retention. (Paragraph 284) Teacher recruitment, training and retention 85