The number of accredited teacher trainers in England will drop by about a quarter following the government’s ITT review, according to a sector body that has vowed to support any resulting legal action.
The Universities Council for the Education of Teachers (UCET), which represents teacher trainers in higher education, said a further 99 providers had been re-accredited in the second round of the review.
Added to the 80 accredited in round one, this means 179 providers have now been re-accredited. As of last year, there were around 240 operating in England. Official figures, and the names of successful providers, are due to be published later today.
UCET also said today that it would support any “legal challenge” brought by its members in response to the outcome of the accreditation process, which sector leaders have warned will create “cold spots” in supply across England.
Rejected providers can continue to train teachers until 2024, but here are also concerns some may withdraw early, leaving gaps from September 2023.
The government has said it may run a third accreditation round, but has not yet announced any plans to do so.
Will Bickford-Smith, the Department for Education’s schools policy adviser, told Schools Week last month he hoped snubbed providers would partner with accredited competitors to plug any gaps left by the review.
UCET said 80 per cent of ITT providers that applied were accredited, though this does reportedly include 16 providers which were not previously accredited. The organisation said 32 providers, all school-centered initial teacher training providers (SCITTs), did not apply.
Only two-thirds of existing providers accredited
Based on these figures, only two-thirds of providers previously operating are now accredited, similar to figures Schools Week revealed earlier this year.
The success rate for universities was 83 per cent, UCET said.
James Noble-Rogers, the organisation’s chief executive, said he was “pleased that more than 80 per cent of UCET members have been successfully accredited”.
But he said he was “extremely concerned that a number of high quality, long-established and tried and tested ITE providers have not been successful”.
“This will have a negative impact on teacher supply and on the life chances of children in the areas concerned.”
He said the accreditation process was “both unnecessary and flawed”.
“The quality of ITE programmes that do not even exist yet cannot be accurately assessed through a paper-based exercise involving subjective judgements being made.”
ITT review aimed to slim down ‘complex’ sector
The government has said the review aims to tackle the “overly complex” nature of the ITT sector. It was tasked with reducing duplication, weeding out poor-quality providers and creating a “more efficient and effective system”.
At the time of its relaunch, sources told Schools Week that “too much of ITT is low quality and not rigorously tied to the evidence”.
Noble-Rogers also criticised the DfE’s assumption gaps could be met by new providers and expansion of existing ones.
This ignores “the fact that new providers are untested and that significant barriers will prevent others from growing their provision to any meaningful extent”.
“Neither is there any guarantee that student teachers who would have gone to providers that have lost their accreditation will be willing to train elsewhere, or that the schools that work with those providers will be willing to join new partnerships.”
Noble-Rogers added his organisation will support “any actions taken by its members in response to the accreditation results, including those who plan to diversify away from QTS provision, engage in legal challenge or adjust their provision in the light of the new markets”.
Your thoughts