Under changes announced last summer, all initial teacher training providers in England must be re-accredited by the Department for Education to continue educating teachers from 2024. However, two-thirds of providers, including some top universities, were told this month that they had failed the first round of the new accreditation process. The DfE said last week that just 80 providers, out of 216 who are understood to have applied, had made the cut.

Those currently out in the cold include some from the prestigious Russell Group. The University of Nottingham, a member of the elite group, said it was “very disappointed and perplexed” to have been failed only two months after Ofsted rated it as outstanding, with inspectors praising the “exceptional curriculum taught by experts”.

The head of one university that failed, who asked not to be named for fear of deterring applicants, said: “Our staff involved in teacher education, who are excellent, were devastated by not being successful. They find it hard to believe because of our track record.”

The DfE has said providers can reapply, but experts say some big universities are so outraged they may walk away from teacher training altogether, exacerbating fears about teacher shortages in many subjects. Cambridge University did not apply for the accreditation due to fears its curriculum would be compromised.

Mary Bousted, the general secretary of the National Education Union, said: “This was the brainchild of [former schools minister] Nick Gibb, who was obsessed with the idea that university departments of teacher education were hotbeds of leftwing intellectualism. I told him I didn’t know how to convey my frustration that he was coming out with this rubbish.”

Prof Spendlove said no university should celebrate its success in the first round, arguing that the next stage of the accreditation process, which focuses on the curriculum, means losing autonomy over what is taught. “It involves increased scrutiny of the content of courses and a review of curriculum materials, which is utterly bizarre,” he said. “The DfE is hoping people will be so desperate to pass they will just roll over and accept it.”

This idea is worrying to many universities. Cambridge, which had more than 250 teaching entrants this year and is rated outstanding by Ofsted, said its decision not to apply was because of concerns about the government’s “highly prescribed curriculum” and its model of mentoring, both of which it said “do not look at all like what we do”.

A report by the National Foundation for Educational Research in March said that a large range of secondary subjects would not meet teacher recruitment targets in 2022. These include shortage subjects such as physics, maths, chemistry and computing, but also those that typically recruit well such as English, biology and geography.

Prof Chris Husbands, the vice-chancellor of Sheffield Hallam University, whose initial teacher training provision passed the first round of accreditation, said: “I think this is indeed intended to drive some providers out of the market. But the risk the government runs is driving out some of the people they should be aiming to keep.”

He said universities were committed to teacher training “but not at any cost”. “Large organisations always have choices,” he said. “I don’t really understand why the government is picking this fight. The evidence from Ofsted inspections shows the sector is in pretty good shape. This doesn’t make any sense to me.”

He said: “It’s extraordinary. Getting an outstanding from Ofsted on ITT [initial teacher training] is pretty impressive.” He said the Nottingham course was good for helping students to understand the environment they would be teaching in. “I really don’t understand why the DfE is doing this.”

Source: The Guardian

Powered by NewsAPI.org