Recruitment: Tackling the future of initial teacher training and attracting new talent

Labour’s manifesto promised to recruit 6,500 new expert teachers, with £450 million earmarked for the pledge. In your opinion, how best could this money be spent to achieve this?

Today, as we know, the English state school system faces significant challenges, including teacher shortages, high attrition rates, and low morale. Addressing these issues requires innovative, collaborative, and long-term solutions. We recognise the challenging financial situation the government faces, but we also strongly believe that the previous government’s approach to the recruitment (and retention) crisis has exhausted the majority of ‘obvious’ policy levers, yet made no progress in solving the issues.

This government’s commitment to recruit 6,500 new expert teachers, and where these are coming from, is viewed with scepticism. However, we are clear we must work to a position to fully fund all teacher training programmes directly through government support. If teaching is important to society (as surely it must be), then why should we ask trainees to take on debt in order to be able to do it? Whilst we cannot perfectly model the cost of that, as it is a bold move and one that has never been done before, it would signal to the world that the government believes teaching to be so important that they will ‘put their money where their mouth is’ and fund it. In return, we might even raise the bar for entry to the profession to ensure world-class quality.

High numbers of early career teachers are quitting the profession. Why do you think this is? And what could the government and individual schools do to tackle this?

School workforce in England data published last June showed the teaching workforce grew by less than 300 teachers last year as record low numbers of newly-qualified staff entered the profession and numbers quitting continued to rise. The number of FTE teachers leaving for reasons other than retirement or death remains at a record high of 39,971 – a rate of 8.8%. Debate and discussion on ‘why’ this is happening has ranged from teacher pay, with private sector wages outstripping public sector wages, to the lack of flexibility compared to other graduate jobs, with solutions posed including offering a salary to all trainees and bursaries for all subjects not reaching their recruitment targets.

This goes beyond ECTs, but we see a need to revisit the Recruitment and Retention Strategy and co-design with the sector a new “Retention Strategy” (with a deliberate focus on retention and not recruitment here) to provide a clear strategic direction which all future policy should then fall out of in terms of what schools then do. Everything feels so disparate at the moment that without an overarching strategic steer on the direction of travel for the sector, there is a serious danger that policy continues to focus on individual problems in isolation from one another.
 
In your opinion, what improvements could be made to ITT programmes?

There is an opportunity to rethink teacher training and ECF models. For example, we might consider two-year funded teacher training models that include significant subject pedagogy to address shortage subjects. Develop subject- and phase-specific ECF programs that are flexible around individual needs. Train teachers of science holistically to GCSE level, while allowing specialisation at Key Stage 5.

Generally, however, I think we need some stability. ITT in England has undergone significant transformations (and turmoil) since 2000, and these changes have been driven by a combination of government policies, educational research, and the evolving needs of the education system. And it really is a lengthy list of developments – over 20 major initiatives during this time period – beginning with the launch of the Graduate Teacher Programme offering Employment Based Initial Teacher Training, and on to more recent developments such as the much-maligned ITT market review, which has drastically reshaped the sector, reducing the number of accredited ITT providers.

Has there been any other aspect of the education sector that has been tinkered with, and required to jump through so many different hoops, as ITT? Well, possibly, but ITT has got to be up there. Are we in a significantly better place as a result? Absolutely not.

What role do you think mentorship and induction programmes play in the retention of early career teachers, and what can schools do to make these programmes more effective?

In-school mentoring capacity is one of the greatest barriers to effective provision, and we have been calling for the introduction of a fully-funded Teacher Professional Development Lead, such as we see in every school in the role of SENDCO. Mentoring has always been a vitally important part of training teachers (both those new to the profession and those progressing through their careers) but recent policy changes have brought the centrality of this role into sharper focus. For example, schools need to have a highly skilled mentoring team to meet the ITT quality requirements and the ITTECF – and, in doing so, develop skilled teachers to boost pupil outcomes.

To help schools do this, a lead mentor role has been introduced with up to £25 million funding available to schools and providers to allow mentors time off timetable to access high-quality training. To achieve these ambitions, we advocate for the introduction of a Teacher Professional Development Lead (or similar title) to ensure that mentoring becomes an integral part of every school. They would take responsibility for upskilling the whole workforce on mentorship, just as a safeguarding lead upskills staff on their responsibilities under safeguarding regulations.

In the meantime, there is support there for schools, including through NASBTT’s Mentor Development Modules.

How can schools attract a more diverse group of individuals into the teaching profession, particularly in subjects facing high demand?

The last government believed that bursaries exert the strongest influence on teacher recruitment, particularly for high-priority subjects that might otherwise struggle to recruit enough teachers. New bursaries targeting a wider range of subjects will always be welcomed but we have noticed that schools that fall into opportunity areas are not always the places where we see teacher shortages so would argue they are not always targeted correctly and advocate for a more nuanced approach by subject and region.

However, going back to our bigger point, teacher training must be affordable (and ideally free) for everyone to inspire a diverse, equitable and inclusive workforce. There is also work to be done on tackling public perceptions about teaching and the work of a teacher, and the reality that teachers are having to ‘do more with ‘less’ and schools are being required to run at a deficit model all the time. In addition, although we know why people want to become teachers, we need to understand why young people are not considering or choosing a career in teaching – and use the evidence from that to inform action. This would be a major step forward. DfE should commission research into why undergraduates are not choosing teaching as a career option, rather than relying on research which focuses on those that do.

What measures do you think schools could implement to improve the work-life balance of early career teachers, ensuring long-term job satisfaction and retention in the profession?

Flexible working is, of course, one area of work being looked at across the sector, and with the DfE-funded Flexible Working in Multi-Academy Trusts and Schools (FWAMS) project team, NASBTT is seeking to inform, empower and support providers in implementing flexi-working approaches in ITT, as one layer.

However, to improve work-life balance and support job satisfaction and retention, there is a bigger discussion needed on the purpose of education. Primary school teachers often go into teaching with a motivation to develop young people holistically; and secondary school teachers are generally excited by the opportunity to deliver the subject they are passionate about – yet they end up number crunching and dealing with a host of other issues.

At the present time, due to the closure of wraparound services, schools are taking on ever wider roles, meaning that we are asking teachers to be social workers and mental health professionals alongside a whole other host of roles outside of teaching. This state of affairs is not going to attract people to, and keep people in, the profession. If, as a society, we expect schools to take on a broader role then a fundamental re-evaluation of the system needs to take place and schools will need to be funded and staffed differently.

About Emma Hollis 

Emma Hollis is CEO of the National Association of School-Based Teacher Trainers (NASBTT) which promotes high-quality schools-led programmes of training, education and professional development of teachers. Previously Head of ITT for a School-Centred ITT provider, then Head of Teaching School and subsequently Head of Education Strategy for a newly-formed MAT, Emma has worked closely with NASBTT since 2016 when she joined the Management Team. She took up the role of Executive Director in 2017, becoming CEO in 2024.

Emma will be speaking at the inaugural Education Business Live Conference & Exhibition, which is designed to support the efficient and successful running of education settings. Taking place on 19 March at Evolution London, the event will bring together education professionals with a passion for effective school leadership, management, learning and teaching.