Presentation on theme: "ITE Allocations, OfSTED Quality Judgements and the Changing Landscape: School Led Allocations and the Growth of Super-Providers? Kevin Mattinson, Pro Vice-Chancellor."— Presentation transcript:
ITE Allocations, OfSTED Quality Judgements and the Changing Landscape: School Led Allocations and the Growth of Super-Providers? Kevin Mattinson, Pro Vice-Chancellor & Head of Teacher Education, Keele University
Where were we? UCET White Paper and National Conferences + ITTE Conference 2011 - series of presentations that outlined: – Changing balance between HEI and other provision – Increasing issues of viability for subjects within HEIs: perception (real or not?) of challenge from TDA as to what was/is an appropriate minimum cohort – Extent to which quality assessment (OfSTED Grades) used to determine ITE allocations: evidence of inconsistencies/variabilities within and between different types of providers – Evidence that quality rating much les relevant in determining allocation adjustments for EBITTS (and, to a slightly lesser extent, SCITTS)
Outcomes and actions Support for, and encouragement of trading between ITE Providers Trading that did not take account of regional need in so far as initial allocations were determined by this Evidence of some virement from priority to non-priority by (in particular) EBITTS, despite the guidance/policy position
Challenges in the 2012 recruitment cycle What was supported and what was not in terms of virement? Different views on the market information! Implications for allocations for 2013 or is the information too current to inform decisions?
SubjectApplications 2012 compared to 2011 Acceptances 2012 compared to 2011 Mathematics -6.3%-4.0% English -17.7%-4.4% Biology -12.6%-3.0% Physics +22.0%+11.4% French +9.3%+5.9% D&T -38.7%-19.6% IT -41.7%-29.5% Business Sts -37.2%-35.0% History -4.3%-3.8% Data from GTTR, for England 29 October 2012
SubjectApplications 2012 compared to 2011 Acceptances 2012 compared to 2011 PE -11.5%+2.0% Art -16.6%+0.7% RE -22.8%+1.4% Chemistry -1.6%-17.0% Music -22.1%-5.0% Citizenship -36.4%-18.0% Primary 3 or 5- 11 -15.1%+4.8%
Implications and issues Changing nature of applicants to ensure higher conversion rate? Chemistry??? Uncertainties in the curriculum – ICT EBacc and distortion? Tuition fees not an issue?! How was market information being monitored to support and inform discussions with providers about trading/virement? Implications, if any, for allocations for 2013 and beyond?
Change for 2012/13 School Direct Initial intention of 500 places c. 900 places allocated c. maximum of 50 % of places recruited to Issues of recycling of numbers and the challenges of timing A political imperative the key determinant?
14 June 2012 Announcement by Secretary of State of a redefinition of the ITE Sector Emphasis towards school control of places Continued pursuit of higher quality candidates Increased recognition of high quality training provision in the accreditation of providers and in the allocation of places
Role of Teaching Agency? To ensure sufficient numbers of teachers – phase and subject – to meet demand To ensure that national and local teacher supply balances are maintained To promote Government priorities Subject specific specialisms Increasing school-led training To bring about an increased % of training in high quality providers
The allocations process LevelStage 0The number of places available to allocate 1Outstanding Provision 2School Direct (Salaried) 3School Direct (Tuition Fee) 4Core allocations
Allocations Priority to subject specialisms in Primary Mathematics Primary Specialist (nb questions raised about the process of being considered for these numbers We will look at geographical location (TA, Allocations methodology 2013/14 p7) Computer Science!
Allocations Outstanding providers guaranteed at least their existing allocation for 2013/14 and 2014/15 (subject to maintaining OfSTED grades) If all places given to SD and SDS so that none available for good and satisfactory providers, then so be it What if SD and SDS do not recruit? (over allocate to ensure that targets met?)
Issues As a provider, in making the request for numbers, do you reduce core or is this pre-empting decisions taken by the TA? Pressure to engage with SD and SDS inverse to quality rating? Allocations announcement made reference to two uncertainties » Whether SD and SDS would be able to recruit » DfE Teacher Supply model would be available in the new year (therefore, decisions being taken in advance of the necessary market information?
Quality and allocations Overall effectiveness Capacity to improve Allocations considerations 11 AY 2012/13 cohort levels guaranteed for AY 13/14 and AY 14/15 12 21 Allocations set at levels based on availability of places and application of agreed criteria, but no guarantee of places 22 23 32 A wish to reduce/remove places and without improvement at next inspection, de-accreditation 33 Any 4
Alternative grading to support analysis Overall Effectiveness Capacity to ImproveGrade 11A 12B 21C 22D 23E 32F 33G Any 4H
Allocations - Secondary HEI PG Core8,858 SD4,314 Total13,172 HEI UG Core431 SCITT Core1,099 SD1,637 Total2,736 Core10,388 School Direct Salaried2,099 Tuition Fee3,852 Total5,951 TOTAL16.339
Allocations - Primary HEI PG Core10.692 SD2,222 Total12,914 HEI UG Core6,363 SCITT Core1,430 SD1,113 Total2,543 Core18,485 School Direct Salaried1,397 Tuition Fee1,938 Total3,335 TOTAL21,820
Allocations 2013/14 (%) (Thanks to John Howson for data) SubjectSalariedTuition FeeCore Drama64351 Biology71775 Classics7489 Media Studies71875 Music81774 Geography102466 Social Studies111870 PE122068 Psychology121573
Allocations 2013/14 (%) SubjectSalariedTuition FeeCore Physics & Maths1396 Citizenship2890 Business Studies41878 Dance42076 D&T41680 Art & Design51976 Health and SC52768 RE52273 Comp Science61381
Providers and Quality Grades (2012) Type of Provider ABCDEFGH Sec HEI 273823 Primy HEI 2215151 Primy SCITT 131611 Sec SCITT 7121441 Non HE EBITT 8273513 HEI EBITT 53101
Impact on Providers (Thanks to Greg Wade, UUK, for data) University of Sheffield (-71%) University of Keele (-49%) NB excludes new primary allocation University of Newcastle (-39%) University of Bedfordshire (-38%) University of Leeds (-37%) University of east Anglia (-36%) University of Southampton (-30%) Liverpool JMU (-26%) University of Leicester (-24%) Goldsmiths (-23%) Oxford Brookes (-20%) University of Portsmouth (+14%) Anglia Ruskin (+12%) University of Worcester (+10%) University of Northampton (+6%) York St John (+6%) Roehampton (+5%) UWE (+4%) IoE (+3%) University of Bristol (+3%) University of Manchester (+3%
HEI Grade A Providers and 2013 core allocation against 2012 allocation - English 22-2244-4443-43120- 120 18-1825-25 55-5725-2530-3020-2026-2014-14 36-3628-2237-3729-3040-4028-25 11-1125-2512-1225-2520-21
HEI Grade B Providers and 2013 core allocation against 2012 allocation - English 26-2230-31 0-1021-23
HEI Grade C Providers and 2013 core allocation against 2012 allocation - English 25-013-016-0 13-022-026-0
HEI Grade D Providers and 2013 core allocation against 2012 allocation - English 6-07-020-023-016-0 12-017-010-017-09-0 7-027-013-014-036-0 14-08-013-023-014-0 12-0
SCITT Providers and 2013 core allocation against 2012 allocation - English Grade AGrade C 5-50-6 10-10 12-12
SCITT Providers and 2013 core allocation against 2012 allocation – English (Grade D) 5-010-04-0 7-04-0 6-04-06-0
HEI Grade A Providers and 2013 core allocation against 2012 allocation - MFL 29-2920-2031-3120-1940-4018-15 66-6630-3023-2325-2541-4124-24 17-1723-2329-2932-3214-1434-34 20-1910-1017-1817-1430-2517-17 38-3840-4028-28
Issues of sustainability and viability at Secondary level 2012 allocations process introduced the debate about cohort size – the challenge of external drivers in this Trading and virements – impact on institutional portfolios and impact on sustainable groups, regional supply and national market/allocations Loss of core – loss of provision or maintenance only through SD and SDS Reduced core – again, dependence on and SDS Schools and SD/SDS – impact on viability and strategic planning – Employment requirement/highly employable – linguistics to met the political imperative – Small numbers – serving a perceived employment need at a future point; lack of continuity and failure to develop capacity and capability – The aspirational schools – what and why? – The bottom line and institutional contribution in a new funding relationship/partnership
Subject10 or fewer trainees More than 10 trainees Art & Design610 Science1153 D&T521 Drama64 English126 Geography119 History219 Computer Science 727
Subject10 or fewer trainees More than 10 trainees Mathematics1748 MFL2129 Music118 PE819 Physics with Chemistry 254 RE1413 Business Studies74 Citizenship35
School Direct and Institutional Risk Taking – an entrée to the party or a terminal hangover? Risk One – Engagement with Primary Mathematics Specialist offer when no core allocation 5 Institutions named for SDS 6 Institutions named for SD Risk Two – To venture in to new subject areas when no experience of mainstream and/or GTP provision in the subject 9 Institutions named for SDS 12 Institutions named for SD
Keele University – the realities of allocation decisions 2 for Overall Effectiveness and 1 for Capacity in 2011 Inspection Awarded Primary places for 2012 – a collaborative approach with two other providers to provide a regional solution to a regional problem. A key provider of NQTs for the sub region (Stoke on Trent, Staffordshire and North Shropshire) Placements are, generally, not competitive with other ITE Providers in the West Midlands and in the North West
Keele University – 2013 allocations (2012 figures are virements and trading) Subject12/13 allion 13/14 CoreSDSSD13/14 Tot Primary30 22557 Biology147411 Chemistry227512 Geology600? Comb Sci--268 English2503811 Geography18033 History17055 ICT/Comp Sci1315318 Mathematics261231025 MFL1851015 Physics2010515 Other (Soc Sci)--11
Impact of allocations Little evidence that SD and SDS numbers have been distributed in the sub-region – numbers to the south and to the north Established partner schools will need to enter in to new ITE partnership should they wish to continue to work with trainee teachers Impact on recruitment from local students and career changers, in a time of higher fees (cf. work of John Howson) Impact on local school labour supply, on CDP/M Level work and on broader school development and improvement agenda
Some final thoughts Very conscious that this analysis has focused on Secondary. The capacity in Primary schools to consider stepping up is more limited and this offers (temporarily) a degree for development space/protection for HEIs) Broader allocation decisions and implications for Subject Knowledge Enhancement Course provision? A further challenge/threat to the intellectual underpinning of high quality ITE – teaching is much more than a craft! How to maintain or improve grades under the new Inspection Framework and the potential further volatility in provision as a consequence of this The potential loss of UDEs and the consequences for other educational policy priorities A/the move to super providers – (cf Michael Day, Director of the School of Education, Roehampton University, October 2012) –implications of this?