Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

ITE Allocations, OfSTED Quality Judgements and the Changing Landscape: School Led Allocations and the Growth of Super-Providers? Kevin Mattinson, Pro Vice-Chancellor.

Similar presentations


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:

1 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

2 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)

3 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

4 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?

5 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

6 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%

7 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?

8 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?

9 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

10 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

11 The allocations process LevelStage 0The number of places available to allocate 1Outstanding Provision 2School Direct (Salaried) 3School Direct (Tuition Fee) 4Core allocations

12 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!

13 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?)

14 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?

15 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

16 Alternative grading to support analysis Overall Effectiveness Capacity to ImproveGrade 11A 12B 21C 22D 23E 32F 33G Any 4H

17 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

18 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

19 Allocations 2013/14 (%) (Thanks to John Howson for data) SubjectSalariedTuition FeeCore Drama64351 Biology71775 Classics7489 Media Studies71875 Music81774 Geography102466 Social Studies111870 PE122068 Psychology121573

20 Allocations 2013/14 (%) SubjectSalariedTuition FeeCore Physics & Maths1396 Citizenship2890 Business Studies41878 Dance42076 D&T41680 Art & Design51976 Health and SC52768 RE52273 Comp Science61381

21 Allocations 2013/14 (%) SubjectSalariedTuition FeeCore Applied Subjects & Engineering 121078 MFL 1323 64 History152659 Mathematics182457 Chemistry192556 English213346 Physics212950 Combined science 31690 Primary91279

22 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

23 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%

24 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

25 HEI Grade B Providers and 2013 core allocation against 2012 allocation - English 26-2230-31 0-1021-23

26 HEI Grade C Providers and 2013 core allocation against 2012 allocation - English 25-013-016-0 13-022-026-0

27 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

28 SCITT Providers and 2013 core allocation against 2012 allocation - English Grade AGrade C 5-50-6 10-10 12-12

29 SCITT Providers and 2013 core allocation against 2012 allocation – English (Grade D) 5-010-04-0 7-04-0 6-04-06-0

30 HEI Providers – English: Allocation realities (Grade A) 2012/13 allocation 13/14 core13/14 SDS13/14 SD13/14 Total 22 00 00088 44 4135120 43 3854 120 1229161 18 3324 25 0732 555722079 25 71446 00549 00022

31 HEI Providers – English: Allocation realities (Grade A) 2012/13 allocation 13/14 core13/14 SDS13/14 SD13/14 Total 00011 30 0333 20 91241 262000 14 1644 36 0339 28222529 37 1442 29300636 40 71764 28250429

32 HEI Providers – English: Allocation realities (Grade A) 2012/13 allocation 13/14 core13/14 SDS13/14 SD13/14 Total 11 3014 25 0328 12166628 25 2431 20210829

33 HEI Providers – English: Allocation realities Quality Grade 2012/13 allocation 13/14 core13/14 SDS13/14 SD13/14 Total D60033 D7041115 D003912 D200000 D230325 C2502911 D00123 D1301 14 D00279 D160000 D1206915

34 HEI Providers – English: Allocation realities Quality Grade 2012/13 allocation 13/14 core13/14 SDS13/14 SD13/14 Total D170151328 D10021214 D170314 C16093241 D90145 B26220123 D70020 B303100 D00134 C0021719 D27033538

35 HEI Providers – English: Allocation realities Quality Grade 2012/13 allocation 13/14 core13/14 SDS13/14 SD13/14 Total No grade (had GTP) 00279 D130224 C00101 D14013215 D0100414 D360010 C220033 D140012 No grade - GTP 009413 d80088 b212300

36 HEI Providers – English: Allocation realities Quality Grade 2012/13 allocation 13/14 core13/14 SDS13/14 SD13/14 Total D1309918 D140131124 D1205119 C260201737 B00044

37 SCITT Providers – English: Allocation realities (a sample) Quality Grade 2012/13 allocation 13/14 core13/14 SDS13/14 SD13/14 Total G00011 A553614 D504711 C061310 D7061218 B00015 D60000

38 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

39 HEI Providers and 2013 core allocation against 2012 allocation - MFL B15-11 C25-7 17-7 23-7 21-6 15-5 18-5 12-315-4 D38-15 18-5 23-7 35-10 19-7 11-3 13-4 20-6 19-8 6-2 50-18 19-6 15-3 27-8 22-6 27-9 21-6 20-6 G9-3

40 HEI Providers – MFL: Allocation realities (A sample) Quality Grade 2012/13 allocation 13/14 core13/14 SDS13/14 SD13/14 Total A20 00 A31 152066 A 121492 C15531422 D00033 D20651021 D279009 A00112 D21612422 C154004 D00044

41 Computer Science – where the Quality Rating does not matter! Quality Grade 2012/13 ICT Allocation 2013/14 Comp Sc Core Allocation SDSSD2013/14 Total G510-111 A15 -- D---11 D10--13 D1220-- A 3326 A5125-530 NO GRADE---11 A22252532 C1315-318 A2325--

42 Quality Grade 2012/13 ICT Allocation 2013/14 Comp Sc Core Allocation SDSSD2013/14 Total A2310-212 A3325-- A-20-- D2125-328 D15222834 D1225-631 D-14-- A-102113 C2725-328 A148--8 A 10-212 A1316-- D710-111 A26203326

43 Quality Grade2012/13 ICT Allocation 2013/14 Comp Sc Core Allocation SDSSD2013/14 Total C-241126 A-0112 D16151521 No grade (has GTP) --101 D18252229 C2115-- D---11 D1618-- A-15-- D13152421 D16203326 A2925-- D-15-116 A---22 A20152-17 A-20-121

44 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

45 Subject10 or fewer trainees More than 10 trainees Art & Design610 Science1153 D&T521 Drama64 English126 Geography119 History219 Computer Science 727

46 Subject10 or fewer trainees More than 10 trainees Mathematics1748 MFL2129 Music118 PE819 Physics with Chemistry 254 RE1413 Business Studies74 Citizenship35

47 Engagement with SD – protectionism or expansionism? Sec QGP SDS SDSec QGP SDS SDSec QGP SDS SD A100A969A314 A1733A613A968 A87223A011A1013 A5482A45181A-28 A-23A-14A515 A5247A-3A630 A-7A416A1556 A15132A835A3874 A282A-4A-26

48 Engagement with SD – protectionism or expansionism? Sec QGP SDS SDSec QGP SDS SDSec QGP SDS SD A-0B3712C2021 A45C1499 A419C2560 A2831C1095D3354 A126C30D2555 A-34C36176D00 C69113D2025 B1415C561D66 B750C441D135

49 Engagement with SD – protectionism or expansionism? Sec QGP SDS SDSec QGP SDS SDSec QGP SDS SD D2949D2830D-- D00D1619 D765D49 D2674D1641G415 D2867D1737 D103D2188 D3319D-10 D-75D341 D92180D364

50 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

51 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

52 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

53 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

54 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?


Download ppt "ITE Allocations, OfSTED Quality Judgements and the Changing Landscape: School Led Allocations and the Growth of Super-Providers? Kevin Mattinson, Pro Vice-Chancellor."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google