TTA NATIONAL PARTNERSHIP PROJECT PHASE ll

1. TTA NATIONAL PARTNERSHIP PROJECT PHASE ll Yorkshire and Humber Regional Steering Group ITT Capacity in Rural and Distant Areas

2. Geographically Isolated Schools • Working definition • any school over 40 miles from an ITT provider • any school over 40 miles from an ITT provider offering a specific subject • Any school over 1 hour travelling time from the above providers

3. ITT Capacity in Rural and Distant Areas • This report focussed on the secondary phase and identifies: 1. factors relating to the recruitment and retention of GI secondary schools and the placement of trainees in these schools 2. providers’ requirements for additional secondary training placements in schools 3. the capacity for expansion of secondary ITT placements in these schools

4. 4. factors currently seen by schools and/or providers as limiting the expansion of secondary ITT placements 5. the perceived benefits of ITT placements in GI schools

5. Methodology • Four Local Education Authorities in the Yorkshire and Humber region were identified as having a significant number of geographically isolated schools • Questionnaires were sent to 69 schools. A representative sample was followed up by e-mail, letter and/or personal visit

6. Methodology • A sample of 60 secondary Initial Teacher Training providers was sent a similar questionnaire • Again a representative group of providers was followed up

7. Results • 36 completed questionnaires were returned by schools representing an overall response rate of 52% • There were regional variations with the highest response rate of the four LEAs being 64% and the lowest 33%

8. Results • The schools who did respond were a cross section of small to large secondary schools • Their involvement with ITT also varied considerably • Therefore the sample may be taken as providing a reasonable reflection of the attitudes and opinions of GI schools in the participating LEAs

9. Results • The overall response rate from providers was 57% • Once again these responses came from a wide variety of providers • Geographically 8 responses came from providers located in the Yorkshire and Humber region.

10. Results • We can consider that these responses provide a representative regional and national picture of ITT placement provision and the use of GI schools

11. Summary - Schools • Responses from schools showed they valued ITT placements • There were no ‘very negative’ views expressed on the impact of ITT • Geographically Isolated schools saw ITT placements as a means of addressing their recruitment problems • Interestingly they saw this in terms of areas and LEAs rather than their own individual position.

12. Summary - Schools • Schools were also able to identify the positive impact ITT involvement had on: • continuing professional development • the quality of teaching in host departments and • the life of the whole school • ITT was thought to have a less positive impact on: • curriculum development • pupil behaviour • workload

13. Summary - Schools • Other benefits identified by schools included: • working with HE and provider colleagues • keeping in touch with research new ideas and pedagogical developments • helping teachers to analyse and reflect on pedagogy, teaching and learning • CPD for individuals, departments and across the whole school

14. Summary - Schools • Between 4 – 9 trainees was seen as the optimum number in any one placement • This figure masked some important individual returns with a significant number of larger schools willing to accept only relatively small numbers of trainees • This was particularly the case in North Lincolnshire where 7 schools ranging in size from 680 to 1000 pupils considered 2 or 4 the maximum number in any one year

15. Summary - Schools • Of the 35 schools who responded 19 did not want any increase in trainee numbers • Reasons given included • the impact on pupils’ experience • additional workload • the impact of training and developing GTP trainees and NQTs • difficulties in recruiting staff led to greater use of supply staff and less stable departments these were then seen as unsuitable training placements

16. Summary - Schools • Most GI schools were keen to increase their intake of trainees in specific subjects • The most popular subjects were: • art and design • design technology • geography • history • PE

17. Summary - Schools • In many cases there were clear links to subjects identified by regional providers as needing additional placements, see: • mathematics • languages • science

18. Demand for placements

19. Summary - Providers • Providers ranged in size from two courses with under 50 trainees to six with over 500 and one with 950 • The training capacity of these providers totalled over 10.000 places • The most popular route by far, both in numbers of providers – 28 or 82% and in numbers of trainees – over 8300, was the traditional PGCE

20. Summary - Providers • However 73% of Providers offered training through either the Graduate Teacher Programme or Flexible PGCE routes or a combination of both • GTP was slightly more popular at 41% with three providers offering over 60 GTP training places • 91% of responding providers had been involved in Initial Teacher Training pre 1999

21. Summary - Providers • Many providers identified lack of capacity in their existing partnership schools as a factor in limiting the expansionof trainee numbers • All providers could identify a shortage of placements at least one subject area

22. Summary - Providers • Partnerships ranged in size from under 40 to over 300 schools • Larger partnerships, over 100 schools, were most common – 44% • GI schools were in partnership with 79% of responding Providers

23. Summary - Providers • Overwhelmingly GI placements were arranged only when trainees lived at a distance from providers or where pressure on local placements was too great • 85% of providers indicated they had no explicit plan or project in place designed to recruit and/or work with GI schools.

24. Summary - Providers • However, one provider had forged links with groups of distant schools • the pivotal role played by LEAs in initiating contacts in this instance should be noted. • Only two other providers worked with GI schools as deliberate planned policy

25. Summary - Providers • Many providers made special arrangements for their trainees who had to be placed in GI schools. Including: • arranging accommodation 35%, • additional expenses 50% • making special travel arrangements 21%

26. Summary - Providers • In almost all cases funding to support partnerships with GI schools, including any special arrangements for training and trainee support, came from existing ITT funding • Only three providers drew additional funding from other budgets

27. Summary - Providers • Of those providers working with GI schools 88% would wish to continue the partnership • Of the 12% who did not want to maintain such partnerships: • one provider was contracting secondary training • another had lost the tutor who instigated and maintained the links with their GI schools

28. Summary - Providers • Providers working with GI schools often cited the following as benefits of partnership: • greater motivation and quality of training • greater motivation and involvement of senior school colleagues • positive impact on recruitment.

29. Summary - Providers • However, most providers felt that barriers to developing placements in GI schools included: • the additional workload for administrative and academic staff • trainees’ unwillingness to be placed in a GI school as a further deterrent • problems training school-based staff

30. Summary - Providers • These views have to be contrasted with experience of those few providers who do place significant numbers of trainees in GI schools where these issues are not seen as a major barrier. • One trainee interviewed had opted to take up both her placements in GI schools and saw this as a positive opportunity

31. Conclusion • Providers need additional good quality school placements • The barriers to working with GI schools can be perceived rather than actual • GI schools want to be involved in ITT • Trainees can welcome the opportunity to train in GI schools • Many underestimate their ability to train larger numbers of trainees

32. Conclusion • The revised standards for QTS offer new opportunities in partnership • Existing methods of recruiting GI schools are not always economic or effective • GI schools would welcome more stable partnerships • LEAs can be instrumental in bringing together GI schools and Providers