The government has scrapped an “excessive” requirement that mentors of trainee teachers undertake 20-hours of training with “immediate effect”, just two months after it was introduced.
The government will also launch a new re-accreditation round for initial teacher training providers in spring next year to “ensure ongoing coverage and efficient delivery”.
The 2024-25 initial teacher training criteria currently states that providers should provide a minimum of 20 hours of initial general mentor training and six hours of annual refresher training.
It also states that ITT providers should take into consideration relevant prior learning that a mentor has completed, which may reduce the total number of training hours they would need to complete.
‘We have removed the 20-hour mentor training’
But in an DfE update sent out today, seen by Schools Week, the department said: “Having listened to feedback from ITT providers and schools, we recognise that further flexibilities regarding the quantification of the initial mentor training times would be beneficial, particularly for mentors supporting trainees in second school placements.
“Therefore, we have removed the 20-hour general mentor training and the 6-hour refresher training minimum time requirements, with immediate effect.
“While there is no longer a minimum training time requirement, accredited ITT providers should ensure that all mentors receive sufficient high-quality training to ensure they can effectively support a trainee teacher to obtain the knowledge and skills they need to successfully complete their ITT school placement.”
It added that: “This change is effective immediately and we will update the ITT criteria and other relevant guidance shortly to reflect these changes. Schools will still be able to claim up to 20 hours of funding per mentor for this academic year.”
Policy was causing a recruitment ‘nightmare’
It comes after Schools Week reported that the ASCL school leaders’ union has urged ministers to review the policy and work with schools on a “more deliverable expectation”, after schools warned they were turning away trainees and struggling to cover mentors’ time.
Sara Tanton, ASCL’s deputy policy director, previously said the requirement was “a concern for school leaders”. It is “unrealistic to expect schools to be able to commit existing staff – who are already thinly stretched – to such a large time commitment”.
The requirement also posed “a significant problem” to the new government in achieving its target of 6,500 new teachers as schools were unlikely to be able to offer those placements, she added.
In September, leaders told Schools Week the “excessive” teacher training mentor requirements were causing a recruitment “nightmare” for schools.
Emma Hollis, National Association of School-Based Teacher Trainers chief executive, said members have consistently reported the training requirement has been “difficult to administer with limited capacity in schools, particularly for second school placements”.
NASBTT hopes these “concessions will offer ITT providers some additional flexibility to support them in delivering their programmes whilst supporting placement schools whose capacity may be limited,” Hollis added.
James Noble-Rogers, executive director of the Universities Council for the Education, said the change recognises that “input measures such as the exact number of hours of training that mentors receive are less important than the quality and relevance of that training”.
Another reaccreditation round also on the cards
Government had previously said it would run another reaccreditation round.
Providers have been told that will open in the spring term of 2025, with those approved able to deliver training from September 2026 or 2027.
The DfE has also announced it is inviting expressions of interest from eligible providers until November 28.
But only providers that were previously accredited, are a lead partner currently and have now received two consecutive ‘requires improvement’ or ‘inadequate’ ratings will be eligible to apply.
“In reality, accreditation will only impact a limited number of providers who qualify, and not all of those will chose to apply,” Hollis added.
“However, NASBTT is committed to guiding providers through the accreditation window through our resources and network sessions.”
Big typo in this article (as of 21:20 on 13/11) re those that can apply for accreditation – should read NOT received two consecutive RI or inadequate ratings. Not, NOW have received…
“have now received two consecutive ‘requires improvement’ or ‘inadequate’ ratings” – should be “have not”