Government lacks a “coherent plan” to boost recruitment, hasn’t clearly explained how its 6,500 teacher target was calculated and should assess how effective pay rises are at retaining staff, MPs have said.
The findings have been laid out in a report by the Public Accounts Committee, published today, that follows on from the National Audit Office’s study into teacher supply earlier this year.
Committee member Sarah Olney said: “The shortfalls laid out in our report show how urgent it is that DfE lay out the detail behind its pledge for 6,500 more teachers.
“If the recommendations in our report are followed, the government will have an explicit answer, based on its own analysis and evidence, on whether it is time to offer teachers more flexibility, and/or to pay them more.”
Here’s what you need to know…
1. Set out 6.5k teacher details and milestones
The report noted officials could not give the committee a “clear explanation” of how the governments 6,500-teacher pledge was calculated or how it will fill workforce gaps. Forecasts suggest up to 12,400 more teachers will be needed in colleges alone by 2028.
“There remains no information on the baseline against which the pledge will be measured, how it will be split across schools and colleges, or the milestones… to be met for the department to be on track to deliver by the end of this Parliament,” it added.
The committee said the department should set out this information and outline how “it will stay focused on teacher retention alongside recruitment”.
Pepe Di’Iasio, of the Association of School and College Leaders, said the pledge “does not seem anything like enough to address future need and we would urge ministers to address actual teacher shortages rather than fixate on a figure which is largely meaningless”.
The government told Schools Week last week the pledge would be based on improving the net number of teachers, using the 2023-24 academic year as a baseline. This means not all teachers will be ‘new’, as promised, and they will not be focused on shortage subjects either.
2. ‘No coherent plan’
DfE has been told it “lacks a coherent plan, suitable targets, and sufficient evidence” showing its funding is focused “on what works best” to boost teacher numbers.
While it has evaluated “some” of its recruitment and retention initiatives, it has not undertaken a “full” review, despite “a recommendation by a previous Public Accounts Committee in 2016”.
Ministers have been urged to develop a “whole system strategy”, based on a “fuller evidence base”, which establishes “the preferred balance between recruitment and retention initiatives”.
3. College vacancies threaten Labour’s vision
It noted that further education teacher shortages impact “the type and extent of skills developed” by colleges. This “puts the achievement of the government’s missions for opportunity and growth at risk”.
Given this “urgent need”, the department has been told to “update the committee on its full recruitment and retention plans for the further education sector as soon as possible”.
Further updates should then be made “every six months until summer 2028 on its progress”.
4. Disadvantaged pupils ‘locked out’
Figures suggest schools with higher proportions of disadvantaged pupils have greater levels of staff turnover and fewer experienced teachers.
Thirty-four per cent of those in “most disadvantaged schools had less than five years of experience”, compared to 20 per cent in the most affluent. These secondaries are also more likely to suffer “shortages [of staff] in specific subjects”.
This means “disadvantaged students are at risk of being locked out of particular careers”, the committee argued. Tackling this issue is “critical to the government’s mission of breaking down barriers to opportunity”.
The committee recommended officials work with the sector “to understand the reasons behind variations, particularly within deprived areas and core subjects”. The findings should be published “to help identify and share good practice”.
5. DfE to improve MAT leave?
It was also found there “remains a lack of flexible working arrangements for teachers”. This is despite signals from the DfE of its “intention to raise… maternity and paternity leave” for the workforce, according to the committee.
Meanwhile, the department is “looking to learn from the health sector on creating clearer career pathways”.
The department should look “at changes to contractual and working conditions, such as flexible working, and at how teacher workload can be reduced”, the committee said.
On the latter, the report stated government “does not understand the root causes behind” high workload, even it’s recognised “as the top reason for teachers leaving”.
“We challenged the department on the extent to which poor pupil behaviour could negatively impact teachers’ mental health and wellbeing,” the committee continued.
“It should also collect data on the effectiveness of the newly announced behaviour hubs, rolling them out further if they prove to be successful.”
6. Do pay rises boost retention?
While officials evaluate “the relative value for money for some of [their] financial incentives”, they have “not assessed the extent to which increasing pay has a similar impact” on recruitment and retention.
The committee said government should do this, appraising the benefits of wage rises against other initiatives. This would inform decisions on “whether it needs to do more to ensure teachers are paid the right amount”.
National Association of Headteachers general secretary Paul Whiteman said there “there is no single silver bullet for addressing shortages of teachers”.
But “further real-terms pay rises over the course of the Parliament to restore the value of salaries to 2010 levels are crucial if ministers are serious about making a real difference”.
The report added the benefits associated with being on the teachers’ pensions scheme are a “hugely valuable yet easily under-sold perk of the job”.
Your thoughts