ITT Market Review

Aug 12, 2021

Colleagues may be aware that in July 2021, the Department for Education released a national consultation concerning the reform Initial Teacher Training with a deadline of feedback by 22nd August 2021.

  • The ITT Market Review Report can be accessed here.
  • The ITT Market Review Consultation document is here.

Generate Teaching Hub will submit a detailed return over the summer. Many points in the review are welcome, but at this stage in the process some details are concerning, i.e. the speed of the proposed changes will have a destabilising effect on the teacher training market over the Autumn and Spring terms of 2021/22 and a nationally, untested reaccreditation roll out could remove high quality but low volume providers from the marketplace. Several proposals will also increase the demands made on school time, potentially from September 2023, and we do not want to add pressure to our school partners.

Completing the full consultation may not be possible for all school leaders over the holidays but we have been urged to ask as many schools as possible to reply to the DfE’s call.

The DfE have stated that independent views with specific comments can be sent by email instead of completing the full 31 questions to: 

To assist any reply we have highlighted some key points below. The main issue being to recommend slowing down any proposed changes to the structures and the entirely new accreditation of ITT, asking the DfE to test their impact before rolling this out nationally.

Respondents may though have a different perspective and we would welcome leaders submitting their own response so a full range of views from the sector are heard.

From this consultation Ministers will be announcing the results of the reform (estimated November 2021) and a timetable of any changes thereafter.

For your reference, an extensive list of responses by many sector partners to the ITT Market Review can also be found here.

ITT Market Review Suggested Key Points of Response

We welcome the following, as it will improve national standards of Initial teacher Training:

a. A greater focus on incorporating the Core Content Framework into the ITT curriculum, more use of evidence based practice and greater reference to relevant research in the programmes provided for Teacher Trainees.

b. A need to continually improve the placement experience and make closer links between the time in school placement to the training curriculum provided to the Trainee Teachers.

c. A more detailed assessment framework to support the measurement of progress by Teacher Trainees.

d. The recognition on the value of mentoring to Trainee Teachers and the need to support and value experienced teacher mentors.

e. Clearer guidance on placement experience requirements and standards in school.

We would urge the DfE to consider the following:

a. Instigating a nationwide re-accreditation process for all ITT providers is not necessary; raising standards does not require a complete new system of accreditation and can be done by the existing providers with the guidance of Ofsted.

b. Requiring all ITT providers and partners – including schools – to reform into new partnerships in the weeks between November 2021 and March 2022 to submit a completely revised plan for ITT under new guidance and regulations is too short and dangerous; it will impact upon the ITT supply chain.

c. Under the current timetable announcements of successful ITT providers from September 2023 will only be made in July 2022, barely weeks before the reopening of recruitment for 2023/24 but will also require every provider in the country to operate a dual system of delivering under one partnership and recruiting to another. This will confuse applicants and increase unnecessary administration.

d. Undertaking a pilot scheme of any proposed re-accreditation process before national implementation would be appropriate, to enable assessment of how it will impact the ITT supply chain and time for learning to ensure the national structures and processes are fit for purpose.

e. Increasing the weeks required for school placement from 24 to 28 will provide more opportunities for Trainees but also more resources to schools; this needs to be properly funded.

f. Requiring 4 weeks of intensive school placements within a Trainee’s year is a positive development but requiring these to be groups of Trainees in one school is not practical; this will be difficult for primary and SEN schools to accommodate and also unworkable for EYFS; it will also require more resources from schools and this needs assessing to understand the viability of the plan and costing to fully resources schools.

g. Identifying the capacity of schools – especially at different phases and specialisms – for operating within the extra demands of the reformed structures and the resources they will need to do so (e.g. to meet the 24 hours of mentor training per year and the 2 hours of weekly mentoring proposed) is essential; especially in light of increased commitments needed to manage the Early Career Framework from September 2021.

h. Raising training standards for mentors (e.g. through the NPQ Leading Teacher Development) is positive but how can schools be supported to resource the training staff in a way that recognises limited staff capacity in small schools but also staff turnover? Otherwise, schools could find themselves part of an ITT partnership that they cannot sustain, if a key staff member/s leave or gain promotion.

i. The review is not explicit on the quality of evidence it has investigated to determine the need for these national reforms, publishing the research conducted and the explicit evidence base for proposals (such as the group intensive placements) is required to enable the sector to understand the motivation for these changes.

Stay Up To Date

Privacy Policy