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

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)

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

• 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?

Subject Applications 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

Subject Applications 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%

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?

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?

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

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’

The allocations processLevel Stage

0 The number of places available to allocate

1 ‘Outstanding Provision

2 School Direct (Salaried)

3 School Direct (Tuition Fee)

4 Core allocations

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!

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?)

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?

Quality and allocationsOverall

effectivenessCapacity to

improveAllocations considerations

1 1 AY 2012/13 cohort levels guaranteed for AY 13/14 and AY 14/151 2

2 1 Allocations set at levels based on availability of places and application of agreed criteria, but no guarantee of places

2 22 33 2 A wish to reduce/remove places

and without improvement at next inspection, de-accreditation3 3

Any 4

Alternative grading to support analysis

Overall Effectiveness

Capacity to Improve Grade

1 1 A

1 2 B

2 1 C

2 2 D

2 3 E

3 2 F

3 3 G

Any 4 H

Allocations - SecondaryHEI PG

Core 8,858

SD 4,314

Total 13,172

HEI UG

Core 431

SCITT

Core 1,099

SD 1,637

Total 2,736

Core 10,388

School Direct

Salaried 2,099

Tuition Fee 3,852

Total 5,951

TOTAL 16.339

Allocations - PrimaryHEI PG

Core 10.692

SD 2,222

Total 12,914

HEI UG

Core 6,363

SCITT

Core 1,430

SD 1,113

Total 2,543

Core 18,485

School Direct

Salaried 1,397

Tuition Fee 1,938

Total 3,335

TOTAL 21,820

Allocations 2013/14 (%) (Thanks to John Howson for data)

Subject Salaried Tuition Fee Core

Drama 6 43 51

Biology 7 17 75

Classics 7 4 89

Media Studies 7 18 75

Music 8 17 74

Geography 10 24 66

Social Studies 11 18 70

PE 12 20 68

Psychology 12 15 73

Allocations 2013/14 (%)Subject Salaried Tuition Fee Core

Physics & Maths 1 3 96

Citizenship 2 8 90

Business Studies 4 18 78

Dance 4 20 76

D&T 4 16 80

Art & Design 5 19 76

Health and SC 5 27 68

RE 5 22 73

Comp Science 6 13 81

Allocations 2013/14 (%)Subject Salaried Tuition Fee Core

Applied Subjects & Engineering

12 10 78

MFL 13 23 64

History 15 26 59

Mathematics 18 24 57

Chemistry 19 25 56

English 21 33 46

Physics 21 29 50

Combined science 31 69 0

Primary 9 12 79

Providers and Quality Grades (2012)Type of Provider A B C D E F G HSec HEI 27 3 8 23

Prim’yHEI

22 1 5 15 1

Prim’y SCITT

13 16 1 1

Sec SCITT

7 1 2 14 4 1

Non HE EBITT

8 2 7 35 1 3

HEI EBITT

5 3 10 1

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%

HEI Grade A Providers and 2013 core allocation against 2012 allocation - English

22-22 44-44 43-43 120-120 18-18 25-25

55-57 25-25 30-30 20-20 26-20 14-14

36-36 28-22 37-37 29-30 40-40 28-25

11-11 25-25 12-12 25-25 20-21

HEI Grade B Providers and 2013 core allocation against 2012 allocation - English

26-22 30-31

0-10 21-23

HEI Grade C Providers and 2013 core allocation against 2012 allocation - English

25-0 13-0 16-0

13-0 22-0 26-0

HEI Grade D Providers and 2013 core allocation against 2012 allocation - English

6-0 7-0 20-0 23-0 16-0

12-0 17-0 10-0 17-0 9-0

7-0 27-0 13-0 14-0 36-0

14-0 8-0 13-0 23-0 14-0

12-0

SCITT Providers and 2013 core allocation against 2012 allocation - English

Grade A Grade C

5-5 0-6

10-10

12-12

SCITT Providers and 2013 core allocation against 2012 allocation – English (Grade D)

5-0 10-0 4-0

4-0 7-0 4-0

6-0 4-0 6-0

HEI Providers – English: Allocation realities (Grade A)

2012/13allocation

13/14 core 13/14 SDS 13/14 SD 13/14 Total

22 22 0 0 22

0 0 0 8 8

44 44 41 35 120

43 43 3 8 54

120 120 12 29 161

18 18 3 3 24

25 25 0 7 32

55 57 2 20 79

25 25 7 14 46

0 0 5 4 9

0 0 0 2 2

HEI Providers – English: Allocation realities (Grade A)

2012/13allocation

13/14 core 13/14 SDS 13/14 SD 13/14 Total

0 0 0 1 1

30 30 0 3 33

20 20 9 12 41

26 20 0 0 20

14 14 14 16 44

36 36 0 3 39

28 22 2 5 29

37 37 1 4 42

29 30 0 6 36

40 40 7 17 64

28 25 0 4 29

HEI Providers – English: Allocation realities (Grade A)

2012/13allocation

13/14 core 13/14 SDS 13/14 SD 13/14 Total

11 11 3 0 14

25 25 0 3 28

12 16 6 6 28

25 25 2 4 31

20 21 0 8 29

HEI Providers – English: Allocation realitiesQuality Grade

2012/13allocation

13/14 core 13/14 SDS 13/14 SD 13/14 Total

D 6 0 0 3 3

D 7 0 4 11 15

D 0 0 3 9 12

D 20 0 0 0 0

D 23 0 3 2 5

C 25 0 2 9 11

D 0 0 1 2 3

D 13 0 1 13 14

D 0 0 2 7 9

D 16 0 0 0 0

D 12 0 6 9 15

HEI Providers – English: Allocation realitiesQuality Grade

2012/13allocation

13/14 core 13/14 SDS 13/14 SD 13/14 Total

D 17 0 15 13 28

D 10 0 2 12 14

D 17 0 3 1 4

C 16 0 9 32 41

D 9 0 1 4 5

B 26 22 0 1 23

D 7 0 0 20 20

B 30 31 0 0 31

D 0 0 1 3 4

C 0 0 2 17 19

D 27 0 3 35 38

HEI Providers – English: Allocation realities

Quality Grade

2012/13allocation

13/14 core 13/14 SDS 13/14 SD 13/14 Total

No grade (had GTP)

0 0 2 7 9

D 13 0 2 2 4

C 0 0 1 0 1

D 14 0 13 2 15

D 0 10 0 4 14

D 36 0 0 10 10

C 22 0 0 3 3

D 14 0 0 12 12

No grade - GTP

0 0 9 4 13

d 8 0 0 8 8

b 21 23 0 0 23

HEI Providers – English: Allocation realitiesQuality Grade

2012/13allocation

13/14 core 13/14 SDS 13/14 SD 13/14 Total

D 13 0 9 9 18

D 14 0 13 11 24

D 12 0 5 1 19

C 26 0 20 17 37

B 0 0 0 4 4

SCITT Providers – English: Allocation realities (a sample)

Quality Grade

2012/13allocation

13/14 core 13/14 SDS 13/14 SD 13/14 Total

G 0 0 0 1 1

A 5 5 3 6 14

D 5 0 4 7 11

C 0 6 1 3 10

D 7 0 6 12 18

B 0 0 0 15 15

D 6 0 0 0 0

HEI Grade A Providers and 2013 core allocation against 2012 allocation - MFL

29-29 20-20 31-31 20-19 40-40 18-15

66-66 30-30 23-23 25-25 41-41 24-24

17-17 23-23 29-29 32-32 14-14 34-34

20-19 10-10 17-18 17-14 30-25 17-17

38-38 40-40 28-28

HEI Providers and 2013 core allocation against 2012 allocation - MFL

B 15-11

C 25-717-7

23-721-6

15-518-5

12-3 15-4

D 38-1518-523-735-10

19-711-313-420-6

19-86-250-1819-6

15-327-822-6

27-921-620-6

G 9-3

HEI Providers – MFL: Allocation realities (A sample)

Quality Grade

2012/13allocation

13/14 core 13/14 SDS 13/14 SD 13/14 Total

A 20 20 0 0 20

A 31 31 15 20 66

A 66 66 12 14 92

C 15 5 3 14 22

D 0 0 0 3 3

D 20 6 5 10 21

D 27 9 0 0 9

A 0 0 1 1 2

D 21 6 12 4 22

C 15 4 0 0 4

D 0 0 0 4 4

Computer Science – where the Quality Rating does not matter!

Quality Grade

2012/13 ICT Allocation

2013/14 Comp Sc

Core Allocation

SDS SD 2013/14 Total

G 5 10 - 1 11

A 15 15 - - 15

D - - - 1 1

D 10 - - 13 13

D 12 20 - - 20

A 20 20 3 3 26

A 51 25 - 5 30

NO GRADE - - - 1 1

A 22 25 2 5 32

C 13 15 - 3 18

A 23 25 - - 25

Quality Grade

2012/13 ICT Allocation

2013/14 Comp Sc

Core Allocation

SDS SD 2013/14 Total

A 23 10 - 2 12

A 33 25 - - 25

A - 20 - - 20

D 21 25 - 3 28

D 15 22 2 8 34

D 12 25 - 6 31

D - 14 - - 14

A - 10 2 1 13

C 27 25 - 3 28

A 14 8 - - 8

A 14 10 - 2 12

A 13 16 - - 16

D 7 10 - 1 11

A 26 20 3 3 26

Quality Grade 2012/13 ICT Allocation

2013/14 Comp Sc Core

Allocation

SDS SD 2013/14 Total

C - 24 1 1 26

A - 0 1 1 2

D 16 15 1 5 21

No grade (has GTP)

- - 1 0 1

D 18 25 2 2 29

C 21 15 - - 15

D - - - 1 1

D 16 18 - - 18

A - 15 - - 15

D 13 15 2 4 21

D 16 20 3 3 26

A 29 25 - - 25

D - 15 - 1 16

A - - - 2 2

A 20 15 2 - 17

A - 20 - 1 21

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

Subject 10 or fewer trainees

More than 10 trainees

Art & Design 6 10Science 11 53D&T 5 21Drama 6 4English 1 26Geography 1 19History 2 19Computer Science

7 27

Subject 10 or fewer trainees

More than 10 trainees

Mathematics 17 48MFL 21 29Music 11 8PE 8 19Physics with Chemistry

25 4

RE 14 13Business Studies 7 4Citizenship 3 5

Engagement with SD – protectionism or expansionism?Sec QG P SD S SD Sec QG P SD S SD Sec QG P SD S SD

A 10 0 A 9 69 A 3 14

A 17 33 A 6 13 A 9 68

A 87 223 A 0 11 A 10 13

A 54 82 A 45 181 A - 28

A - 23 A - 14 A 5 15

A 52 47 A - 3 A 6 30

A - 7 A 4 16 A 15 56

A 15 132 A 8 35 A 38 74

A 28 2 A - 4 A - 26

Engagement with SD – protectionism or expansionism?Sec QG P SD S SD Sec QG P SD S SD Sec QG P SD S SD

A - 0 B 37 12 C 20 21

A 4 5 C 14 99

A 4 19 C 25 60

A 28 31 C 10 95 D 33 54

A 1 26 C 3 0 D 25 55

A - 34 C 36 176 D 0 0

C 69 113 D 20 25

B 14 15 C 56 1 D 6 6

B 7 50 C 44 1 D 13 5

Engagement with SD – protectionism or expansionism?Sec QG P SD S SD Sec QG P SD S SD Sec QG P SD S SD

D 29 49 D 28 30 D - -

D 0 0 D 16 19

D 7 65 D 4 9

D 26 74 D 16 41 G 4 15

D 28 67 D 17 37

D 10 3 D 21 88

D 33 19 D - 10

D - 75 D 3 41

D 92 180 D 3 64

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

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

Keele University – 2013 allocations (2012 figures are virements and trading)

Subject 12/13 all’ion

13/14 Core SDS SD 13/14 Tot

Primary 30 30 2 25 57

Biology 14 7 4 11

Chemistry 22 7 5 12

Geology 6 0 0?

Comb Sci - - 2 6 8

English 25 0 3 8 11

Geography 18 0 3 3

History 17 0 5 5

ICT/Comp Sci 13 15 3 18

Mathematics 26 12 3 10 25

MFL 18 5 10 15

Physics 20 10 5 15

Other (Soc Sci) - - 1 1

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

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?