“Fewer than half” of teacher training providers make it through first round of government’s re-accreditation process

The government is facing a huge new controversy over its already contentious reforms of initial teacher education, as Education Uncovered understands that fewer than half of providers applying for re-accreditation under the initiative have been successful in its first round.

A total 80 providers have made it through in what is the first of two possible opportunities this year to be approved by the government to continue operating in the sector, the DfE said today, low down in a low-key announcement in next steps in the process.

Although precise numbers who applied are difficult to come by, and did not appear to be being released today, I was told last month that around 220 providers were thought to have applied.

A pass rate of only around 40 per cent, then, would appear to pose huge questions about the future of teacher supply. Providers were given two chances to be re-accredited this year, with the second round having a closing date of June 27^th. One high-profile provider, the University of Cambridge, chose not to apply in the first round – leaving open the option of doing so in the second, but having not committed to do so – though most did apply.

Last month, this website revealed how some providers had been asked by the DfE to reconsider their answer to a particular question – a sign perhaps of some DfE nervousness about possible low pass rates. Some encountered problems as the government saw it answering this question, with the DfE wanting providers to offer more detail on the interaction between their student teacher curricula and the curriculum for those who would mentor trainees in schools.

But there are indications that providers have faced other problems with the paperwork. Some had not addressed “all parts of the question” within the government’s questionnaires, I understand, while “making assertions not supported by evidence*” and not providing sufficient detail on what they were planning were also among the criticisms.  

Providers have to gain re-accreditation in one of these two rounds if they want to start recruiting students from September next year, with the first courses starting under the reformed system in 2024.

The Universities Council for the Education of Teachers (UCET) has put out the following statement: “UCET is surprised that the process has not apparently allowed for the large majority of providers to secure re-accreditation from the DfE for their ITT [initial teacher training] programmes.

“The accreditation process has, in our view, been a costly, unnecessary, disruptive and time-consuming process that has yielded no benefits and has served only as an unnecessary distraction for our members who continue to face a crisis in teacher recruitment and, at the same time, deal with the ongoing effects on initial teacher education of the Covid-19 pandemic.

“We will, as an organisation, continue to support all our members wishing to apply (or re-apply) for re-accreditation at stage 2.”

The DfE's announcement today appeared to be trying to leave some room for those not going through the re-accreditation system still to be involved in teacher education in the future, while also seemingly trying to reduce the bureaucratic burden for those who wanted to re-apply in round two. 

It said: "Applicants who were not accredited in round 1 have been given feedback to help them understand the areas they need to address. Applicants who reapply in round 2 will only need to respond to questions where they were below the required standard in round 1. Applicants who do not wish to re-apply are encouraged to partner with newly accredited providers ready to deliver ITT from 2024."

Emma Hollis, Executive Director of NASBTT (the National Association of School-Based Teacher Trainers), put out a statement suggesting that the DfE was going to have to allow more providers to make it through round 2.

She said: “Whilst we are obviously disappointed by the headline figure that only 80 providers have been successful in Round 1, it is important to stress that we are only part-way through the process and as such no provider has been counted out.

“Providers who have not yet been accredited are able to re-apply in Round 2 (which opens on May 23^rd, deadline 27^th June) and, importantly, have been given feedback from DfE which will support their resubmission. They will only have to submit responses to the question or questions they did not pass, so can invest time over the next two months [6 weeks, ed?] developing their applications in the specified areas.

“Needless to say, we are committed to supporting all NASBTT members through the accreditation process, and would encourage all providers who have not yet been accredited to continue with their applications into Round 2…

“We remain confident, based on assurances that we have been given from DfE (who we are in constant dialogue with), that there is no pattern or preference emerging in the accreditation process for size and scale of provider – a fear expressed by many.

“We are also confident that the government at large will want to avoid a potentially catastrophic risk to the teacher supply chain – and quality and availability of provision – which would come from losing significant numbers of providers from the market and further undermining teacher supply at a time when ITT applications are back to, or indeed below, pre-pandemic levels.”

*Providers could be excused a feeling of bitter irony here, perhaps, given that it was the DfE - the DfE - making that criticism.