TTA NATIONAL PARTNERSHIP
PROJECT PHASE ll
Yorkshire and Humber Regional
Steering Group
ITT Capacity in Rural and Distant Areas
Geographically Isolated Schools
• Working definition
– any school over 40 miles from an ITT
provider
– any school over 40 miles from an ITT
provider offering a specific subject
– Any school over 1 hour travelling time from
the above providers
ITT Capacity in Rural and Distant
Areas
• This report focussed on the secondary phase
and identifies:
1. factors relating to the recruitment and retention
of GI secondary schools and the placement of
trainees in these schools
2. providers’ requirements for additional
secondary training placements in schools
3. the capacity for expansion of secondary ITT
placements in these schools
4. factors currently seen by schools and/or
providers as limiting the expansion of secondary
ITT placements
5. the perceived benefits of ITT placements in GI
schools
Methodology
• Four Local Education Authorities in the
Yorkshire and Humber region were identified
as having a significant number of
geographically isolated schools
• Questionnaires were sent to 69 schools. A
representative sample was followed up by e-
mail, letter and/or personal visit
Methodology
• A sample of 60 secondary Initial Teacher
Training providers was sent a similar
questionnaire
• Again a representative group of providers
was followed up
Results
• 36 completed questionnaires were returned
by schools representing an overall response
rate of 52%
• There were regional variations with the
highest response rate of the four LEAs being
64% and the lowest 33%
Results
• The schools who did respond were a cross
section of small to large secondary schools
• Their involvement with ITT also varied
considerably
• Therefore the sample may be taken as
providing a reasonable reflection of the
attitudes and opinions of GI schools in the
participating LEAs
Results
• The overall response rate from providers was
57%
• Once again these responses came from a
wide variety of providers
• Geographically 8 responses came from
providers located in the Yorkshire and
Humber region.
Results
• We can consider that these responses
provide a representative regional and national
picture of ITT placement provision and the
use of GI schools
Summary - Schools
• Responses from schools showed they valued
ITT placements
• There were no ‘very negative’ views
expressed on the impact of ITT
• Geographically Isolated schools saw ITT
placements as a means of addressing their
recruitment problems
– Interestingly they saw this in terms of areas and
LEAs rather than their own individual position.
Summary - Schools
• Schools were also able to identify the positive
impact ITT involvement had on:
– continuing professional development
– the quality of teaching in host departments and
– the life of the whole school
• ITT was thought to have a less positive
impact on:
– curriculum development
– pupil behaviour
– workload
Summary - Schools
• Other benefits identified by schools included:
– working with HE and provider colleagues
– keeping in touch with research new ideas and
pedagogical developments
– helping teachers to analyse and reflect on
pedagogy, teaching and learning
– CPD for individuals, departments and across the
whole school
Summary - Schools
• Between 4 – 9 trainees was seen as the
optimum number in any one placement
• This figure masked some important individual
returns with a significant number of larger
schools willing to accept only relatively small
numbers of trainees
• This was particularly the case in North
Lincolnshire where 7 schools ranging in size
from 680 to 1000 pupils considered 2 or 4 the
maximum number in any one year
Summary - Schools
• Of the 35 schools who responded 19 did not
want any increase in trainee numbers
• Reasons given included
– the impact on pupils’ experience
– additional workload
– the impact of training and developing GTP
trainees and NQTs
– difficulties in recruiting staff led to greater use of
supply staff and less stable departments these
were then seen as unsuitable training placements
Summary - Schools
• Most GI schools were keen to increase their
intake of trainees in specific subjects
• The most popular subjects were:
– art and design
– design technology
– geography
– history
– PE
Summary - Schools
• In many cases there were clear links to
subjects identified by regional providers as
needing additional placements, see:
– mathematics
– languages
– science
Demand for placements
Placements wanted Schools Providers
Y&H National
Art and design 13
Business Studies 3 2 6
Citizenship 3 2 2
Classics 1
Design and Technology inc food 11 2 2
Drama 6
Economics 1
English 6 1 7
Geography 10 1
History 12 1 3
Information Technology 9 1 4
Mathematics 7 3 6
Modern Foreign Languages 5 3 10
Music 9
Physical Education 11 3
Religious Education 8
Science 6 5 14
Social Sciences Studies 2
Summary - Providers
• Providers ranged in size from two courses
with under 50 trainees to six with over 500
and one with 950
• The training capacity of these providers
totalled over 10.000 places
• The most popular route by far, both in
numbers of providers – 28 or 82% and in
numbers of trainees – over 8300, was the
traditional PGCE
Summary - Providers
• However 73% of Providers offered training
through either the Graduate Teacher
Programme or Flexible PGCE routes or a
combination of both
• GTP was slightly more popular at 41% with
three providers offering over 60 GTP training
places
• 91% of responding providers had been
involved in Initial Teacher Training pre 1999
Summary - Providers
• Many providers identified lack of capacity in
their existing partnership schools as a factor
in limiting the expansion of trainee numbers
• All providers could identify a shortage of
placements at least one subject area
Summary - Providers
• Partnerships ranged in size from under 40 to
over 300 schools
• Larger partnerships, over 100 schools, were
most common – 44%
• GI schools were in partnership with 79% of
responding Providers
Summary - Providers
• Overwhelmingly GI placements were
arranged only when trainees lived at a
distance from providers or where pressure on
local placements was too great
• 85% of providers indicated they had no
explicit plan or project in place designed to
recruit and/or work with GI schools.
Summary - Providers
• However, one provider had forged links with
groups of distant schools
• the pivotal role played by LEAs in initiating
contacts in this instance should be noted.
• Only two other providers worked with GI
schools as deliberate planned policy
Summary - Providers
• Many providers made special arrangements
for their trainees who had to be placed in GI
schools. Including:
– arranging accommodation 35%,
– additional expenses 50%
– making special travel arrangements 21%
Summary - Providers
• In almost all cases funding to support
partnerships with GI schools, including any
special arrangements for training and trainee
support, came from existing ITT funding
• Only three providers drew additional funding
from other budgets
Summary - Providers
• Of those providers working with GI schools
88% would wish to continue the partnership
• Of the 12% who did not want to maintain such
partnerships:
– one provider was contracting secondary training
– another had lost the tutor who instigated and
maintained the links with their GI schools
Summary - Providers
• Providers working with GI schools often cited
the following as benefits of partnership:
– greater motivation and quality of training
– greater motivation and involvement of senior
school colleagues
– positive impact on recruitment.
Summary - Providers
• However, most providers felt that barriers to
developing placements in GI schools
included:
– the additional workload for administrative and
academic staff
– trainees’ unwillingness to be placed in a GI school
as a further deterrent
– problems training school-based staff
Summary - Providers
• These views have to be contrasted with
experience of those few providers who do
place significant numbers of trainees in GI
schools where these issues are not seen as a
major barrier.
• One trainee interviewed had opted to take up
both her placements in GI schools and saw
this as a positive opportunity
Conclusion
• Providers need additional good quality school
placements
• The barriers to working with GI schools can
be perceived rather than actual
• GI schools want to be involved in ITT
• Trainees can welcome the opportunity to train
in GI schools
• Many underestimate their ability to train larger
numbers of trainees
Conclusion
• The revised standards for QTS offer new
opportunities in partnership
• Existing methods of recruiting GI schools are
not always economic or effective
• GI schools would welcome more stable
partnerships
• LEAs can be instrumental in bringing together
GI schools and Providers