Education (School Teachers’ Qualifications and Induction Arrangements) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2022
(Limited Text - Ministerial Extracts only)
Read Full debate
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, the regulations must be seen against a backcloth of startling falls in the number of domestic teacher training recruits. In the last five years, 102,588 teachers have given up teaching before reaching their 40th birthday. One in eight maths teachers is not a trained mathematician. Some 400 schools will not have a trained A-level physics teacher.
We remember the Government’s initial teacher training accreditation programme, which saw 68 trainers lose their expertise and capacity to train. In some areas, it led to a reduction in the number of trainees who were going to gain an ITT place at a time when subjects were already struggling to recruit suitably qualified teachers. The effects will be felt in particular in the east and north-west of England.
With regard to overseas students, the current legislation allows teachers who qualified in some countries to be treated as qualified in England, while others are not, even if they have the equivalent skills and experiences. Under the new policy, a new professional recognition system will be introduced that will set consistent standards, so that the qualifications and experience of suitable, qualified teachers from all countries can be fairly assessed for overseas teaching status, the intention being to create a consistent and fair approach for applicants from any country. We support that—of course we do.
The Government argue that the changes will increase the number of overseas teachers obtaining teacher status. The Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has challenged that conclusion, stating:
“The data suggests that the policy will only increase the number of overseas teachers if compared to 2021-22, when overseas QTS approvals were unusually low—compared to other recent years, overseas recruitment is expected to fall”.
It said that inadequate information was provided and that the department omitted
“key information on the policy, how it was formulated and its implications for the teaching workforce … We asked for further details in several areas and the Department for Education (DfE) agreed to revise”
and delay the policy. The committee stated:
“In response to further questioning, and despite initially saying it could not provide the information, DfE has now published its projections about the effect of the policy on the number of overseas teachers being awarded QTS”.
The data suggests that the new policy will increase the number of overseas students only marginally.
I have some questions for the Minister. Why did the Department for Education significantly hinder our ability to scrutinise this amendment through its reluctance to provide information when requested? Why was the department reluctant to provide the information on which it relied to formulate the policy? When published, the data did not entirely support the department’s assertions. Surely it is a fundamental principle of transparency and accountability that any information relied on to formulate policy should be published alongside the instrument or, as a minimum, be made available to Parliament on request.
The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee fairly said:
“We applaud the overall intention to provide a fair and consistent application process for overseas teachers from all countries … We have, however, noted that domestic recruits to teacher training are falling sharply and DfE’s own projections suggest that overseas QTS recruits will be well below the levels of recent years … we are concerned about whether there is a holistic and coherent strategy to maintain the teaching workforce in England”.
I regret that class sizes are going up. I regret that teacher shortages are going up. I regret that we are having real problems with the retention of teachers. Mention has been made of the industrial action planned for next week and the difficulties in recruiting teachers because of salaries. Does the Minister agree that the best way to resolve this issue is to refer it to ACAS?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Baroness Barran) (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Twycross, for bringing forward a debate on this important issue; what a pleasure it is to stand across the Dispatch Box from her. I look forward to many more debates with her in future. I also thank the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for its role in considering these regulations, which are a part of my department’s efforts to ensure that there is an excellent teacher for every child.
Both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Storey, referred to the criticism from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee about the quality of, in particular, the initial Explanatory Memorandum prepared by the department. I absolutely acknowledge that the original version of the Explanatory Memorandum did not meet the committee’s needs. My officials responded promptly and in full to the committee’s queries and re-laid the Explanatory Memorandum when those issues were raised. We committed to publish our projections in response to the committee’s original request and were in the process of doing so when the committee wrote to my right honourable friend Nick Gibb, the Minister for School Standards, to request them—so I do not accept the assertion made by the noble Lord, Lord Storey, that the department hindered this. There was absolutely no intent to hinder.
Lord Storey (LD)
It is not my assertion; it is the assertion of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee.
Baroness Barran (Con)
Well, I would just like to put on record that, although the department absolutely regrets the quality of the initial Explanatory Memorandum, there was no intent to hinder.
I turn to the wider issues and the content of the statutory instrument. As your Lordships know, qualified teacher status is seen as a gold standard globally. When fully rolled out, these regulations will introduce a level playing field in the recognition of overseas professional teaching qualifications. They will replace a system where some teachers can have their qualifications recognised with ease while others who may be equally qualified cannot. We initially projected that up to 1,200 more overseas teachers could be awarded qualified teacher status through these changes, but it is already clear that this is likely to be a conservative estimate; I will talk more about that in a moment.
The noble Baroness, Lady Twycross, said that she regretted the impact that this could have on the teaching profession overseas. We are taking a more cautious approach to the rollout of our policy and will initially allow applications only from teachers who are qualified in mathematics, the sciences and languages in certain countries. Of course, we will monitor very closely the actual level of migration to teaching posts in England by teachers from newly eligible countries. We are in close contact with the regulators in those countries to monitor and discuss the impact of this.
Since we launched the Apply for QTS service on 1 February, we have seen a very high number of applications from many teachers able to apply for the first time. This has been driven by news coverage of the scheme overseas, some of which has been inaccurate and led to some misunderstanding of the scheme as offering candidates a job directly. Our initial review suggests that there will be a large number of candidates who do not meet the eligibility criteria, which rightly prioritises quality and subject need. But the significant level of interest from those who will meet the eligibility criteria is positive and shows that international recruitment can help boost teacher recruitment in shortage subjects. We will be able to provide a fuller picture of award numbers in the coming months, once applicants have gone through our assessment process. That will mean that the information we provide gives a true picture of the numbers of teachers who may apply for jobs in our schools.
Further, to attract the very best teachers from around the world we have also introduced an international relocation payment worth £10,000 to help overseas teachers and trainees in physics and languages to relocate to England, for the reasons that both noble Lords set out, and we have made bursaries worth up to £27,000 and scholarships worth up to £29,000 available to non-UK trainees in the same subjects.
The noble Baroness questioned whether we had a coherent and holistic plan for the teaching workforce in England, and I say that international candidates are just one element of our plan. In 2019, we launched the first ever integrated strategy both to recruit and retain more teachers; that has been developed alongside, and welcomed by, teachers, education unions and professional bodies. We have made good progress on this: we opened the National Institute of Teaching, published the department’s first ever Education Staff Wellbeing Charter, refreshed the content of teacher training, and introduced the early-career framework, with all the support that that offers to early-career teachers.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I do not think that it is for me to comment on the progress of the negotiations. The Secretary of State has been absolutely clear in the offer she made to the NEU to enter into intensive talks, and, as a department, we are very disappointed that it has not accepted that offer.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response and her kind words; I also look forward to many debates with her in future. It is positive that the SI will create a level playing field for qualified teacher status, and I am pleased that the DfE will monitor the impact. I hope that the data and analysis will be made available to the House, along with an evaluation of the success of the incentive scheme.
I note and agree with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Storey, about the lamentable number of teachers having to teach subjects they are not trained to teach, including the vital subjects of maths and physics. I share all the regrets he listed.
Despite the intention of the SI, I regret that I cannot agree that it will achieve exactly what the Minister describes. It is not sufficient simply that the number of teachers is high; there needs to be an adequate and sufficient number of qualified teachers to deliver a first-class education for our children. Unfortunately, I do not share her confidence that the SI will go far enough in resolving the issues identified. It is regrettable that we are in this position; however, on the basis that there is even the slightest possibility that this might improve the number of qualified teachers available to our young people, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.