Almost half of the initial teacher training (ITT) age phase partnerships have been rated less than “good” under Ofsted’s new framework since inspections began last year, based on the published reports so far.
However, the most recent batch of published reports shows a more positive picture for the sector with a clear majority of partnerships getting “good” judgements.
So far, 21 out of the 46 (46 per cent) age phases inspected by the watchdog have been graded below “good” since inspections began under the new Ofsted framework in May 2021.
ITT providers can receive more than one inspection judgement for different age phases of their teacher training.
Of the 35 providers that have been inspected under the current framework, 14 (40 per cent) had a less than “good” judgement for all or part of their provision.
Of the 21 inspection judgements that were less than “good”, 14 age phase partnerships received “requires improvement” grades and seven were judged as “inadequate”.
A further 23 were judged as “good” and two as “outstanding”.
Before inspections began under the new framework, all initial teacher training providers in the country had been judged to be “good” or “outstanding” by the watchdog at their most recent inspection.
The latest 10 published ITE inspection reports saw seven receive “good” grades, two receive “requires improvement” grades and one that was graded as “outstanding”.
The latest published reports are based on inspections that took place in January and February of this year.
This came amid a deadline for the first round of reaccreditation under the controversial government reforms of the sector.
ITT providers wanting to continue in the sector need to apply to the Department for Education for reaccreditation and the first of two deadlines for doing so was on 7 February.
While those inspected by Ofsted before the deadline were given an extension of up to 10 days, ITT providers have still raised concerns.
A senior leader at Durham SCITT, which was inspected in January of this year, told Tes that preparing for reaccreditation and Ofsted at the same time “was an absolute nightmare”.
Despite receiving a judgement of “good”, Michael Longstaff, who is the course director at the SCITT, said: “Ofsted [inspection] was one of the worst experiences we had ever had.”
Mr Longstaff said that the provider still had to finish the accreditation bid after the Ofsted inspection, leaving them “mentally exhausted and very stressed”.
He added that “the pressure the whole process has put on providers is unacceptable”.
“Throughout this process, there has been no thought given to providers - the workload has been immense (especially with Ofsted [inspection] thrown into the mix).”
“We still feel ‘shell shocked’ and now we are dealing with a crisis in terms of the numbers applying for teacher training - it is a perfect storm.”
One provider, Compton SCITT, was graded “requires improvement” in September last year, having received an “outstanding” grade at its last inspection in 2016.
However, its most recent judgement was for both primary and secondary teacher training combined, while its inspection grade from six years ago was only for secondary.
The University of Cumbria also received a “requires improvement” grade at the beginning of this month, having received “good” judgement when it was last inspected a decade ago. In response to their downgrading this round, a University of Cumbria spokesperson said the inspection was “under a new framework” which has a “significantly different methodology”.
The provider told Tes it is already implementing improvement plans “based on the feedback we received and we are working closely with our partnership schools and mentors to address the small number of recommendations in the report”.
They added that while the grade they received is “disappointing”, there were “many positives” that Ofsted found.
James Noble-Rogers, executive director of the Universities’ Council for the Education of Teachers, said the latest judgements “reflects the way that the new framework is being interpreted by Ofsted and the way in which inspections are being carried out”, rather than any changes in the “actual quality of ITE being delivered by providers”.
And Professor Sam Twiselton, director of Sheffield Institute of Education at Sheffield Hallam University said the initial inspections published in July 2021 “were not a representative cross-section of providers” as they included more new providers who had never been inspected before than usual and providers who hadn’t been inspected for a very long time.
She believes the most recently published reports “are a more typical sample so you’d expect better outcomes and that’s what we see here”.
Professor Twiselton also told Tes that the more recent inspections allowed providers more time to “get used to the demands of a very, very different framework” that moved “away from outcomes” and had “more focus on curriculum”.
She also pointed out that the earlier inspections took place in the early days of the pandemic when providers “had had very little time to fully implement the CCF”.
However, commenting on the latest inspections, Professor Twiselton added that “those inspected in this round had the added burden and stress of accreditation - it must have been a very tough time”.
In December of last year, Tes revealed that the deadline for the first round of accreditations would be extended for those providers inspected by Ofsted in the new year.
Following the first wave of ITT inspections reports under the new Ofsted framework last July, one provider was downgraded from “outstanding” to “inadequate”, and three were downgraded to “requires improvement”.
Prior to this, all initial teacher training providers in the country had been judged to be “good” or “outstanding” by the watchdog at their most recent inspection.
However, in the first batch of inspections, almost half of 11 new reports had identified some failings in the initial teacher training being provided.
Ofsted was accused later that month of taking a “much more adversarial approach” to teacher training inspections and “pushing a particular agenda”.
In July, Mr Noble-Rogers said: “It is as if Ofsted’s previous inspection frameworks, and the judgements of their own inspectors over many years, have suddenly found to be flawed.”
